All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The World Economic Forum (WEF) isn’t the only entity planning for a world where you “own nothing, have no privacy” and enjoy it — or else. WEF’s partner Arup Group released a 2019 report pontificating, “private car ownership needs to end.”

This was allegedly going to solve the fake “crisis” of climate change, which has supposedly been about to cause global apocalypse for 50 years now. But give up your car, you stupid peasant, and trust the experts.

Arup Group, which is listed as a partner by the insidious World Economic Forum, released a 2019 report demanding that consumption of clothing, cars, electronics, and food has to change — for everyone except the elites, presumably — or climate change will kill us all. The report touts “net zero” carbon goals, totally ignoring the fact that carbon is absolutely essential for life on Earth. Indeed, increased carbon actually helps plants — including food crops — thrive, and humans and animals need it too. But neither Arup nor WEF is interested in objective science, only in a narrative that impoverishes most citizens and gives the elites exponentially more control.

Data shows that the world has not in fact experienced global warming for the last eight years. Even more relevant to this Arup Group report, a recent study found that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are too low to cause global warming. So private cars aren’t about to trigger climate catastrophe.

But Arup and its co-creators and funders of the report — University of Leeds, C40 Cities, and Citi Foundation — don’t care what the science is. (The data undermining global warming has been accumulating for eight years, meaning it was measurable well before the 2019 report came out.) They want to make most people totally dependent on the elites for travel. After all, WEF has proposed a digital ID/social credit score that would be required to do or buy almost anything, and laid out its plan for a world with no private ownership whatsoever. Again, all commodities would be dependent on government approval.

A key quote from the Arup 2019 report (emphasis added):

On construction, cities need to change what types of buildings and infrastructure are built as well as what materials are used. On transport, private car ownership needs to end and the shared vehicles that replace it have to use less materials and be longer lasting. Urban residents will also need to adopt a largely plant-based diet, mostly replace flying with less energy-intensive forms of long-distance transport, change how clothes and textiles are consumedand keep electronics and household appliances for longer.

No beef or nice clothes for you. You will have nothing and you will be grateful to your beneficent rulers, who totally plan to give up all their comforts too, right? Sort of like how they fly their private jets to exclusive locations to blather about emissions? Two other quotes from the report:

C40 cities need to meet their Deadline 2020 commitments so that production-based emissions peak by the early 2020s, before collectively halving by 2030, in order to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2050…this report recommends that C40 cities focus on reducing emissions within six consumption categories: buildings and infrastructure; food; private transport; clothing and textiles; aviation; and electronics and household appliances.

Eat bugs, live in tiny apartments, sacrifice your iPad, and give up all hope of moving up in life. Because otherwise, the global warming that isn’t happening will destroy us all. Just trust the globalists — what motivations would they have other than our best interests? And remember, Big Brother is always watching.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Catherine Salgado is a contributor for PJ Media. She also writes for The Rogue Review, Media Research Center, and her Substack Pro Deo et Libertate. She received the Andrew Breitbart MVP award for August 2021 from The Rogue Review for her journalism.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

America’s proxy war with Russia over Ukraine is becoming increasingly unpopular on the home front, and more and more damaging to reputation of the D.C. Uniparty, and now it appears that the Biden Administration is seeking an exit from the conflict in the coming months ahead.

The talking points have seemingly gone out to the president to advance the idea that Moscow has already lost, to lay the groundwork that America has achieved its objectives (whatever they are) in Ukraine.

Earlier this month, the cognitively challenged American president declared that Putin “is clearly losing the war in Iraq,” meaning to say Ukraine. He then followed up Thursday by asserting that Putin “has already lost the war.”

This isn’t the infamous “Mission Accomplished” rhetoric we saw from Bush 43 at the beginning of the Iraq war, but it has the same political driver behind it.

President Bush had the country propagandized firmly in support of the war effort, and did not need to worry about waning commitment from Congress and the like. Nonetheless, he still wanted to maintain the appearance that all was going just swimmingly in Iraq.

The Biden Administration does not have the long leash to continue the war in perpetuity, but still needs to present the facade of a “mission accomplished” moment, in order to secure a political victory, or at least mitigate the damage done by the continuing Slava Slush Fund boondoggle.

The Biden Administration faces several challenges that hamper its ability to prosecute this proxy war to the extent that the Uniparty sees fit.

1. the Pentagon is witnessing an unprecedented recruiting crisis (the worst since the end of the draft era), forcing the Biden Administration to call up thousands of reserve and inactive soldiers to support logistics for the proxy war in Europe.

2. The ammunition problem. Ukraine is firing around 7,000 rounds of 155mm artillery shells each day, and the use rate is far beyond the capacity of U.S. production. Ukrainian forces are burning about a month’s worth of production generated by the entire pro-Ukraine alliance in about three or four days time. There is simply no way to close this gap in short order. America can’t just flip a switch and turn on its industrial base. We’ve discussed this issue further here.
3. Ukraine’s much hyped counteroffensive has become a complete failure, and is raising alarm bells with NATO countries, which won’t commit to sending any troops of their own into the proxy war. They know that Russian forces can push the Ukrainian lines even further back, while Ukraine’s forces are not capable of achieving any semblance of territorial reclaim on their own. And the NATO summit this week showed that allied nations have ZERO interest in having troops on the ground in Ukraine.
4. The political capital problem. As mentioned above, the Biden Administration does not have a long leash with Congress. As much as the defense industry wants this war to continue forever, pushing the envelope will become increasingly risky from a political perspective.

There are already reports indicating that secret negotiations have begun between the D.C. and Moscow. Don’t be surprised to see this war end sooner than we may all project.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Professor Claudia von Werlhof wrote to Greta Thunberg.

In her letter Von Werlhof says that the disruption of the global climate is not due to CO2. 

Following the publication of her letter, Silvia Terribili, of Onda Italia interviewed Professor von Werlhof  on her radio show: Onda Italiana on salto.nl, April 9th.

The following text is the transcript of the radio interview

The link below will redirect you to the radio interview.

Climate Disruption Is Not Due to CO2  (audio)

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof and Silvia Terribili, April 30, 2019

***

Below is the transcript of the interview.

Claudia Von Werlhof: The question is how we define climate change and its alleged reason, of which it is said  is CO2.  We consider climate change, at least in the official discussion, as “global warming” and this global warming doesn’t exist. 

There are data from NASA, which is the North American Space Agency, and they show that in the last 18 years there was no general global warming.  What exists indeed – because we are not deniers of the problem – are  changes in different dimensions in the weather, in the climate and more so in the atmosphere, etc.  We are going to explain this more in this interview. 

The second is the CO2-question which is now very prominent as all these young people are now on the street, because they believe in this story and this dogma of the CO2.

And this is very strange because a lot of scientists, real scientists, are denying the influence of CO2 as a reason for climate change or as an influence at all.

For example, there are about 30,000 scientists in the US now who say that there is no problem with CO2.  On the contrary, CO2 this is a gas that stems from rotten natural materials which is needed by the plants to transform it into oxygen.  They say that CO2 is not at all detrimental for the climate, and that it even is something we are to welcome and that we need for our trees and plants and as a positive effect.

So, the funny thing is that CO2 is often shown as some dirt, as if it was a dirt in the air. Then you look at the factories that are shown in this opportunity, you see the dust coming out of them, etc. This is not CO2.

CO2 is a gas that is invisible and doesn’t smell so you don’t see it.

In general, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.038 % only.  Most of that is vapour, water vapour, some 80 or 70%.  So, this tiny amount of CO2 cannot change something huge like the climate of this planet. This is impossible.

Screenshot Global CCS Institute

So, all these scientists who are serious scientists, are denying a negative influence of CO2 on the climate.  There are even winners of the Nobel Prize etc., like Ivar Giaever, who are explaining it or people from the MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, like Richard Lindzen and others. The IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, founded at the end of the ’80s of the last century, however, is not so much a scientific but a political organization, and it is propagating and proposing the CO2 myth in public.

So, this is a political question and from the point of view of a real scientist, CO2 is not really something detrimental and is not changing any climate. It’s too tiny for that.

If you look at the origins of this debate at the end of the ‘80s, you see that before this time all the world spoke about a possible ice age, a new ice age. Lowell Ponte, f.i., wrote a book on “The Cooling”.  It was in 1976.

They spoke about a cooling and a new ice age in contrast to the global warming-speech of today.  There is no historical debate any more about how this myth about CO2 came about.

The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.

Humanity is guilty of producing so much CO2 by civil industry and consumption. This ideology can be used for another, a new policy.  So, this was the origin of the CO2 myth and this has been their propaganda worldwide.  Then came Al Gore and everybody believes in him.  This is contrasting with the fact that a real climate change is not occurring in the sense they are defining it.  This history is generally not known. And people don’t really know anything about Nature and the Planet.  There is a certain ignorance generally, and the public just believes in everything.

There are a lot of changes in the world, in the climate, in many aspects, like those Dr. Rosalie Bertell found out, we are speaking about her later, who said we are wrecking our planet. But how?  It’s not by global warming, but by something totally different.  This is not mentioned by these people who speak about climate change.  They don’t see that there are changes but there are different ones with very different origins.

Silvia Terribili:  Yes, it seems also that computer models predicting catastrophic global warming in the coming years are parameterized and there is a risk of framing the outcome of these methods and models.  Can you say something about these models?

CvW:  These models the IPCC is using are computer models.  Their results are just an outcome of computer simulation.  It has nothing to do with reality and what they are measuring is what they want to measure.  They just measure something like more CO2-output, but they do not consider the complexity of the climate on this planet.

They have no parameters about them and so they are really trying to fool us with what they are saying about such a big amount of climate change and global warming.  This is not happening, and it will not happen because of CO2.

So, these are strange methods, and not scientific ones.

One should say they are political methods which want to prove something which is not the case.  So, there is no reason why there should be such an amount of global warming of above 4 degrees, which is impossible.  At least it is impossible with simply putting CO2 as a measure of this tiny amount of CO2 in the air.  You would never have any effect and it is very funny that everybody is believing this nonsense.  It’s a theory but it has nothing to do with reality and we should look at why this theory exists.  So, this is the more important question.

ST:  Some 30 years ago we already warned that the protective ozone layer has been reduced. Nowadays we don’t seem to care anymore for ozone depletion in the stratosphere. How could this be explained because we have to be concerned about the depletion of the ozone layer and where does it come from?

CvW:  The ozone-question, yes.  This is a very funny thing again and it is not funny at all in the end, because the ozone layer is really something that we need.

Without the ozone layer there would be no life on earth, because it protects us from cosmic radiation from the sun, especially UV-B and -C radiation, which is very toxic.

And it has been found out that this radiation today is coming down to earth which normally is prevented by the ozone layer.

But now it comes through, and this is a long story because there was the Montreal Protocol in the ‘80s which prohibited the use of CFCs, all these chemicals you have in the refrigerators, etc., because they thought it was the reason for the ozone hole.

But this was wrong already then because we know that what is really damaging ozone is especially radioactivity. Of radioactivity there is a lot in the air since the military was experimenting with nuclear explosions since the ‘40s and ‘50s until the end of the ‘90s, and we had about 2,200 nuclear explosions on earth and in the atmosphere and they have produced a lot of radioactive radiation that is destroying the ozone layer.

This is the main reason for the weakness of this layer because radioactivity is somehow eating up the ozone so that it is suffocating in a way, because ozone is a sort of atmospheric oxygen and radioactivity is finishing with the oxygen.

The problem is something like suffocation and a toxic effect of radiation coming down to earth when this layer is destroyed or inhibited.

Last year, the people who were measuring the ozone layer found that it was weaker than ever, it did not recover as was proposed after the Montreal Protocol. And they found out that, on the contrary, it is not only existing in the form of holes over the Antarctic and the Arctic – the latter one existing only since Fukushima, as there was never a hole over the Arctic before.

And now we have ozone depletion even over the whole northern part of the earth.

So, the toxic radiation is not only occurring at the poles but generally it comes down and it is destroying a lot of plants and low animal life, like insects. With the insects dying, the birds and the whole food chain is affected by the weakness of the ozone layer, and in the oceans the plankton is dying and the krill that the big fish are eating.

You have now many fish who are dying from hunger and you have dying coral reefs like, for example, the Great Barrier Reef east of New Zealand, the biggest one in the world, which is now dying, and it is nearly not reproducing itself anymore.  People say it is because the oceans are warming up, but this cannot be the real reason. The main problem is that the toxic radiation from the sun comes down into the water as well and it is killing life in the oceans.

And then you have all this radioactivity from Fukushima which has been led into the Pacific so that life in the Pacific is dying out, and soon you will have no fish anymore.  This is somehow very tragic because Rosalie Bertell wrote her book “Planet Earth, the Latest Weapon of War” already in 2000.  She has studied all these problems, and where they come from, and she always warned about the ozone layer, because it had been thinned out already by 10% at the end of the ‘90s and now it is becoming thinner and thinner.

And she said that with a 20% thinning of the ozone layer there will be no agriculture anymore, because the plants will be destroyed by the toxicity of UV radiation. You can see it even on your balcony when you have your plants out there. It can already be seen that the leaves are getting brown and your plants are not growing much in the sun.  So, this is maybe the biggest problem we are facing and the result of many, many effects which are destroying the ozone layer not only with the radioactivity, but also other instruments and technologies worse than any CO2 or global warming.

ST:  What can we say about geoengineering and especially Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is one of the technologies that the IPCC is in a way not suggesting but they say it can be a solution for the global warming.  What do you think?

CvW:  Well, because of this world-theory of global warming and CO2, we now have civil geoengineers appearing, something that didn’t exist in previous times. Now they have their research institutes everywhere, and plan to have a solution to this problem which is supposed to be “solar radiation management” SRM or SAI with which they are planning to inject aerosols into the air to block the sun from shining and from heating up the earth.

So, instead of removing CO2, because it seems impossible politically, they promote this other solution to fight against the effects of so-called global warming and this would mean blocking the sun from shining too much on earth.

So, the plan is to inject aerosols into the atmosphere and especially David Keith from Harvard University has a project called SCOPEX for this very process.  In this project he wants to inject even sulphuric acid into the atmosphere imitating something like a volcanic eruption and they call it the Pinatubo effect because the Pinatubo is a volcano that exploded in 1991 and the ashes and what came out had the effect of cooling down the temperatures.

And now they are trying to imitate this effect by adding sulphuric acid into the air.  Recently David Keith, this professor from Harvard University even said that tens of thousands of people would die from that at least, because it would mean to have acids down on earth which are eventually destroying all life.

I mean these are crazy experiments they are preparing, and they go for civil geoengineers and the funniest thing about this movement of civil geoengineers is that they do not speak of the military background of all these technologies they are now propagating.

And all these movements about climate change, etc., don’t know anything about it as well.  It is simply denied that these are military experiments which we know already, because since 30 years there are regular aerosol-sprayings of the atmosphere, so all this is occurring already.  I mean something like SRM is nothing new.  We have it already in the form of the spraying of barium and aluminium and other substances that are very bad for all life and agriculture.

Monsanto for example invented a seed that is resistant to aluminium, imagine.  So, things like that are occurring and the people are against it, but they don’t see that these experiments are a reality already, being a part of geoengineering, military geoengineering, that exists now for  about 70 or more years.  This has been a project of the second world war in which the military invented the nuclear as a weapon of war and after the nuclear they invented other weapons like those of weather control.

As Rosalie Bertell said, they invented weather wars, they invented geoengineering and they invented plasma weapons which are electromagnetic weapons used by and emitted by ionospheric heaters.  This is a very special technology mostly not known which is based on the inventions of Nicola Tesla who was a physicist inventor in the 19th and 20th century.

So, this is a special technology which is not very well known, like HAARP in Alaska (now closed down) which is one of these ionospheric heaters that are working with electromagnetic waves. These waves are artificially produced and reach something like a billion watts, and they are shot high up into the ionosphere to produce certain effects leading them back to the earth.

This is a very, very dangerous technology which can also be used for producing all kinds of so-called natural catastrophes like, for example, tsunamis or earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or the change of the weather in whole regions, or producing hurricanes, droughts, fires and floods, and even changing the ocean currents.

These are technologies that are not discussed in public but exist already since the Vietnam War. They have been invented during this time and the UN Convention on Environmental Modification, the famous ENMOD convention from 1977, explains these weapons, it explains the effects they may have when they are used.  So, it is not even a secret and it is decades ago that they have been invented and are in experimentation, and it is like a war that is fought against the earth and the planet as a cosmic macro-being on which we depend.  This is very, very dangerous and it is exactly Rosalie Bertell who has explained to us how these technologies are functioning, namely as the post-nuclear weapons of electromagnetic mass destruction.  We have these ionospheric heaters now everywhere.

ST:  What is the ionospheric heater?  What is, why do they use it?  What is the idea? We don’t understand because there is global warming, they said that there is a global warming. So, you are heating the ionosphere, but that ’s crazy.

CvW:   They are heating up the ionosphere, the sphere in the atmosphere that starts at about 80 kilometres up to about 800-1000 kilometres.  It is an electrified part of the atmosphere and when they send the electromagnetic waves up there they are heating it up because when they heat the ionosphere, this part of the atmosphere, they can manage these electromagnetic rays to come down on earth again, by making a curve. They can work with an angle and, like Rosalie said, it is like a gun from the ionosphere which is directed against the earth and when this ray comes down again to the earth it is terribly destructive.  These rays can even pass through the core of the earth.

ST:  But it is also warming, so it is completely crazy because we have too much warming and we are sending some…

CvW:  Because the warming is up there.  It’s not down here.  If there is any warming, it is up there. The NASA didn’t find a real warming of the earth in general, but you have different parts of the world that are warming up or have been warmed up like the poles, the polar regions and the mountains where the melting glaciers are, but it has nothing to do with a general global warming through CO2. Some of them are surely effects of the military use of ionospheric heaters.  For example, in 1974 there was a treaty between the US and the Soviet Union, the secret Vladivostok Agreement in which they planned together to heat up the Arctic because they wanted the ice to go away to get to the oil on the ground of the northern sea and they couldn’t get there because of the ice.  Today,  half of the Arctic ice has melted down already, because they used electromagnetic waves for that.  ELF waves, that are extremely low frequency waves and they have thawed the Arctic with that.  It has nothing to do with global warming but with this military technology.

ST:  Going back to geoengineering, the solar radiation management, do we have evidence that the program is on?  I mean we see all kinds of trails in the sky and the sky is completely sometimes covered by these trails.  They are persistent, staying the whole time.  What do you think about that phenomenon?

CvW:  It is an older military technology which has recently been implemented since about 30 years. This started in the ‘90s and, for example, you have effects in regions like Shasta in California. They have been heavily sprayed with aerosols.  It’s like Agent Orange that was sprayed on Vietnam, a toxic product from Monsanto and it’s like that.  It’s toxic and for example in this community of Shasta in Northern California the land is not producing anymore, everybody is sick, and the animals and plants are dying.

They had such a load of toxic materials, aerosols coming down from the sky that they got these problems, and after having analysed them they made a big event some years ago to protest publicly against the sprayings.  Nevertheless, the alternative and social movements do not accept – even ETC Group, which is very important in that respect – that this has been done which is a reality for the people affected, and they are denying that SRM is used already and discussing only the bad effects which this method would have on us. So, they are against it, but they are denying that these methods are in use already everywhere.  Of course, you see it in the sky, and I have done some research about why they are doing it, as the military is not interested in any global warming myth. They are even denying global warming because they know better.

ST:  So, they are doing that?

CvW:  Yes, they are doing that, so they know better, like Trump, who knows it from the military. But I found out that they are not interested in the global warming question or so.  They are doing it because of the ozone depletion, f.i.  If there is an ozone hole or weakness, they cannot pass their electromagnetic waves.  They need what I call a replacement atmosphere.

They need to spray aerosols as a conductor, they need an atmosphere that is conductive, and at the holes it is not.  This is the reason why they are using so many metals in the spraying, heavy metals like barium and strontium and aluminium, which is not a heavy metal, but they are all conductive for electromagnetic waves.  Recently I came about a research of a woman called Schmitt who lives in Venezuela.  She made an analysis of these sprayings of being protective against the cosmos, something like a Faraday cage, producing a sort of grid around the earth to protect it from radiation coming in and this also has to do with the ozone depletion. The ozone layer is really the central question that has to be an alarm for us, because this is now the moment of truth.  When we are not able to prevent these things happening, this destruction happening, we will die out within 20 or 30 years.

ST: But the official story, nobody is telling, talking about the ozone depletion.

CvW:  No. There was an alarm last year and there was a colleague in the US, Marvin Herndon, who was doing research about that question, together with his colleagues and he published it. He proved that ozone depletion leads to the arrival of toxic radiation down on earth. And he found out that NASA, the North American Space Agency, had come to the same result already in 2007.  And they didn’t do anything.  They knew it already then, but they didn’t do anything because the military thinks it can do everything it wants.  If they need it, they would invent a new ozone layer. This is what they think.  They think they have …

ST:  A technical solution?

CvW:  Yes, and they think that they can do whatever they want to do and prevent things from happening. But after all these nuclear explosions in the atmosphere and in the ionosphere and in the Van Allen belts which destroyed parts of the magnetic field of the earth, they could never replace or cure the magnetic field nor the atmosphere. They couldn’t do anything about it. They destroyed it and it is destroyed. This is one of the reasons of weather changes as well.  So, there are a lot of very complex reasons of why things are happening.  For example, you can even use electromagnetic waves from the ionospheric heaters in order to move the jet stream which consists of fast winds surrounding the earth, building a frontier between hot and cold.  So, if you are moving them north you have the heat from the south in the north and when you are moving them down south, you have the cold from the Arctic in the middle of Europe …

ST:  They influence strongly the climate and the weather

CvW:  With these technologies you can do nearly everything, and you can change the vapour streams that are the humid streams around the earth.  You can transport humidity to Arabia for example. This is one of the biggest businesses today, because the people there need water and you can just transport the water from here to there.  So, even snow is coming down in the South Arabian desert. This is all manipulation, weather manipulation, climate manipulation.  Nobody speaks about it, but it is occurring constantly. And another effect of the atmosphere being full of metal is that it is drying out, so we have much less rain in Europe for example which has nothing to do with a warming or CO2.

ST:  In Italy there is drought.

CVW:  Italy is drying out, and then you have fires which are also induced, not only because it is dry, but you have direct energy weapons and laser weapons. So, you can produce these fires what was happening in Portugal and Australia and in California. They have nothing to do with wildfires and they are not destroying the plants, but they are destroying the buildings. It is like a war that has passed through.  All these things are discussed as being a result of global warming and CO2.  It has nothing to do with that.  This whole CO2 question and global warming is used to distract people from what is really happening, so that they don’t see what has been done to the planet and to the atmosphere and to the weather, etc., so they wouldn’t look at it because they think it is all global warming.

ST:  Unfortunately, we have almost to close the program, but I would like to ask you something again.  On May 23 – 26, we will have European elections coming. What can we do as concerned Europeans to put climate engineering and all related risks on the electoral agenda because we expect European institutions to protect the 300 million citizens from the risks of these extremely dangerous technologies. What can we do?

CvW:  What we did, inform the people. We are just now publishing a book.  It is called “Global Warning!”, not warming, but warning.  It is going to appear soon.  Ten women are explaining their research of what we are talking about now and this will be published by Talma Studies International in Dublin.  So, I can recommend it.  The problem is that people don’t know anything of what is happening around them, and they don’t get informed even if this is possible. The book of Rosalie Bertell exists in the 4th edition in German, it exists in Italian, French and Spanish. Everybody can read it and many people have ordered the 4th edition now, it has been printed 15,000 times. Somebody should have read it, but people don’t speak about it. The parties that are running for election have nothing to do with all this.  The Greens should be the most interested in this question, but they are not.

We have to look behind the climate change-agenda. There must be somebody who wants people to be distracted, to be organized around other issues.

You have the whole Smart City and 5G movement, the technification of the society and a sort of policies of controlled reduction of production and consumption.  It is like the depopulation agenda of certain people which seems to be related to that.

I think that there are other political plans, the New World Order and interests behind it.

CO2 is only the scapegoat to prevent people from looking at them.

The Greens for example are totally involved into these plans for a so called “green” economy, but this is not the case.  It is not a green economy.  It is a weaponized economy which we see is approaching us.

I don’t see the Left, it has no interest in the whole question because it is concerned about progress and development, to say it like that.  You need a critique of these technologies.  I call it military alchemy what we have now.  But the Left is not interested in that and the other parties in any case not at all as well.  So, I don’t know who is going to be interested from the point of view of the parties.  People are not informed and they don’t get informed and people who speak about it are called conspiracy theorists, etc. How to get to that to change, the change from believing in these ideologies from above in order to see what is happening in reality? How can people like this Greta and the young people get informed about the reality? They should know what is really going on and not what is supposed to go on.  This is the problem. It is why I wrote the letter to Greta Thunberg, to get her informed and as I know she even recognized ultimately that there is a military problem but not the one we are discussing, that of military geoengineering.

ST:  Did she answer you?

CvW:  No, of course not.  Because there is a big movement behind her, the CO2 movement is behind her, of course. There have been plans: 7 years ago, it has already been discussed how to mobilize the youth.  This is not just a venture of the people but an organized campaign of the other side.

ST:  Claudia we have to stop unfortunately, but we will present your book when it is going to come out and maybe we can present the book of Rosalie Bertell one more time because our task is to inform people.  We do what we can to inform people.

CvW:  Maybe you can translate it for Italy and the Netherlands.

ST:  Yes, unfortunately, I have to stop but I thank you very much for being with us this evening and I hope to speak to you again.

CvW:  Thank you. Bye bye.

*

Transcription by Linda Leblanc, with formal corrections of the Interview from April 9, 2019

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sources

Rosalie Bertell: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 4th ed., Gelnhausen 2019, J.K. Fischer

——: Pianeta Terra. L´ultima arma di Guerra, Trieste 2018, Asterios

____: Planeta tierrra: La nueva guerra, Guadalajara 2018, La casa del mago

____: La Planète Terre, ultime arme de guerre, Tome 1, Paris 2018, Talma Studios

Michel Chossudovsky:  https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-the-us-military-own-the-weather-weaponizing-the-weather-as-an-instrument-of-modern-warfare/5608728

Claudia von Werlhof (Ed.): Global Warning! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet, Dublin 2019, Talma Studios International (forthcoming)

www.pbme-online.org, Info-Letters

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on November 6 2022

***

The mafia in Washington, London, Brussels and Tel Aviv would do anything to keep their “Unipolar World Order” project in place, in fact, they are getting desperate to hold on to whatever remaining powers they have left even if it means collaborating with its worst enemies. There is a well-known ancient proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” that rings true today especially since Washington, the CIA, the Military-Industrial Complex, along with Mossad and NATO have supported well-known terrorists including the Islamic State (ISIS), Al Qaeda, and other groups to overthrow governments they don’t approve of especially in the Middle East.

However, their support of terrorists who were their enemies at one time or another did not start with their regime change wars against Syria or Libya, the idea of supporting its enemies began during and after World War II when the US government recruited Ukrainian Nazis to counter their new enemy, the Soviet Union. What a strange turn of events knowing that the Soviets who fought the Nazis with their American and European allies during the war were seen as a new threat. Washington and the rest of their mafia cohorts used the Nazis back then as they are now using jihadi terrorists today in their war for world domination no matter what the costs are in the long-term.

So who were the Nazis and why was Washington interested in recruiting them in the first place? For starters, the Nazis had members involved in several scientific and technological disciplines that the US government was interested in and would later utilize them to produce all sorts of weapons of war and psychological operations for its future military operations, but we will get into further details shortly.

However, the Nazis did follow a far-right fascist ideology that was authoritarian that coincided with ultranationalist principals that rejected anarchy, communism, democracy, republicanism, socialism and other forms of government that was seen as a threat to their rising power. And as insane as this sounds, the Nazis also used scientific racism, or what we can call eugenics to manipulate human gene pools by separating certain groups of people between those who are considered inferior to advancing those who were deemed superior.  Then there is the element of antisemitism that was prevalent within the Third Reich. Nazism has led to genocide, torture, forced sterilizations, imprisonment of its opposition, deportations and other atrocities among those who did not fit the profile of being an ultra-nationalist especially if you did not have the racial qualities that they demanded for their movement.

If we look back into the history of fascism, its roots were based in Europe when Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte ‘aka’ Napoleon III ruled France with an iron fist from 1848 to 1852 had the elements of a fascist/Nazi state.

America’s Extermination of Red Savages was Adolf Hitler’s Inspiration 

Adolf Hitler, Germany’s appointed chancellor took the lead in imposing fascist policies in his country when he came to power on January 30th, 1933. Hitler’s allies also known as the Axis Alliance, Benito Mussolini of Italy and Hirohito of Imperial Japan had similar policies.

So, what inspired this sort of ideology?  Where did the Nazis get their inspiration from?

It’s a known fact that Adolf Hitler admired America’s ways of dealing with certain groups in their short history from the Jim Crow laws against African Americans to the indigenous populations who were sent to prison camps during the American Indian wars.

John Toland’s ‘Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography’ states that

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history,” and that “He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination—by starvation and uneven combat—of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.” 

So, when did the idea of a ‘concentration camp’ came into effect? It was under US President and Democrat, Andrew Jackson who introduced “emigration depots” as part of his Indian Removal Act of 1830 where tens of thousands of Indigenous peoples were forced into what was called ‘prison camps’ and they included the Seminoles, Cherokee, Choctaw, Muscogee, and other tribal nations mainly in the Southern part of the United States and that included Alabama and Tennessee.

One other element of how the US model of governance that influenced Nazi Germany was the Jim Crow Laws.  James Q. Whitman, a legal scholar and author of ‘Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law’ wrote an introduction on how the Nazis viewed American race laws:

In the opening minutes, Justice Minister Gurtner presented a memo on American race law, which had been carefully prepared by officials of the ministry for purposes of the gathering; and the participants returned repeatedly to the American models of racist legislation in the course of their discussions.  It is particularly startling to discover that the most radical Nazis present were the most ardent champions of the lessons that American approaches held for Germany.  Not, as we shall see, in this transcript the only record of Nazi engagement with American race law.  In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s many Nazis, not least Hitler himself, took a serious in the racist legislation of the United States.  Indeed in Mein Kampf Hitler praised America as nothing less than “the one state” that had made progress toward the creation of a healthy racist order of the kind the Nuremberg Laws were intended to establish.

My purpose is to chronicle this neglected history of Nazi efforts to mine American race law for inspiration during the making of the Nuremberg Laws, and to ask what it tells us about Nazi Germany, about the modern history of racism, and especially about America

US-inspired race laws were imposed on German society with the establishment of the Nuremberg laws that was passed on September 15^th, 1935.  The Nazis saw US race laws as a suitable policy that they can implement on various groups such as the Jews who eventually became non-citizens.  Native Americans, Filipinos, African Americans, and others were also considered non-citizens even if they lived in the US or its colonized territories.  But there was one aspect of US race laws that interested the Nazis and that was the anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited interracial marriages in about 30 US states where those who broke the law in the US received a severe criminal punishment.

Operation Paperclip: Why the US Government Recruited Nazis After WWII

The rumor of a nuclear war is more prevalent today more than ever before since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has taken place.  Ukraine’s actor, oh, excuse me, I meant President, Volodymyr Zelensky has called for “preventive strikes” to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons although he backtracked the claims shortly after, but he did call for for the West to hit Russia with nuclear weapons for preventative measures which was extremely dangerous rhetoric coming out of his mouth.  Speaking of nuclear weapons, do you know who originally proposed the idea of placing nuclear bombs on ballistic missiles in the first place?  It was an idea that was derived from Nazi rocket scientists who was hired by the US government during World War II.  The original program was called Uranprojekt or the “Uranium Project” for the purpose of developing nuclear technology to build weapons and reactors.

In the last years of World War II, US intelligence agencies and the Military-Industrial Complex secretly transferred more than 1,600 Nazi scientists and their families from Germany who were experts in various fields that included rocket science, aerodynamics, chemical weapons, and medicine in what was called Operation Paperclip.  There were Nazis working for the US military who also prepared intelligence briefs creating fear and panic that the Soviets were going to take over the world which was over-exaggerated.  But what the US government feared most was that the Soviet Union under Operation Osoaviakhim with more than 2,500 former Nazi scientists and engineers who were recruited in the Soviet occupation zone of Germany (SBZ) and the Soviet sector of Berlin would be one step ahead of the US government in weapons development and other areas.

One important historical fact about America’s Nazi scientists was the recruitment of Wernher von Braun or known by his full name as Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun who was a member of the Nazi Party and the Allgemeine SS or the “General SS” which was a major branch of Nazi Germany’s paramilitary forces.  Wernher von Braun was also the head of developing rocket technology who is considered the pioneer of rocket and space technology in the US.  He was also the chief architect of the Saturn V super heavy-lift launch vehicle that allegedly helped launch the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.  

Nazi scientists also helped the US government and the CIA develop chemical and biological weapons programs that included the use of sarin gas and other dangerous weapons of war including VX (nerve agent) and of course, the most used biological weapon during the Vietnam war, Agent Orange.  So, in other words, the US government hired Nazi scientists for their knowledge of creating weapons of mass destruction that has inflicted damage on various populations around the world since then.  During the Vietnam war, the US military unleashed Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population causing more than 3 million people to develop birth defects and other health related problems to this day.  The Nazi scientists were indeed evil geniuses when it came to developing advanced weapons of war and that was something that the US military and the intelligence community were solely interested in and that was and still is a scary thought.

America’s Frankenstein: The Neo-Nazis of Ukraine

As we know from the valuable lessons of history that the US government and the CIA had supported and trained Ukrainian Nazis since 1946.  The CIA had organized “Stay Behind” operations with the OUN-B (neo-Nazi Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) in Eastern Europe and other areas to assist Ukrainian nationalists who were sent to destabilize Soviet Ukraine with covert operations such as using commandos to assassinate Soviet officials, to sabotage infrastructure and to commit acts of terrorism.

The history of the US government and its CIA operatives shows that it supported Ukrainian war criminal Stephan Bandera to advance the Ukrainian underground movement to destabilize Soviet Ukraine, so the CIA and their Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) and the Office of Special Operations (OSO) planned covert operations with the OUN-B and provided support to the anti-Soviet Ukraine Insurgent Army (UPA) for psychological warfare within the Soviet sphere of influence.   

The CIA declassified their historical account of their association with Ukrainian Nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis during the Cold War in ‘Cold War Allies: The Origins of CIA’s Relationship with Ukrainian Nationalists’  by Kevin C Ruffner detailed how the “CIA reestablished and expanded its contacts with the Ukrainians and others for covert action against the Communists and as wartime assets to be used behind Red Army lines as guerrillas, saboteurs, and resistance leaders.”  The historical account went further and stated that “The sometimes brutal war record of many emigre groups became blurred as they became more critical to the CIA.”

Fast forward to November 2013 were there were large-scale protests which was known as the Euromaidan against the policies of President Victor Yanukovych who made the decision to have closer ties with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union instead of proceeding with the idea of having a political and economic relationship with the European Union by rejecting their free-trade agreement.  Then in February 2014, what is known as the Maidan Revolution took place that ended up in violent clashes between the protesters and the government’s security forces in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv which led to a coup against the democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych.  Soon after, the Russo-Ukrainian war began and the birth of the Neo-Nazi inspired Azov Battalion was established as they became the resistance against anything Russian.

On January 22^nd of this year, Yahoo News who is part of the mainstream media published an article titled ‘CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades’ basically admitted that the CIA was secretly training Ukrainian forces since 2015:

While the covert program, run by paramilitaries working for the CIA’s Ground Branch — now officially known as Ground Department — was established by the Obama administration after Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, and expanded under the Trump administration, the Biden administration has further augmented it, said a former senior intelligence official in touch with colleagues in government

According to Yahoo News, an unnamed former senior intelligence official said that “If the Russians invade, those [graduates of the CIA programs] are going to be your militia, your insurgent leaders,” and that “we’ve been training these guys now for eight years. They’re really good fighters. That’s where the agency’s program could have a serious impact.”  One must wonder how many were actually radicalized neo-Nazis.

In 2018, Reuters published a commentary by Josh Cohen ‘Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem’ that explains Ukraine’s problem with the Nazis filling the ranks of its National Militia.  Cohen said that in “a January 28 demonstration, in Kiev, by 600 members of the so-called “National Militia,” a newly-formed ultranationalist group that vows “to use force to establish order,” illustrates this threat.”  Cohen added that the National Militia has recruited members from the Nazi-affiliated Azov Battalion:

Many of the National Militia’s members come from the Azov movement, one of the 30-odd privately-funded “volunteer battalions” that, in the early days of the war, helped the regular army to defend Ukrainian territory against Russia’s separatist proxies. Although Azov uses Nazi-era symbolism and recruits neo-Nazis into its ranks, a recent article in Foreign Affairs downplayed any risks the group might pose, pointing out that, like other volunteer militias, Azov has been “reined in” through its integration into Ukraine’s armed forces. While it’s true that private militias no longer rule the battlefront, it’s the home front that Kiev needs to worry about now

 

Cohen obviously is following the mainstream media narrative when he said that Putin seized Crimea which in fact, it was the Russian-speaking Crimean people who voted in a referendum to reunite with the Russian federation.  But to his credit, Cohen does mention the fact that the Azov Battalion and the Right Sector are held in high-regards since they fought Russian-backed separatists.  Cohen also mentioned the Azov battalion’s children’s training camps:

When Russian President Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea four years ago first exposed the decrepit condition of Ukraine’s armed forces, right-wing militias such as Azov and Right Sector stepped into the breach, fending off the Russian-backed separatists while Ukraine’s regular military regrouped. Though, as a result, many Ukrainians continue to regard the militias with gratitude and admiration, the more extreme among these groups promote an intolerant and illiberal ideology that will endanger Ukraine in the long term. Since the Crimean crisis, the militias have been formally integrated into Ukraine’s armed forces, but some have resisted full integration: Azov, for example, runs its own children’s training camp, and the careers section instructs recruits who wish to transfer to Azov from a regular military unit

Although Cohen’s claims expose Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis, he also follows the Western establishment and the mainstream media’s narrative that “the Kremlin’s claims that Ukraine is a hornets’ nest of fascists are false: far-right parties performed poorly in Ukraine’s last parliamentary elections, and Ukrainians reacted with alarm to the National Militia’s demonstration in Kiev” which are all lies.  Cohen’s statement is false, in fact, it’s a contradiction when he wrote at the beginning of his article that the “National Militia’s members were recruited from the Azov movement” but not to worry because “Azov has been “reined in” through its integration into Ukraine’s armed forces” at least according to Cohen who sourced his misinformation from Foreign Affairs magazine which is a publication owned by the Council of Foreign Relations, a favorite of of the US political establishment. 

So, does the US government, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the CIA support Ukrainian Neo-Nazis in their ongoing war efforts against Russia today?  Well, the answer to that question should be obvious by now.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from SCN

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The extensive history of the pharmaceutical industry is filled with stories and deeds of adventures, misadventures, profit-making, profit-taking, fraud, bribery, false claims, messianic promises, and criminal conduct. 

Few companies in the history of medicine have received as much attention as Pfizer Inc. has received these last three years of the Corona Crisis.

Through the course of relentless media coverage and amidst all the sound and fury, Pfizer has managed to avoid scrutiny of its previous criminal conduct and is universally portrayed in the mainstream media as a benevolent enterprise whose mission is to nobly service humanity.

In an effort to set the record straight we embark upon a comprehensive historical examination of this company which sprouted from humble beginnings into one of the most influential corporate behemoths walking the earth today.

History

The story of Pfizer begins in New York City in 1849, when a pair of German immigrants, cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles F. Erhart, received a $2,500 loan from Charles Pfizer’s father to purchase a commercial building in Williamsburg, Brooklyn where they would embark upon a joint business venture in the nascent chemical manufacturing industry.

Charles Pfizer had been a pharmacist’s apprentice in Germany and possessed commercial training as a chemist. Charles Erhart was a confectioner.

Originally named Charles Pfizer and Company the business would initially focus on the production of chemical compounds. Their first product was a pharmaceutical called Santonin which was used to treat parasitic worms. 

Combining their talents the cousins housed their product within tasty confections such as candy lozenges and toffee-flavored sugar cream cones. This strategy proved to be a success, setting the stage for the company’s future development. 

The drug Santonin would be used as an anthelmintic up until the 1950’s, when it fell out of favor due to noted toxic effects which posed serious risks to patients. 

Pfizer would quickly expand into the realm of fine chemicals for commercial sale to wholesalers and retailers. 

In 1862, Pfizer would become the first U.S. company to domestically produce tartaric acid and cream of tartar.

With the outbreak of the American Civil War a massive need for painkillers and antiseptics erupted, creating an “opportunity” for the pharmaceutical industry. 

Pfizer quickly expanded its production of both, as well as of iodine, morphine, chloroform, camphor, and mercurials. By 1868, Pfizer revenues had doubled and its product line had increased substantially.

The big boon for the company would come in the 1880’s with its production of industrial grade citric acid, widely used in soft drinks like Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper. This would become the company’s centerpiece and drive their growth for decades.

Another fortuitous change for the “small New York firm” would arrive in 1919, when its scientists would pioneer and develop a deep tank fermentation process, the principles of which would later be applied to the production of penicillin. 

This prowess in fermentation and large-scale pharmaceutical production would put Pfizer in a lead position in WW2, when the US government appealed to the pharma industry for support in producing penicillin for the war effort. 

Working with government scientists, Pfizer began pursuing mass production of penicillin utilizing its deep-tank fermentation technology and in 1944 became the first company to mass produce penicillin.

As penicillin prices and usage declined post-WW2, Pfizer began searching for more profitable antibiotics. The move into commercial production of antibiotics signaled a pivot in Pfizer’s business model. 

The company’s operations shifted from the manufacture of fine chemicals to research-based pharmaceuticals, giving birth to Pfizer’s new drug discovery program, which focused on vitro synthesis.

In 1950 Pfizer would develop its first proprietary pharmaceutical product, Terramycin, a broad-spectrum antibiotic. 

By 1951, Pfizer had established offices in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, England, Mexico, Panama, and Puerto Rico. As its power and profits mushroomed, Pfizer would augment its portfolio through various acquisitions and entries into multiple areas of research and development, including an animal health division.

As the Pfizer pharmaceutical kingdom expanded, however, questions about salacious business practices began to surface.

Violations

Despite portraying itself as a righteous corporate citizen, Pfizer is no stranger to controversies and scandals. As early as 1958 it was one of six drug companies accused of price fixing by the Federal Trade Commission.  

In 1961 the Justice Department filed criminal antitrust charges against Pfizer, American Cyanamid, and Bristol-Myers, accusing top executives at each company of charging egregiously high prices and monopolizing the production and distribution of drugs dating back to 1953.

In 1963 the FTC ruled that the accused companies in its 1958 complaint did in fact rig antibiotic prices. The FTC also noted that “unclean hands and bad faith played a major role”in Pfizer being granted the tetracycline patent.

By the 1960s, Pfizer was at its most diversified point in history, with interests ranging from pills to perfume to petrochemicals to pet products.

The company’s shift toward bringing out new products culminated with the establishment of the Central Research Division in the early 1970s. A full 15% of Pfizer’s revenue was directed to this research department.

This focus on innovation brought about Pfizer’s development of blockbuster drugs, which are described as “drugs that generate at least $1 billion in revenue a year for the pharmaceutical companies that produce them.”

While these drugs can be extremely profitable for pharmaceutical companies, the blockbuster drug business model presents certain long-term problems. Beyond the time and money that goes into their development, there are the exigencies of patent issues. Pharma companies see the “patent window” of 20 years as a severe limitation, since it often takes them a full decade to bring a new drug to market, thus shortening both the time allowed to reclaim profits from development costs and the time allotted to reap maximum profits from their new product.

Due to patent laws, the success of blockbuster drugs is often short-lived. Also, reliance on blockbusters means that if a product fails, the consequences for the manufacturer can be catastrophic.

Using this business model, the need for pharmaceutical companies to constantly produce blockbuster drugs is difficult to overstate. Naturally, they go to great lengths to protect their golden goose.

Accompanying Pfizer’s string of blockbusters was a massive surge in the company’s fortunes in tandem with a procession of controversial products, felony offenses and multiple fines—including the largest criminal fine in US history. 

Take, for example, Pfizer’s first blockbuster drug, the anti-inflammatory Feldene, which would also become one of its initial contentious products. 

Pfizer submitted a new-drug application for Feldene to the FDA in March 1978 and again in May 1980. The applications were rejected due to poor testing protocols. In September 1981, Pfizer resubmitted an application to the FDA, using old data. 

Multiple questions surrounding Feldene, including the route taken toward its ultimate approval, would make it one of Project Censored’s top “Censored” news stories in 2015. 

In that story, Project Censored noted:

”Then, while the FDA was still considering the application, Pfizer sponsored a reception at the meeting of the American Rheumatism Association in Boston and showed a film promoting Feldene which the FDA said was illegal. Nevertheless, on April 6, 1982, the FDA approved Feldene for use in the U.S.” 

Even though Feldene would go on to become Pfizer’s most lucrative product, questions about the drug quickly surfaced. By 1986 the FDA was being petitioned to relabel the drug due to serious concerns about its long half-life and its tendency to accumulate in the blood.

The watchdog organization Public Citizen Health Research Group (PCHRG) would later charge that this widely prescribed arthritis drug created risks of gastrointestinal bleeding among the elderly. 

Citing reports of 2,621 adverse events and as many as 182 deaths among patients taking the drug, PCHRG requested that the FDA ban Feldene for patients 60 and over, “as an imminent hazard to the public health.”

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the PCHRG stated, “At least 1.75 million elderly American people now receiving this drug are at risk of developing life-threatening gastrointestinal reactions.”

Meanwhile, the National Council of Senior Citizens urged the FDA to take the drug completely off the market.

PCHRG’s Wolfe would later cite internal documents from Pfizer that voiced concerns about the drug. By 1995 he called for a complete ban on the drug for all ages.

This was just the beginning of a series of high-profile scandals and legal problems that would come to define Pfizer’s business-as-usual practices.

For instance, reports of serious issues surrounding a heart valve produced by Pfizer’s Shiley division began to plague the company. This problem would result in the cessation of production of all models of the faulty valves by 1986.

A 1991 FDA task force charged that Shiley withheld information about safety problems from regulators in order to get initial approval for its valves. A November 7, 1991, investigation in The Wall Street Journal asserted that Shiley had deliberately falsified manufacturing records relating to valve fractures.

These fractures resulted in catastrophic consequences for numerous patients. By 2012 it was reported that 663 individuals had died as a result of the defective valves.

Pfizer ultimately agreed to pay between $165 million and $215 million to settle lawsuits related to the The Björk-Shiley Convexo-Concave Heart Valve. 

It also agreed to pay $10.75 million to settle US Justice Department charges that it lied to regulators in seeking approval for the valves.

The parade of corrupt practices and legal problems that has come to define this pharmaceutical Leviathan was just getting underway. From then on, Pfizer was cited and prosecuted for a litany of illegal acts ranging from price fixing, product safety, bribery, advertising and marketing scandals all the way to environmental and human rights violations.

In 1999 Pfizer pled guilty to criminal antitrust charges and agreed to pay fines totaling $20 million. In that case, Pfizer was charged with “participating in a conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares in the U.S. for a food preservative called sodium erythorbate, and to allocate customers and territories for a flavoring agent called maltol.”

In 2000 The Washington Post published a six-part exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous experimental antibiotic Trovafloxacin (trade name Trovan) on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents.

Trovan was slated to become Pfizer’s next blockbuster drug, according to Wall Street analysts, one of whom claimed, “Pfizer might reap $1 billion a year if Trovan could gain approval for all its potential uses.” But when the company was unable to find enough patients in the United States, its researchers went in search of new patients in Kano, Nigeria.

This unapproved clinical trial on 200 Nigerian children resulted in the death of 11 children. It is alleged that many more children later suffered “serious side-effects ranging from organ failure to brain damage.”

In 2001 Pfizer was sued by 30 Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as “human guinea pigs.” The families contended that “Pfizer violated the Nuremberg Code as well as UN human rights standards and other ethical guidelines” and alleged that Pfizer exposed the children to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

After years of legal battles, Pfizer agreed in 2009 to pay $75 million to settle some of the lawsuits that had been brought in Nigerian courts.

Trovan never became the blockbuster Pfizer had envisioned. The company admitted to stockholders it had “suffered a disappointment” with this experimental meningitis drug. Trovan was never approved for use by children in the United States, so production was halted. The European Union banned it in 1999.

Below is a chronology of still more Pfizer misadventures.

— In 2002 Pfizer agreed to pay $49 million to settle charges that one of its subsidiaries defrauded the federal Medicaid program by overcharging for its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.

— In 2003 Pfizer paid $6 million to settle with 19 states that accused it of using misleading ads to promote the antibiotic Zithromax (also called Z-Pak), used for children’s ear infections. The claim alleged that Pfizer “overstated the benefits and efficiency of Zithromax when compared to other comparable antibiotics.”

— In 2004 Pfizer agreed to a $60 million settlement in a class-action suit brought by users of a diabetic medication developed by Warner-Lambert, which Pfizer acquired in 2000. The drug Rezulin had been withdrawn from the market after numerous patients died from acute liver failure said to be caused by the drug. 

— In 2004 Pfizer agreed to halt ads for its painkiller Celebrex, and the following year it admitted that 1999 clinical trials found that elderly patients taking the drug were far more likely to incur risks of heart problems.

— 2004 also saw Pfizer plead guilty to two felonies and pay $430 million in penalties for fraudulently promoting the epilepsy blockbuster drug Neurontin for unapproved uses. Pfizer claimed it could also be used for “bipolar disorder, pain, migraine headaches, and drug and alcohol withdrawal.” 

Pfizer’s underhanded tactics involving Neurontin also included bribing doctors with luxury trips and monies to promote the drug and planting operatives at medical education events. 

Documents later came to light suggesting that Pfizer arranged for delays in the publication of scientific studies that undermined its claim for the other uses of Neurontin. In one of these documents, it was found that a Neurontin team leader at Pfizer said, “I think we can limit the potential downside of the 224 study by delaying publication for as long as possible.”

Finally, in 2010, a federal jury found that Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of Neurontin; the judge in the case subsequently ordered the company to pay $142 million in damages.

— In 2005 Pfizer withdrew its painkiller Bextra from the market after the FDA cited “inadequate information on possible heart risks from long-term use of the drug as well as ‘life-threatening’ skin reactions, including deaths.”

— That same year the FDA approved a black box warning on Pfizer’s other blockbuster painkiller, Celebrex, citing elevated risks of “cardiovascular events and life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding.” 

— In 2007 Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million to settle federal charges relating to the marketing of its Genotropin human growth hormone. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a Pfizer subsidiary, agreed to pay $19.7 million for “offering a kickback to a pharmacy benefit manager to sell more of the drug,” while Pfizer agreed to pay another $15 million for “promotion of Genotropin for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.” 

— In 2008 Pfizer paid out a whopping $894 million fine to settle lawsuits “alleging that its withdrawn Bextra painkiller and widely used Celebrex arthritis drug harmed U.S. patients and defrauded consumers.” Of the total fine, $745 million was set aside to “resolve personal injury claims.”

— The very next year, 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion gaining the dubious distinction of being tagged with the largest health care settlement in history. GlaxoSmithKline would up the ante with a $3 billion settlement in 2012. 

The fine was a combination of civil and criminal settlements relating to Pfizer’s “allegedly illegal promotion of certain drugs, most notably Bextra.” Pfizer pled guilty to “misbranding the painkiller Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead, promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had previously deemed dangerously high.”

The Justice Department also noted Pfizer had “allegedly paid kickbacks to compliant doctors and promoted three other drugs illegally: the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.”

When interviewed by The New York Times, former Pfizer sales representative John Kopchinski, who helped initiate the federal investigation, stated, “The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn’t sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player.”

The criminal fine of $1.195 billion in that settlement still represents the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter.

Even after entering an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the 2009 settlement, Pfizer’s unprincipled and injurious behavior continued. The band played on.

In 2010 The New York Times reported on Pfizer’s admission that it had paid around “$20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009.”

The Times also mentioned that Pfizer had paid “$15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials in the same period.”

In reference to the amounts disclosed by Pfizer, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, admitted that while she had no specific knowledge of the matter, she believed the publicly revealed amounts Pfizer disclosed “seemed low.” She added: “I can’t help but think something has escaped.”

In 2011 Pfizer agreed to pay $14.5 million to resolve False Claims Act accusations that it illegally marketed its bladder drug Detrol.

In 2012 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals. 

The SEC alleged that “employees and agents of Pfizer’s subsidiaries in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia made improper payments to foreign officials to obtain regulatory and formulary approvals, sales, and increased prescriptions for the company’s pharmaceutical products.”

According to Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit, “Pfizer subsidiaries in several countries had bribery so entwined in their sales culture that they offered points and bonus programs to improperly reward foreign officials who proved to be their best customers.”

In 2012, Pfizer was hit with another massive fine—this time to settle claims that the side effects of its Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drug Prempro cause breast cancer. Around 10,000 women filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that the drug maker withheld information about the potential risks of breast cancer from HRTs. The $1.2 billion settlement came after six years of trials. 

In 2013, Pfizer agreed to a $288 million settlement for claims by 2,700 people that its smoking-cessation drug Chantix caused suicidal thoughts and severe psychological disorders. 

The FDA had placed a black box warning on Chantix, the highest safety-related warning assigned by the FDA, “to alert patients and doctors to the risk of psychiatric side effects” and had noted that the drug is “probably associated with a higher risk of a heart attack.”

Pharmaceutical companies make every effort to circumvent black box warnings. They generate bad publicity and negatively impact the marketability of the drug in question, which leads to adverse financial consequences for the company.

In 2016, after years of lobbying, Pfizer managed to get the FDA to lift the black box designation from Chantrix in a 10-9 vote, giving the controversial blockbuster drug a “new lease on life.”

In 2013 Pfizer reached a $35 million settlement relating to the alleged improper marketing and promotion of the immunosuppressive drug Rapamune. When New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that he and 40 other state attorneys general had arrived at the settlement, he remarked, “There has to be one set of rules for everyone, no matter how rich or powerful, and that includes big pharmaceutical companies that make unapproved and unsubstantiated claims about products in order to boost profits.” 

While this article’s list of Pfizer’s corporate crimes is prodigious by any measure of shady business practices, it is far from exhaustive. In total, since 2000 Pfizer has accumulated $10,945,838,549 in penalties and incurred 96 violations covering a wide range of offenses.

A Company You Can Trust?

Pfizer’s portfolio of corporate crimes rivals that of the most corrupt companies in history. But that did not stop Pfizer from becoming a corporate celebrity with its COVID-19 vaccine. Indeed, the company has benefited handsomely from that product, whose $36.8 billion in 2021 sales made it the highest-selling pharmaceutical product in history.

When the pharma company’s 2022 revenues reached an all-time, single-year high of $100.3 billion, COVID-19 vaccine sales accounted for nearly 38 percent of those revenues. 

Yet, while Pfizer was basking in the glow of mainstream media cheerleading and record-setting profits, honest inquiries into its unremitting record of corruption were kept from public view. 

We were told we must “Trust in Pfizer” to vaccinate the world and save humanity from the so-called COVID crisis. 

Given Pfizer’s documented record of misdeeds, any reasonable person would ask:

“Is this a company that belongs behind the wheel of the most widespread mass vaccination campaign in history?”

“Is this a company we should trust with experimental medical technology?”

“Is this a company we want to be in control of the most radical mass medical experiment in human history?”

“How is it that a company that habitually engaged in such illegal practices was able to reinvent itself as the savior of humanity?”

In a June 12, 2008, ceremony, at the original Pfizer manufacturing site in Brooklyn, New York, the American Chemical Society designated Pfizer’s development of deep-tank fermentation as a National Historic Chemical Landmark. 

At that commemoration, then-president of Pfizer Global Manufacturing Natale Ricciardi told attendees, “We have always had a very noble mission.” Despite cryptically lamenting, “A lot of things have changed at Pfizer, and unfortunately, we had to make certain decisions,” Ricciardi went on to  assert, “But the nobility of what we do, the nobility of what has been done and continues to be done has never changed and will never change.”

All these years later—and despite Mr. Ricciardi’s insistence on Pfizer’s magnanimity—a thinking person might look through the company’s checkered catalog of crimes and fines and recognize that noble experiments are hardly the realm of “alleged” serial felons like Pfizer.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from HFDF

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Updated on July 30, 2022

“We’re now facing a situation where a huge number of very powerful organizations and elites at international and national levels are calling for policies that are basically a suicide pact. Basically a death wish of some sort.” (Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace)

“Three doctors from Ontario died after the hospital where they worked started administering the fourth booster shot to their staff. Where are the autopsies?  Is it a coincidence or are they victims of this diabolical worldwide vaccination campaign?”  (Mark Taliano, renowned author, Research Associate of the CRG)

“This vaccine campaign will go down as the biggest scandal in medical history, … Moreover, it will be known as the biggest crime ever committed on humanity.” (MP Christine Anderson, Member of the European Parliament, July 2022)

All of these deaths can be traced back to a “poison-death shot” that is relentlessly pushing all-cause mortality higher while killing people that are younger and younger. (Mike Whitney, renowned author and Research Associate of the CRG, November 2021)

See also Michel Chossudovsky’s  recently released PDF Ebook entitled:

“The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity”

by Michel Chossudovsky

 

.

Introduction

The two strategic pillars of the covid-19 agenda are:  

• The lockdown: an act of economic and social warfare which has triggered a Worldwide process of impoverishment, social marginalization and despair, 
• The mRNA Covid “vaccine” which has resulted in a Worldwide upward trend in mortality and morbidity. 

Unprecedented in World history, these two strategic pillars are instrumental in triggering a process of depopulation which indelibly points to extensive crimes against humanity. At the time of writing, the fourth jab of the Covid-19 “vaccine” is being administered resulting in a dramatic increase in the number of victims. 

The enforcement of the depopulation agenda requires a socially repressive structure of “global governance” controlled by the financial establishment.

It also requires a cohesive propaganda apparatus with a view to enforcing social acceptance Worldwide. In turn, this process requires the demise of the institutions of representative government coupled with the criminalization of the judicial system. 

The first part of this article focusses on “digital tyranny”, namely the structures of “World Governance”.

The second part of the article focusses on the eugenist depopulation agenda, its historical roots and its Worldwide implementation by the Globalists. 

Towards a Digitized Global Police State 

The Worldwide QR Verification Code project lays the groundwork for the instatement of a “Digitized Global Police State” controlled by the financial establishment. It’s part of what the late David Rockefeller entitled “The March towards World Government” based on an alliance of bankers and intellectuals (See Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter XII).  Peter Koenig describes the QR Code as:

“an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

Towards a Worldwide Digital Currency System (CBDC)  

Consultations are also ongoing between the World Economic Forum (WEF) and central banks with a view to implementing a so-called Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network. According to David Scripac 

“A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. … The aim of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.  

The QR Verification Code Software

In early 2022, the WHO signed a major contract with Deutsche Telekom T Systems to develop a QR Verification App and Software which is to be applied Worldwide.

The QR code-based software solution is slated to be used:

“for other vaccinations as well, such as polio or yellow fever, T-Systems said in a statement … adding that the WHO would support its 194 member states in building national and regional verification technology.”  (emphasis added)

According to a Deutsche Telekom I-T Systems Communique  “The WHO’s gateway service also serves as a bridge between regional systems“, which essentially implies a coordinated global structure of QR surveillance, which oversees the entire population of Planet Earth.

And once established: it will police “every aspect of our lives”, wherever our location.  “It can also be used as part of future vaccination campaigns and home-based records.“

According to the CEO of Deutsche Telecom T Systems:

“Corona has a grip on the world. Digitization keeps the world running”.

Bill Gates had a long-standing relationship with Deutsche Telekom’s  former CEO Ron Sommer going back to the late 1990s.

Tracing and Tracking

T-Systems had previously set up the European Federation Gateway Service (EFGS). The service ensures that member states’ corona tracing apps work across borders.

The Telekom app is categorized as “one of the most successful tracing apps in the world”.

Who has the Grip on the World? A giant data bank pertaining to the Planet’s almost 8 billion people is controlled by “Big Money”.

People are tagged and labeled, their emails, cell phones are monitored, detailed personal data are entered into a giant “Big Brother” data bank.

“Digital tyranny” requires repelling all forms of political and social resistance. 

Individual human beings are categorized as “numbers”. Once these “numbers” are inserted into a Global digital data bank, humanity in its entirety is under the control of the Globalists, namely The Financial Establishment. 

The history, culture and identity of nation states is foreclosed. People become numbers inserted into a global data bank. In turn the formulation of societal projects (projet de société) at national, local and community levels is erased.

Social democracy, socialism, libertarianism: Under global governance, all forms of representative democracy and class struggle are precipitated into the dustbin of history.

Progressives should understand who is behind this hegemonic project, it’s part of a neoliberal agenda, it’s an endgame which destroys the identity of human beings, it destroys humanity.

It is important to organize a broad movement of resistance leading to the outright dismantling of this diabolical agenda, which is embedded in the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Gates Foundation.

The Infamous WHO Pandemic Treaty 

In March 2022, the WHO launched an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) with a mandate to create “A Pandemic Treaty”, i.e. a global health governance entity which would override the authority of  WHO member states.

“The Global Pandemic Treaty on pandemic preparedness would grant the WHO absolute power over global biosecurity, such as the power to implement digital identities / vaccine passports, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions, lockdowns, standardized medical care and more.

This Pandemic Treaty, if implemented, will change the global landscape and strip you and me of some of our most basic rights and freedoms.

Make no mistake, the WHO Pandemic Treaty is a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.” (Peter Koenig, June 2022)

The Pandemic Treaty is tied into the WHO’s QR Verification Code project and the Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine.

The  legitimacy of both the Pandemic Treaty and the QR Verification Code under WHO auspices rests on the presumption that the alleged “Covid-19 Pandemic is Real” and that the mRNA vaccine constitutes a SOLUTION to curbing the spread of the virus. 

What is the legitimacy as well as the science behind this diabolical project?  NONE. Amply confirmed: THERE IS NO PANDEMIC. The alleged Covid-19 Pandemic is based on “Fake Science” (See Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter III)

Both the EU Digital COVID Certificate Framework as well as the WHO QR Verification Code are predicated on outright lies and fabrications.

The Pandemic Treaty is the “Back Door” towards “Global Governance” and Digital Tyranny. It consists in constructing a Worldwide nexus of proxy regimes controlled by a “supranational sovereignty” (World Government) composed of leading financial institutions, billionaires and their philanthropic foundations.

The Global Governance scenario attempts to impose an agenda of social engineering and economic compliance.

The World government envisaged by the Globalists is predicated on obedience and acceptance. One of its major objectives is to carry out a Worldwide Depopulation Agenda. 

Depopulation and The History of Eugenics

The contemporary eugenics movement sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the billionaire philanthropists hinges upon two strategic pillars: the Covid lockdown and the mRNA vaccine, which are instruments of global population reduction.

US-NATO led wars are also instruments of depopulation. 

What we are living now is unprecedented. Today’s depopulation agenda is by no means comparable to the eugenist movement which unfolded in the U.S. as of the early 20th century. Eugenics at the outset was based on legislation directed against specific population groups with so-called “learning or physical disabilities”:

“The 1907 law denied entry to anyone judged ‘mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defects being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living.’ It added ‘imbeciles’ and ‘feeble-minded persons’ to the list. …

By 1938, 33 American states permitted the forced sterilisation of women with learning disabilities and 29 American states had passed compulsory sterilisation laws covering people who were thought to have genetic conditions. Laws in America also restricted the right of certain disabled people to marry. More than 36,000 Americans underwent compulsory sterilisation before this legislation was eventually repealed in the 1940s.” (Victoria Brignell)

Depopulation Directed against Third World Countries

Inspired by the eugenist ideology, depopulation in the post World War II era became an integral part of a Neo-colonial Agenda. It was carefully embedded into the tenets of US foreign policy, largely directed against so-called “Developing Countries”.

We recall U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”

According to Kissinger (NSSM 200, 1974):

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World, because the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”

The Vaccine Campaign Directed against Third World Countries

In regards to Third World countries, depopulation was carefully instrumented through vaccines. The “tetanus vaccines” project implemented under WHO-UNICEF auspices was intended to “secretly sterilize women in poor countries all over the planet”.

“Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government”

Bill Gates, who is now at the forefront of the Globalists’ mRNA “vaccine” program was intricately involved. “The Gates Foundation was sued by governments around the world, Kenya, India, the Philippines – and more” (Peter Koenig, April 2020)

The Globalists’ Depopulation Agenda.“What to Do with All These Useless People?”

Following in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Memorandum 200, the WEF Globalists consider that Planet Earth is overpopulated. They do not formally acknowledge that the Covid-19 mandates including the mRNA “vaccine” constitute the means to reducing the World’s population.

The “vaccine” is casually upheld as a means to “save lives”.

Klaus Schwab’s protégé Prof. Yuval Noah Harari, nonetheless begs the question, “what to do with all these useless people?”  

Harari is an influential member of the World Economic Forum (WEF) who supports the idea of creating a dystopian society managed by a handful of globalists who will rule over every human beings on earth from the day they are born. (Timothy Alexander Guzman, July 2022)

 .

Secret 2009 Meeting of “The Good Club”. “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”

Flashback to April 25, 2009: the World Health Organization (WHO) headed by Margaret Chan declared a Public Health Emergency of International concern (PHEIC) pertaining to the H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic, which in many regards was a “dress rehearsal” of the Covid pandemic. (See Michel Chossudovsky Chapter IX). Barely two weeks later in early May 2009, at the height of the H1N1 “pandemic”, the billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of the Rockefeller University in Manhattan.

This secret gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They call themselves “The Good Club”. Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more:  

“Some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.” (Sunday Times, May 2009)¹⁰

The emphasis was not on population growth (i.e. Planned Parenthood) but on “Depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in the absolute size of the world’s population.

To read complete WSJ article, click here.

According to the Sunday Times report:

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

…

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest.  …

Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said. (Sunday Times)¹¹

The decision-making is intricate and complex. The reports of this secret May 2009 meeting largely reveal the Depopulation Narrative. It was one among numerous similar meetings (which are rarely the object of media coverage).

What is significant is the criminal intent of these billionaire “philanthropists” to depopulate Planet Earth.

Bill Gates’ 2010 Depopulation Statement. The Role of “New Vaccines”

Was an absolute “reduction” in world population contemplated at that May 2009 secret meeting? A few months later, Bill Gates in his TED presentation (February 2010) pertaining to vaccination, stated the following:

“And if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [the world population] by 10 or 15 percent”.¹²

(See quotation in the video starting at 04:21. See also screenshot of transcript of quotation below)

TED Talk at 04:21:

Transcript of quotation from the video¹³

Bill Gates’ “Absolute Reduction” in World Population 

The World’s population in 2022 is of the order of 8.0 billion. 

Bill Gates’ proposal is implement an “absolute reduction” in the World’s population based on 2022 data using “new vaccines” is as follows:

• An absolute reduction of 10% in 2022 would be of the order of 800 million. 
• An absolute reduction of 15% of the World Population in 2022 would be the order of 1.2 billion.

The same group of billionaires, who met at the May 2009 “secret venue”, has been actively involved from the outset of the COVID crisis in designing the lockdown policies applied worldwide, the mRNA vaccine and the “Great Reset”, the endgame of which is depopulation. 

Crimes against humanity are beyond description.

We are dealing with a criminal cabal which must be confronted. 

---

As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided in the course of the next few weeks to distribute the eBook for FREE.

Price: $11.50. FREE COPY Click here to download.

You may also wish to make a donation in support of the book project at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly) 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

African leaders plans for stopping Russia’s ‘special military operation’ and establishing peace in Ukraine is still intriguing. It is still intriguing as majority of the leaders are gearing for the second Russia-Africa summit on July 27 to 28 in St. Petersburg, the second largest city in the Russian Federation.

The African Peace Initiative group headed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, are making efforts for global recognition as peace brokers. But the group’s collective excitement in dealing with these former Soviet republics, which within the international law must strictly adhere to territorial sovereignty, is tempered by a bit of reality.

Deputy Russian Security Council Chairman Dmitry Medvedev has issued several threats during the past few months. He has threatened to strike three Ukrainian nuclear power plants (NPPs) and nuclear facilities in Eastern Europe if an alleged attempt by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to attack the Smolensk NPP in Russia with “NATO missiles” is confirmed.

“If the attempt to attack the Smolensk NPP in Desnogorsk, Russia with NATO missiles is confirmed, we should consider the scenario of a simultaneous Russian strike on the Pivdennoukrainsk, Rivne and Khmelnytsky NPPs, as well as on nuclear facilities in Eastern Europe. There is no reason to hold back.”

Last June the delegation from South Africa, Egypt, Senegal, Congo-Brazzaville, Comoros, Zambia, and Uganda put forward a 10-point proposal was presented in Kyiv and St. Petersburg. The key aim of the African peace mission primarily to propose “confidence-building measures” in order to facilitate peace between the two countries. It was to seek a peaceful settlement of the conflict which began late February 2022.

Several posts, including documents and speeches to the official website have confirmed this. Putin stated his claims of going to Ukraine, always pointing to the legitimacy within  international law and also the failure to implement the Minsk Agreement. Putin showed one document to African leaders in St. Petersburg.

The result was that Putin would continue studying other proposals, and would not consider Africa’s peace plan as ultimate sustainable solution for his invasion of Ukraine. Right at the beginning, Russia underlined the reason as – “to de-militarize and de-nazify” Ukraine. It simply did not coincide with Russia’s aims and goals to violate Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, and engage in mass destruction of infrastructure and human lives.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, after the three-hour meeting, the Africans’ peace plan consisted of ten (10) elements, but “was not formulated on paper.” Similarly, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said

“The peace initiative proposed by African countries is very difficult to implement, difficult to compare positions.”

Quite recently Lavrov reiterated, setting Russia’s concrete position, while many foreign states have called for diplomacy as a mechanism for peaceful settlement of the conflict. But Sergey Lavrov said late June that “Russia can’t give up goals of special military operation in Ukraine.”

“It’s impossible to give them up – the goals that have been set,” Lavrov said on Channel One, and added that Russia cannot change its approaches to the conduct of the special operation as long as the West is purposefully creating threats to Russia’s security.

The geopolitical implications of the Russia-Ukraine crisis is quite enormous and very arguable. But at the same, there are a few questions pointing to the fact that Ramaphosa and his colleagues have never, not once, intervened to resolve conflicts in the continent, those in Cameroon, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Libya and Sudan. Africa has not completed finding resolutions to numerous conflicts in the continent. And yet they have the highest desire and keen interest in Europe. Least we forget, Africa is indeed starving from Russian and Ukrainian grains.

And yet Africa is consistently praised for its huge expanse of uncultivated land and the large population. The resources and the human capital. And gross inability to choose suitable agricultural technology. For economists, it presents incapability of designing import-substitution policies as part of the state development programs.

In the publication of Financial Times July 10, African leaders urge Putin to show “desire for peace” – it was an interview with Senegalese President Macky Sall.

Macky Sall has said African leaders urged Russian president Vladimir Putin to “show his desire to move forward with peace” before they gather in St. Petersburg for a Russia-Africa summit in late July. Significant to note here the quote from Sall:

“Before the next Russia-Africa summit, Putin must do some actions to show his desire to move forward with peace even in a humanitarian way.”

This demand was conveyed to Putin during the peace mission of African leaders to Kyiv and Moscow in June. Sall explained the necessity to install peace, and added:

“That’s why we continue to use the Russia-Africa summit to see how we can move forward on the negotiations we tried to implement between Russia and Ukraine.”

Asked if Putin had shown any inclination to pursue peace, Sall said:

“During this summit, maybe we can have another meeting and make some progress. That’s what we hope for.” At the same time, the President of Senegal said that “Ukraine has said Russia must leave its occupied territory before they can negotiate, and we understand that.”

In a tweet back in August 2022, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated he was duty bound to stand by the resolution and be guided by its call for peace.

“The message of the General Assembly is loud and clear: End hostilities in Ukraine now. Silence the guns now. Open the door to dialogue and diplomacy now,” Guterres said, adding: “Looking ahead, I will continue to do everything in my power to contribute to an immediate cessation of hostilities and urgent negotiations for peace. People in Ukraine desperately need peace. And people around the world demand it.”

Background: On 16 June, a delegation from Africa arrived in Ukraine, including the presidents of the Republic of South Africa, the Comoros Islands, Senegal, Zambia and the Prime Minister of Egypt, as well as special representatives of the Congo and Uganda. They want to act as peacemakers between Russia and Ukraine, as well as agree on increasing the supply of grain and fertilisers from these two countries to their continent.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa named 10 main “components” of the African Union’s position on the Russian-Ukrainian war. After the meeting, Zelenskyy criticised the rhetoric of African leaders, who refer to Russia’s war against Ukraine as a “conflict” or “crisis”. Zelenskyy was also surprised that the African representatives emphasised their own grain and fertiliser crises while sidestepping the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

On 17 June, an African delegation met with the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and he said that his logic regarding the war against Ukraine was allegedly “flawless” from the point of view of international law and the UN Charter.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed that during their visits in Ukraine and Russia, the delegation from the African countries had an opportunity to see it for themselves who actually was interested in peace.

In a July article, Institute for the Study of War (ISW) says Russia has not achieved a single goal in Ukraine in 500 days of war. Quote:

“Five hundred days ago Russia launched an unprovoked war of conquest against Ukraine. The Russian military intended to take Kyiv within three days but failed to accomplish any of its intended objectives in Ukraine. The Ukrainian forces have secured and retained the initiative and are conducting counteroffensive operations along most of the frontline with Russian forces focused almost entirely on trying to hold on to the Ukrainian lands they still occupy.”

The geopolitical realities may definitely turn the tides on Russia-African relations. Arguably taking cognizance of the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the emerging global reconfiguration will play roles in re-shaping relations, and this will reflect in the next joint declaration as well as Russia’s future engagement with Africa. That said however and as a reminder, African leaders have to implement their election campaign pledges, and steadfastly keep to the fact that Africa’s roadmap is the African Union Agenda 2063.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS) and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Recent developments raise the prospect that British intelligence agents could finally face justice for their little-known role in the CIA’s global torture program.

Britain’s foreign and domestic intelligence apparatus is facing scrutiny by a tribunal tasked with intelligence oversight. On May 26, London’s infamously opaque Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) unanimously issued a landmark ruling which means the complaints of two Saudis brutally tortured at CIA black sites and jailed for years in Guantanamo Bay can finally be heard, at least behind closed doors.

The British government insisted that the Tribunal, which explicitly examines wrongdoing by London’s security and intelligence agencies, did not have jurisdiction over the cases of Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Abd al-Rahim Nashiri. But the IPT disagreed.

Noting that “the underlying issues raised by this complaint are of the gravest possible kind,” the tribunal declared that “if the allegations are true, it is imperative that that should be established,” as “it would be in the public interest for these issues to be considered.”

The ruling means the Tribunal is likely to hear a complaint from Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who’s remained in US custody since American troops captured the man they claim is “a senior al-Qaida member” in 2003.

Al-Hawsawi bounced between CIA black sites for three years before being shipped to the US torture camp in illegally-occupied Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Along the way, he was subjected to brutal “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including rectal examinations conducted with “excessive force,” from which he was severely injured and reportedly suffers ongoing health problems to this day.

Lawyers for al-Hawsawi say they have proof that British intelligence agents illegally “aided, abetted, encouraged, facilitated, procured and/or conspired” with the US to torture and abuse their client.

Al-Hawsawi is one of just five remaining Guantanamo detainees to have been charged over alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

According to the declassified summary of the US Senate report into CIA torture, al-Hawsawi was one of several prisoners held and abused “despite doubts and questions surrounding their knowledge of terrorist threats and the location of senior al-Qaeda leadership.”

His lawyers say there’s “credible evidence” that Britain’s MI5 and MI6 provided questions for his American torturers to ask, and were passed along information obtained during the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation’ sessions.

Nashiri was detained in the United Arab Emirates in October 2002, due to his alleged involvement in an al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years earlier. The US Senate’s report concluded Nashiri was repeatedly tortured and mistreated, despite his interrogators’ assessment that he was cooperative and that any “enhanced” techniques were therefore unnecessary.

Over the course of several sessions, they used a variety of bloodcurdling and officially unauthorized techniques, including “threatening to sexually abuse the prisoner’s mother, raising a pistol to his head, and holding a cordless drill to his body,” the UK’s Rendition Project noted.

Nashiri’s lawyers argue he was of “specific interest” to British intelligence. This may be why London reportedly encouraged the CIA to refuel at Luton Airport in December 2002 while he was being rendered from Thailand to Poland.

“There is an irresistible inference that the UK agencies participated in intelligence sharing in relation to [Nashiri] and were complicit in his torture and ill-treatment.”

Intelligence Committee ‘Unable to Produce a Credible Report’

Meanwhile, the British government is attempting to prevent Abu Zubaydah, Guantanamo’s “forever prisoner”, from taking legal action against MI5 and MI6 over providing the CIA with questions for him to be asked over enhanced interrogations in six separate countries. Authorities in London argue that domestic laws are not applicable to Zubaydah, and his claim should be brought against the countries where the torture took place instead.

Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times, locked in a tiny coffin-like box for hundreds of hours, with cockroaches – of which he had a lifelong fear – hung from hooks, denied sleep, and forced to remain in “stress positions” for extended periods. Having lost an eye as a result of this abuse, he now has permanent brain damage, suffers constant seizures, virtually perpetual headaches and an “excruciating sensitivity to sounds.”

A 2018 report by the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) confirmed British intelligence had “direct awareness of extreme mistreatment” of Zubaydah at the hands of the CIA, and continued providing questions for his American torturers to ask him regardless. The report concluded that not long after Zubaydah’s capture in Pakistan in 2002, MI6 officials determined the techniques carried out on the detainee were so harsh that “98 percent of US Special Forces would have broken if subject to the same conditions.”

The ISC findings showed conclusively that London was playing a key supporting role in the CIA extraordinary rendition program. Under the terms of the dark deal, British intelligence and security services provided extensive logistical support to Langley, and outsourced torture of detainees to some of the world’s most brutal security and intelligence agencies.

Yet, this spectacularly barbaric chapter of recent British history has been almost entirely forgotten today. And the ISC admits its account of the scandalous arrangement is far from complete. The Committee openly stated the report it produced “is not, and must not be taken to be, a definitive account.”

Due to the “terms and conditions” applied to the investigation, the ISC was “unable to conduct an authoritative inquiry and produce a credible report,” it conceded.

Then-Prime Minister Theresa May imposed a number of onerous restrictions on the Committee, including denying access to officers, personnel, and key witnesses. Controls imposed on the ISC meant only four intelligence agency employees could be interviewed, and the few who were made available were blocked from commenting on specific cases.

In spite of these limitations, the ISC ultimately determined that British security services shared an “unprecedented” amount of intelligence with foreign liaison agencies “to facilitate the capture of detainees” — even when it suspected or knew the suspects would be subject to torture. In total, the report found at least 198 cases in which British spies received intelligence obtained from people “they knew or ought to have suspected” had been abused.

Between the years of 2002 – 2004, MI6 operatives actively participated in interrogations of detainees held by US authorities at locations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, according to the report. The ISC identified 13 cases of British spies witnessing detainee torture first-hand, and 128 incidents of security and intelligence being informed by their foreign counterparts that prisoners had been mistreated. 

Rather than reacting to this troubling news by ending their participation, British intelligence instead offered financial inducements to foreign spying agencies to conduct extraordinary rendition operations. On at least 28 occasions, they suggested, planned or agreed to operations proposed by liaison services overseas, per the report.

Fake Ricin Plot Justifies Iraq War

Outsourcing torture to foreign partners provided the Brits with a number of benefits. For one, MI5 and MI6 could avoid getting their hands dirty, and maintain the lie that they did not directly engage in such activity. The arrangement also meant British spies could not be held accountable if testimony acquired through torture turned out to be false — which, by design, it often did.

In September 2002, police investigating an alleged terror fundraising operation in London arrested Mohammed Meguerba, an Algerian émigré. Released without charge, he returned to his home country, where he was picked up upon arrival by local security services.

Meguerba eventually told his captors that he was part of a multi-conspirator plot to poison people using ricin. This information was passed on to British intelligence, although there was a major problem: the address which he claimed as the nucleus of the effort did not exist. After further interrogation, Meguerba supplied another location, a North London home.

In January 2003, police swooped in, making multiple arrests, conducting extensive tests, and sending seized material on to the UK’s main chemical weapons research facility at  Porton Down. Before those investigations were complete, senior counter-terror officials in conjunction with British health authorities hastily issued an urgent “bioterrorism alert,” warning “a small amount of the material recovered…has tested positive for the presence of ricin poison.” Panic erupted immediately, and doctors’ surgeries across the country published advice on the symptoms of ricin poisoning.

Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared for a televised address hours later, zealously stoking public fears:

“I warn people it is only a matter of time before terrorists get hold of [Weapons of Mass Destruction]…the arrests made earlier today show this danger is present and real and with us now, and its potential is huge.”

A month later, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell made a now notorious speech to the UN Security Council, to drum up support for the Iraq war. Brandishing an illustrative vial of ricin, Powell alleged Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was operating a secret global terror network and maintained a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. Powell explicitly mentioned the recent raid in London, which he claimed proved the existence of Al Qaeda terror “cells” in the heart of Europe.

With the US invasion of Iraq well-underway, the purported “ricin” plot was dusted off once again on March 31, 2003, when Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Richard Myers boldly announced US forces had destroyed a “poison factory”, which he claimed was “probably where the ricin found in London came from.”

In reality, Porton Down had determined no ricin was found at the London address within 48 hours of the initial police raid. This inconvenient judgement was nonetheless concealed until eight people arrested in connection with the case were put on trial two years later and acquitted on all charges.

The prosecution crumbled when it became clear that Meguerba had concocted the claims under pressure from investigators. 

Following the verdict, even the BBC admitted that the “criminal investigations [were] shamelessly exploited for political purposes” by the UK and the US in order “to justify the invasion of Iraq or the introduction of new legislation to restrict civil liberties.”

Not long after, Meguerba appeared in court in Algeria, looking emaciated, frail, and missing several teeth. His fate today is unknown.

A Very British Coverup

In September 2005, then-MI5 Director General Eliza Manningham-Buller issued an extraordinary statement conceding that British intelligence officials were “often limited” in their ability to ascertain the means by which foreign partners secured intelligence. In part, Manningham-Buller claimed, this was because MI5 and MI6 “will generally not press to be told the source” of a particular piece of information, since asking too many questions might “damage future cooperation and the future flow of intelligence from the originating service.”

“Where the reporting is threat-related, the desire for context will usually be subservient to the need to take action to establish the facts,” she continued. Ultimately, therefore, “no inquiries were made of [the] Algerian liaison about the precise circumstances that attended their questioning of Meguerba.”

By that point, the ricin plot had been comprehensively exposed in court as a farcical story built on false testimony secured under torture. However, Manningham-Buller insisted the entire fraudulent narrative actually proved “detainee reporting can be accurate and may enable lives to be saved.”

Did the British feed their Algerian counterparts questions deliberately designed to concoct a bogus plot which, when busted, could be used to justify the impending Iraq invasion? While a smoking gun has yet to surface, confidential documents found in the ruins of Libyan security service offices following the violent overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi strongly suggest this was the case.

Papers recovered by a Western human rights organization revealed that in March 2004, then-MI6 counter-terror chief Mark Allen was in direct contact with authorities in Tripoli about the recent capture of Abdelhakim Belhaj, a founder of the Al Qaeda-aligned Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

“I congratulate you on the safe arrival of [Belhaj]. This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over recent years,” Allen wrote.

“Amusingly, we got a request from the Americans to channel requests for information from [Belhaj] through [them]. I have no intention of doing any such thing. The intelligence about [Belhaj] was British… I feel I have the right to deal with you direct on this.”

Belhaj was arrested with his pregnant wife earlier that year in Malaysia, then spent seven years in Libyan prisons, where he reportedly suffered serious abuse. Libyan authorities released his wife after a brief detention, but not before torturing her as well. Barely two weeks after their abduction, the MI6’s Allen turned up in Libya, while Tony Blair met with Gaddafi.

Belhaj was ultimately freed from prison in 2008 as part of a wider amnesty for former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) negotiated by Qatar, a key backer of the group. Three years later, he was back in Tripoli, serving as a commander of armed insurgents against Gaddafi’s forces – and with no shortage of British and American assistance. With NATO aircover, Belhaj’s forces participated in the barbaric murder of Qaddafi in the leader’s hometown of Sirte. 

US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham with Libyan Islamic Fighting Group leader Abdelhakim Belhaj during NATO’s regime change war on Libya. To Belhaj’s left is the slain US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

In a perverse irony, other LIFG fighters involved in the Western-backed regime change war were freed due to an intervention from Quilliam Foundation, a self-styled “counter-extremism” think tank covertly constructed by British intelligence.

The discovery of the incriminating 2004 correspondence between Allen and Libya’s government prompted London’s High Court to introduce legal proceedings against the former MI6 counter-terror chief in June 2012. Two years later, Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) inexplicably declined to prosecute him despite London’s Metropolitan Police compiling 28,000 pages of evidence.

In June 2016, the CPS again announced it would not prosecute Allen, a decision which reportedly angered senior investigating officers. The Service noted there was “sufficient evidence to support the contention that [Allen]…had been in communication with individuals from foreign countries responsible for the detention” of Belhaj and his wife, and “sought political authority for some of his actions.”

As such, the IPT’s decision to hear the complaints of al-Hawsawi and Nashiri arguably represents the best — and perhaps final — opportunity for the public to hear the truth about the role played by MI5 and MI6’m in extraordinary rendition. 

For now, circumstantial evidence strongly suggests British intelligence intentionally sought false testimony, with which it could achieve particular political outcomes, and justify the domestic and international excesses of the War on Terror.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

Featured image is from The Grayzone 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Hard hitting news anchor Grant Stinchfield called out the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for unfair review procedures in the case of Dr. Mark Trozzi, an emergency physician with an excellent clinical track record. The College spent hours trying to discredit Dr. McCullough in the witness chair and would not put a single substantive question to Dr. McCullough about Dr. Trozzi’s clinical practice or care of COVID-19 patients.

The CPSO closed out their last day of of the trial while Trozzi has been suspended from practice for 6 months. The College has intentionally delayed proceedings to cause huge fines, greater loss of income, and destroy Dr. Trozzi’s ability to keep his career on track. This investigation should have taken a few days at the first instance of an issue raised by CPSO.

Please watch this 10-minute interview where Stinchfield has Dr. McCullough give some key updates on autopsies of COVID-19 vaccine victims and much more.

Click here to view the video

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Our hearts go out to those who were forced to engage in unnatural and unfair activities in a desperate attempt to preserve their sanity and to save their families. But we have to admit now that although what we did made sense to us at the time, it was wrong and it must end.

Playing along with the COVID-19 narrative was immoral and it was illegal.

The repetition of the bland phrase “during the pandemic” has to end too.

We need to make sure that the words we speak correspond with the reality that we see around us. Otherwise, we will be sucked into what Rudolf Steiner called “the karma of untruthfulness.” When we adhere to horrific lies that act will make easier, precisely because so many people cling to those lies, the propagation of even more horrific lies in the future.

Accepting lies as truths makes abominations thinkable, makes genocide reasonable. No wonder that nuclear war with Russia now seems plausible for policy makers. No wonder that the destruction of our soil and oceans sounds like a good business opportunity for Wall Street.

Video

Click here to view the video

The first step we must take is to end this pattern, to interrupt the fiction that keeps on circulating, the evil that keeps on giving. We must recognize that when we say people died of “COVID-19” we are acting as knowing accomplices to a crime. Lots of people died of different causes, including some who died because of the use bioweapons whose nature remains unclear even today.

But there was never any “Covid 19.” That was the whole point of the operation. If there had been a real pandemic, it would not have served to accustom citizens to embracing hypocrisy, to accepting lies as truths in daily life.

They could easily have created a real pandemic, one that killed millions with real lethal viruses—but they chose not do so because the goal was to undermine the authority of institutions, and to weaken the foundations of civil society.

Killing people with a virus was not the point. Killing people with a vaccine however, was quite effective.  

That was the same script for the 9.11 incident. A real terrorist attack that made sense could have been easily carried out. But they chose to add in buildings collapsing in on themselves in blatant defiance of the laws of physics.

That was no accident. No, that was the whole point: Degrade the public’s ability to think and compromise all intellectuals (except a tiny handful who sacrificed themselves and were then completely ignored).

That left us without anyone to trust and institutions that are dishonest by nature. Call them Harvard or the New York Times if you want; the criminality cannot be hidden by using fancy names.

And so here we are, in the age of monsters.

And what is the solution?

There is only one solution. There is only one medicine in the cabinet that has a chance of curing this gangrene of the soul. It is that bitter purgative that we are loath to drink, that sour tonic known as truth.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Things are getting awkward and coming to a head as BRICS countries are now just weeks away from the Aug. 22-24 major summit in Johannesburg, South Africa – and Russian President Vladimir Putin is still committed to attending in person.

South Africa had even mulled requesting that Moscow opt for Zoom instead, which would have without doubt been taken as an insult by the Russian side. 

“President Putin will be asked by South Africa to attend a key summit via Zoom and not in person after Pretoria sought legal advice about its obligations to arrest the Russian leader, who has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court [ICC],” the Sunday Times reported in May.

Most recently, the South African government has simply politely asked Putin not to come, something which the Kremlin swiftly rejected.

The host country for the BRICS summit is under pressure as a signatory of the Rome Statute that governs the ICC. Given the arrest warrant outstanding against Putin, South African authorities are expected by the West to act.

South Africa’s deputy president Paul Mashatile said in a recent statement, 

“We understand we are bound by the Rome Statute but we can’t invite someone and then you arrest them. You can understand our dilemma.”

“We would be happy if he [Putin] doesn’t come,” he followed with. A suggestion to hold the entire summit virtually has been rejected by some of the largest BRICS countries, including India and Brazil. 

The Kremlin has stuck by its position that South Africa has clear obligations and has even given Putin personal assurances:

A Kremlin-linked official told The Moscow Times that South Africa provided “security guarantees” for Putin during Ramaphosa’s visit to St. Petersburg in June.

The schedule and logistics are still being worked out, according to reports, but South Africa’s president has been consistent in saying it will be face to face and that Putin hasn’t wavered on his intent to attend.

“There were rumors that this too could become an online summit – no. It is going to be face to face, eyeball to eyeball,” Ramaphosa said.

While Ramaphosa has been seen as sympathetic to Putin, it has been South Africa’s leading opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has pressured the government to arrest the Russian leader if he arrives for the summit.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

One way to tell if a journalist is doing a good job is to see the level of detail they give to news developments. I sat down with Kim Iversen from my clinic and she went over the figures of our recent manuscript on autopsies after COVID-19 vaccination. This interview is helpful in understanding the data.

Our paper is attracting massive attention on the European Commission Zenodo pre-print server with >150k (as of July 18, 2023), downloads and views compared to other papers on COVID-19 vaccines at ~50.

Please listen to the whole interview ~10 min to get updated.

Click here to view the video

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Source

Nicolas Hulscher, BS, Paul E. Alexander, PhD, Richard Amerling, MD, Heather Gessling, MD, Roger Hodkinson, MD, William Makis, MD, Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, Mark Trozzi, MD, & Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH. (2023). A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF AUTOPSY FINDINGS IN DEATHS AFTER COVID-19 VACCINATION. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8120771

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

There is growing speculation about how the Russia-Ukraine war might eventually end. Three competing scenarios are strong possibilities. The most likely outcome is a definitive Russian victory after a grinding, bloody struggle lasting several more years. As time drags on, Russia’s larger population and military will confer greater and greater advantages in the fighting, despite the lumbering, inefficient nature of the Kremlin’s forces.

The second most likely outcome is a frozen conflict roughly along the current battle lines. Fighting would end with an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty and reflect exhaustion on the part of both Ukraine and Russia. Such frozen conflicts already exist in places such as Kashmir, Cyprus, and most notably, Korea.

The least likely outcome would be a definitive victory by Ukraine, given Russia’s long-term logistical advantages. Unfortunately, both Washington and NATO have embraced that unrealistic objective, pledging continued Western military support and encouraging Kiev to stay the course, regardless of the mounting costs in blood and treasure to the Ukrainian people.

No matter how the war finally ends, the Biden administration and its NATO partners appear to have given surprisingly little consideration to what the West’s postwar relationship with Moscow will—or should—look like. Robert E. Hunter, a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, touched on one important aspect in his recent article in Responsible Statecraft. He contended that there are more important issues than Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations that need to be discussed at the 2023 NATO summit. “More consequential for the long term is an issue that won’t arise at Vilnius: what role Russia can play in European security after the war is over.”

Hunter points out the crucial reality that “unless Russia disintegrates, at some point in the future it will have to be dealt with as a revived great power, which under any leader will pursue what Russia considers to be its legitimate interests. (Already, a weakened Russia is challenging Western interests in the Middle East and elsewhere.) Russia’s European interests include not having a rival military alliance on its doorstep.” Unfortunately, “a consensus is rapidly forming in the United States, apparently shared in the Biden administration, that a new cold war confrontation with Russia is inevitable, whatever the risks, dangers, and longevity.”

Despite occasional conciliatory rhetoric, the United States has pursued a policy to constrain and humiliate Russia since the early years of Bill Clinton’s administration. The decision to expand NATO into Eastern Europe—with the ultimate objective of incorporating Ukraine into the alliance, despite Russia’s vehement objections and warnings that the West was crossing bright red lines threatening their core security interests—was the most provocative policy. But there were others. NATO’s military intervention in the Balkans against Russia’s longstanding ally, Serbia, was another. Terminating arms control agreements important to Moscow, especially the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Agreement, were other gestures of hostility and contempt toward Russia.

The extent of U.S. and NATO animosity surged in 2014 after Moscow’s seizure of Crimea in retaliation for the West’s meddling in Ukraine to help oust the country’s elected, pro-Russia president. Washington and its European allies imposed an array of economic sanctions against Russia. New, far more onerous, sanctions were imposed after Russia’s larger invasion in February 2022.

A full-fledged new cold war now exists between the West and Russia, with no end in sight. Early in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin admitted that Washington’s objective was to weaken Russia permanently. Other Biden administration officials, including the president himself, have indicated that there cannot be even a limited rapprochement as long as Vladimir Putin remains in power.

However, there is little indication that either the United States or the rabidly anti-Russia governments in NATO’s East European members would relent even if new political leadership emerged in the Kremlin. Instead, as Hunter notes, a hardline, uncompromising posture toward Russia seems to be increasingly entrenched. It is difficult to find even hints, much less explicit statements, coming from NATO capitals about which sanctions would be lifted and when, if a peace accord ending the Russia-Ukraine war was signed. A frozen conflict makes a substantial, prompt lifting of sanctions even less likely.

Even if the Biden administration wanted to change course and adopt a more conciliatory strategy toward Moscow, it is doubtful that hardliners in Congress or in several NATO countries would accept such a move. Instead, they seem inclined to push Washington to adopt a course more akin to the policies U.S. leaders have pursued for decades toward such rogue states as North Korea, Cuba, and Iran.

But trying to isolate Russia in such a fashion would be even more futile and potentially disastrous. North Korea and Cuba are small, impoverished countries. Even Iran is a mid-sized power with limited clout. Russia, however, is a major global economic player and possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. NATO’s attempt to enlist the rest of the world to isolate Russia and aid Ukraine has faltered badly. Seeking global unity for such a hostile approach once the Ukraine war ends would be greeted with derision throughout the “Global South.”

Robert Hunter is correct that Russia is an essential player in any stable European security system and must be re-integrated once the war ends. However, Russia’s importance is even greater than what Hunter describes. The country is a crucial factor in the global economic and security systems. Pursuing an extended cold war against Moscow is impractical and potentially disastrous. The Biden administration needs to make a major course adjustment for a post-Ukraine war era.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Libertarian Institute and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. Dr. Carpenter also served in various policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. He is the author of thirteen books and more than 1,200 articles on international affairs and the threat that the U.S. national security state poses to peace and civil liberties at home and around the world. Dr. Carpenter’s latest book is “Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy” (2022).

Featured image: USA and Russian flags are cut with scissors. Confrontation and the Cold War. Stock vector illustration.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As a rule, US war reporting since Vietnam has been mostly mainstream media cheerleading the mission rather than digging beyond government war propaganda. After all, it was images of American boys coming home in body bags shown on the six o’clock news across America that finally galvanized mainstream opposition to that war.

The Pentagon learned its lesson by the first Gulf War, and it severely restricted up-close media coverage. Only “trusted” journalists were able to report from the front lines. Most of the press corps wrote up stories based on US military press releases from luxury hotels in Baghdad.

By the time of Gulf War II the Pentagon came up with the concept of “embedding” select journalists with the troops. This allowed the story to be framed by the Pentagon with the false impression that actual journalism was taking place. It felt authentic, because the journalist was with the troops and close to the action, but the story presented what the Pentagon wanted to be presented.

This is perhaps a long way of pointing out that US mainstream media coverage of the war in Ukraine leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, sometimes the truth does slip out in publications like the New York Times, which reported last week that in just the first weeks of Ukraine’s “counter-offensive” at least 20 percent of the weaponry and equipment donated by the US and NATO has been destroyed.

However, usually what the mainstream media serves up are Pentagon and neocon talking points. Russia is losing, they report. Russia has already lost, as Biden said recently. Most Americans don’t go out of their way to listen to actual experts like Col. Doug Macgregor, who from the beginning has been telling a very different story. Thus Americans continue to be fed propaganda.

There is a funny thing about propaganda, though. Sometimes it comes face-to-face with contradictory reality and is shown to be nothing but a pack of lies.

Take for example last week’s shocking report that President Biden has signed an order to mobilize 3,000 US military reservists for deployment to Europe in support of the 2014 “Operation Atlantic Resolve.” What is Atlantic Resolve? It was launched in the aftermath of the US-backed coup in Ukraine and the ensuing unrest under the US-installed puppet government.

So, if Russia is losing – or has already lost, as Biden said last week – why has it suddenly become necessary to call up US reserve forces? Well, in the midst of one of the most serious US military recruiting crises ever, it seems Washington does not have sufficient troops for its anti-Russia mission in Ukraine. So what is the mission and why does it seem to be creeping toward sending more Americans close to the battle zone? No one in the Administration seems interested in explaining it and no one in the US media or Congress seems interested in asking.

We are on a very slippery slope, with Biden’s neocons continuing to escalate in the face of massive Ukrainian losses and an apparent shortage of US troops. Make no mistake, if the US/NATO proxy war with Russia is not halted the next step will be to look at the US Selective Service. That means they are coming for your kids. How long before America wakes up and says “NO”?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The solution to global development has seemed to lie in the application of free markets. If serious social disorder arises, the reasoning goes, it must be centred on an absence of economic liberalism — and, the reasoning further assumes, the most successful solution lies in interventionism to staunch the transformative power of the free market. Or does it?

This article argues that the most successful solution for social dysfunction is enhanced political democracy, which is mutually exclusive from free market fundamentalism, and challenges centrism’s assumption that laissez-faire economics is a magic bullet policy that should be replicated on a global scale.

I argue for political interventions that are based on staunching the institutions of social democracy in a setting that augments a strong relationship between citizens and representative institutions.

The experience of the global south in recent decades confirms the ‘Shock Doctrine’ theory of Naomi Klein, which explains how periphery states that diverge from western capitalist norms suffer tacit invasions intended to absorb them into the iron dictatorship of the free market.

So far as progressive, radical scholars like Klein can tell, outcomes for states suffering from these tacit invasions include severe social degradation and exponentially widening inequality that enriches transnational corporations at the expense of domestic economies. Poor countries without well resourced public services suffer more for marketisation than the advanced industrial states of the west. There is therefore little evidence that laissez-faire economics have a positive effect constituting true development, but the perception of the establishment is often different.

If there is one central political reality at the end of the twentieth century, it is that the free market fundamentalist approach to economics – which triumphed over its ideological adversaries, communism and third world liberation theology – has been a soaring success. 

In fact, the opposite is the case. Attempts to export neoliberalism to periphery states can be identified as part of a degenerate fascist agenda to enhance US totalitarianism and imperialist corporate power, with each subsequent subordination announced with enormous fanfare in the cartel media. Huge investments of ideological resources have been made to get western citizens to think that this agenda is moral and just, which indoctrinates a characteristic callousness towards the long suffering citizens of states that have been exposed to the negative effects of the shock doctrine.

Without exception, marketisation has failed to preempt political democracy in the global south. By way of contrast, marketisation has often required authoritarian coups backed by the intelligence agencies of the imperial core. In one of the largest psyops ever conducted, the public have been coerced to accept the flawed analysis that the US is in the business of exporting democracy. Dissenting analysis on the US mission finds no evidence that the empire is promoting democracy, only that it is enhancing its own resource acquisition and geostrategic hegemony. And dissidents have observed a direct correlation and causal relationship between capitalism and adversity. As they have told us, free market triumphalism is a humanitarian catastrophe. Beyond which, it is intellectually dishonest, presenting an ideology as objective fact.

The dissenting analysis is consistent with the testimonies of Russian citizens who have suffered a decline of living standards since the end of communism. Research has consistently shown that contemporary Russians have an increased risk of alcoholism and suicide than their Soviet predecessors. 

Separating fact from ideological fiction is hard in an environment where the market controls so much of the mainstream narrative, as is the task of stoking global civic solidarity as a countervailing force to corporate tyranny. An association between the political centre and neoliberalism has led to a monopoly on acceptable policy debate and served to malign rational agendas to plan the economy to serve peace and social democracy as dangerous extremism. 

Free market fundamentalists often downplay socialism’s relevance with a variety of argument. They reason that proletarian rule is offensive to freedom, that socialism constitutes theft, or that it violates the rights of citizens to autonomously own private property. They also dismiss Marx as an untrustworthy totalitarian. It is also said that state planning is an inefficient and irrational way to order an economy.

Research efforts to find the causes of political democracy have found that levels of citizen influence over policy making are more consequential than economic neoliberalism. The studies focus on the subjective experiences of innovations in democratic institutions both in the global south and the west, representing the efforts of academic research projects more earnest and objective than the doctrinaire policy prescriptions of neoliberal think tanks. The difference between neoliberalism and socialism is that the latter has less funding.

The same is true of advocacy; neoliberalism boasts an extreme advantage over socialism in lobbying power, having coopted all the major political parties. Despite this consensus, there is little evidence of important social advances as a consequence of neoliberalism. 

Recent studies of democratic innovations suggest that participatory democracy may be a better policy agenda for the west than neoliberalism in periphery states, although neoliberals have made the data seem otherwise by selectively reporting propaganda. The second generation centrists, praised in the media and yielding enormous benefits for corporate donors, have been bitterly disappointing for the hope of reform by democratic innovations, and there is no evidence they constitute a better form of governance than communism. 

The neoliberal obsession with profit has led to a climate where justice is neglected. If we are to improve democratic outcomes in periphery states we need to abandon the idea that the answers lie within the free market system. We need to develop a citizen-oriented approach which takes participation in policy seriously and devolves power from the cartel state to the public. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Megan Sherman is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In late 2021 and early 2022, teachers were mandated to take COVID-19 vaccines. There have been so many sudden deaths of teachers, I’ve had to split them up. 

March 31, 2023 – Aubrey, TX – 43 year old Teacher & girls soccer coach at Braswell High School Jeff Miller died unexpectedly in his sleep early morning (click here).

March 27, 2023 – 51 year old Katherine Elizabeth Morrison, professor of Health and Wellness at Curry College in Milton, MA, died suddenly, fully COVID-19 vaccinated (allegedly from complications of diabetes).

March 26, 2023 – Davao City, Philippines – 49 year old swimming teacher Jerry Kasim, died suddenly from a cardiac arrest during swimming portion of Alveo Ironman 70.3 (click here).

March 25, 2023 – Mesick, MI – 46 year old Sarah Esper, math teacher at Mesick High School, had cardiac arrest watching high school basketball state finals. (click here)

March 24, 2023 – Udine, Italy – 40 year old computer engineer and teacher Philip Morocutti died suddenly in his sleep. His mother found him dead in bed. He taught Telecommunications and Aeronautics at universities in Udine and Trieste.

March 23, 2023 – Geneva, NY – 51 year old Lawrence “Larry” Guererri, football Coach of Geneva football team, died unexpectedly.

March 21, 2023 – Brentwood, TN – 32 year old 5th grade teacher at Pembroke Elementary School, Kelsey Holder, died suddenly with her stillborn baby.

March 21, 2023 – Weirsdale, FL – 31 year old John Gibb, English teacher at Lake Weir High School had a medical episode while driving, he crashed & died in the hospital.

March 17, 2023 – Sudbury, ON – 37 year old Sarah Mann, professor & writer at Laurentian University pursuing a PhD in Human Studies, died unexpectedly in her sleep.

March 15, 2023 – 52 year old Brent Emmart, Clarke County High School head boys’ basketball coach died suddenly due to a medical emergency. (click here)

March 10, 2023 – Waukegan, IL – 25 year old Kaitlin Schaumberger, 2nd grade teacher at Oakdale Elementary School died suddenly due to “complications of COVID and pneumonia” (click here).

March 7, 2023 – Sandy Springs, GA – 38 year old Kimberly Bonner, 7th grade special ed. teacher, died unexpectedly.

March 6, 2023 – UK – Steve Hutchinson, teacher at De La Salle School in Basildon, died after collapsing on school’s playground before school gate opened. (click here)

April 5, 2023 – Alto, MI – 56 year old Heidi Greer, Alto Elementary School 3rd grade teacher, died suddenly after a several month battle with myocarditis (click here).

My Take…

All COVID-19 mRNA vaccine mandated professions are now seeing 550% increase in disabilities and 40% excess mortality (Source: Ed Dowd)

Looking at these 14 tragic deaths of teachers, ages 25 to 56:

• 3 died in their sleep
• 4 collapsed with cardiac arrest (1 while driving, 1 while swimming in an Ironman, 1 while watching school basketball game, 1 on school playground)
• 1 died of cardiac injury (myocarditis)
• 3 sudden deaths (cause not specified)
• 1 died with her stillborn baby
• 1 died from complications of diabetes
• 1 died from immune damage (COVID pneumonia)

This is an expected pattern of causes of death for a COVID-19 vaccinated population.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

---

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

July 16, 2023 – A small plane, 2006 Piper Meridian enroute from Westchester, NY crashed near runway at Martha’s Vineyard Airport around 3:15pm (click here).

Preliminary investigation indicates that the “79 year old male pilot suffered a medical emergency upon final approach”.

The passenger, a Connecticut woman, took control of the aircraft, a 2006 Piper Meridian, and attempted to land the plane but crashed outside the runway.

The aircraft’s left wing broke in half and the two people on board were taken to a local hospital.

Police said the pilot was flown by helicopter to a Boston hospital. He is in serious life-threatening condition. The passenger (a 68 year old woman) was not injured and was evaluated at Martha’s Vineyard Hospital before being released.

My Take…

This is an incredible story that has not gotten any media attention. Even though the pilot is in advanced age, there are several lessons here:

1. In the COVID-19 vaccine era, no plane should fly with only 1 pilot, especially small planes.
2. Passengers must be aware that they may be called upon to land a plane, given how frequent pilot incapacitations have become (due to COVID-19 vaccine injuries). Those who fly frequently may want to look into getting some flying lessons, just in case!
3. The passenger managed to land the plane and saved both their lives. This miraculous story should be getting much more mainstream attention than it has.

Recent Pilot Deaths

Pilot death – May 2023 – 4 Singapore Airlines pilots died suddenly in May 2023

Pilot death – May 9, 2023 – United Airlines and US Air Force Pilot Lt. Col. Michael Fugett, age 46, died unexpectedly at his home

Pilot death – May 3, 2023 – Air Transat and Air Canada Pilot Eddy Vorperian, age 48, died suddenly during layover in Croatia

Pilot death – April 13, 2023 – Phil Thomas, graduate of Flight Training Pilot academy in Cadiz, Spain (FTEJerez) died suddenly.

Pilot death – March 17, 2023 – 39 year old Westjet Pilot Benjamin Paul Vige died suddenly in Calgary

Pilot death – March 11, 2023 – British Airways pilot died of heart attack in crew hotel in Cairo before a Cairo to London flight (name & age not released)

Other Recent Pilot Incapacitations In-flight 

Jun.7, 2023 – Air Canada Flight ACA692 (YYZ-YYT) Toronto to St. John’s, First Officer became incapacitated, deadheading Captain assumed duties

Jun.4, 2023 – Cessna Citation N611VG flying Tennessee to Long Island, fighter jets spotted pilot slumped over in cockpit unconscious, plane crashed and all onboard died

May 11, 2023 – HiSKy Flight H4474 (DUB-KIV) Dublin to Chisinau (Moldova), 20 min after liftoff pilot became “unable to act”, plane diverted to Manchester

May 4, 2023 – British Charter TUI Airways Flight BY-1424 (NCL-LPA) Newcastle to Las Palmas Spain pilot became ill, plane diverted back to NCL.

April 4, 2023 – United Airlines Flight 2102 (BOI-SFO) – captain was incapacitated, first officer was only one in control of the aircraft.

March 25, 2023 – TAROM Flight RO-7673 TSR-HRG diverted to Bucharest as 30 yo pilot had chest pain, then collapsed

March 22, 2023 – Southwest Flight WN6013 LAS-CMH diverted as pilot collapsed shortly after take-off, replaced by non-Southwest pilot

March 18, 2023 – Air Transat Flight TS739 FDF-YUL first officer was incapacitated about 200NM south of Montreal

March 13, 2023 – Emirates Flight EK205 MXP-JFK diverted due to pilot illness hour and a half after take-off

March 11, 2023 – United Airlines Flight UA2007 GUA-ORD diverted due to “incapacitated pilot” who had chest pains

March 11, 2023? – British Airways (CAI-LHR) pilot collapsed in Cairo hotel and died, was scheduled to fly Airbus A321 from Cairo to London

March, 3, 2023 – Virgin Australia Flight VA-717 ADL-PER Adelaide to Perth flight was forced to make an emergency landing after First Officer suffered heart attack 30 min after departure.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from COVID Intel

---

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It is a lucky break that the Screen Actors Guild has gone on strike as it will give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky an opportunity to dust off his thespian credentials and look for a new job when the Russians eventually bring down his government. Hollywood and Las Vegas would undoubtedly compete for such a nice Jewish young man to revive his former comedy routine where he played a piano with his penis. To be sure, without disrobing, Zelensky was inevitably the star performer at the recently completed two day NATO Summit in Vilnius Lithuania on July 11^th-12^th which also featured as a speaker US President Joe Biden, who provided a certain type of context by declaring that “Russia could end this war tomorrow by…ceasing its inhumane attacks on Russia!”

Zelensky whined and strutted through the two days, complaining that instant fast-track admittance of Ukraine to the NATO alliance was his right to enable him to defeat the Russian invaders. When he was instead offered a collaborative process whereby Ukraine would be made “ready” for entry through necessary rebuilding of its military coupled with institutional reforms to combat corruption and strengthen democracy, Zelensky called the delay “absurd” and “weak” on the part of his hosts. And he did so on social media to make sure that he embarrassed everyone involved. Zelensky also did not help his cause by parading in his ratty green combat fatigues, to include his presence at the first night’s gala reception before a group photo where he was observed standing alone, being ignored by the well-dressed crowd of delegates and spouses nearby who had turned their backs on him both metaphorically and physically.

All of which did not mean that the Summit was not, at least rhetorically, a cheerleading event for the plucky Ukrainian defenders against the Russian hordes. The American delegation emphasized that Washington would be there with whatever it takes to support the Ukrainians until “the end” when the war was “won,” whatever that was intended to mean. This has been described by some in the US media as an “Israel Model” in which you supply your proteges with money and weapons before looking the other way when they actually use them “aggressively and unilaterally,” often contrary to your own interests. And NATO meanwhile was firm in its support of the demand that all Ukrainian land be returned to Kiev’s control, to include Crimea, which is a complete deal breaker if there is ever to be any possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict, so it seems that the war will go on.

Observers at the Summit opined that the consensus among participants at the meeting was to throw some scraps to Zelensky while also avoiding any commitments that would heighten the risk of escalation into a nuclear war. The decision not to jump into bed with a desperate Zelensky recognized in part that he was and is reckless and would do anything he could to provoke broadening of the war if given the ability to do so. Beyond that, most of the heads of state gathered in Vilnius recognized that, from a domestic political perspective, their respective fellow countrymen have become increasingly weary of the war as it grinds on and brings with it negative economic consequences. And there are elections coming up, not only in the United States, later this year and in 2024.

Nevertheless, Washington was certainly on top of the effort to make sure that Zelensky would have the tools and political support that he would need to start World War Three, even if it required a bit of dissimulation. Biden wrapped up his whirlwind visit to Europe in new NATO member Finland on Thursday, praising the strength of the NATO alliance and expressing his delusion that there is no possibility that Russia will win the war against Ukraine. He said, without stuttering, that “Putin’s already lost the war. Putin has a real problem. How does he move from here? What does he do?”

Many believe, in fact, that it is Russia that has already won the war and, putting the sage commentary from Biden aside, seems to know exactly what is at stake. The effort to rearm the largely destroyed Ukrainian air force with US-made nuclear capable F-16s was expedited by Summit members, an escalation that was particularly noted in Moscow where Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented in explicit terms how “Just one example of an extremely dangerous turn of events is the United States plans to transfer F-16 fighter jets to the Kiev regime. We have informed the nuclear powers, the United States, Britain and France, that Russia cannot ignore the ability of these aircraft to carry nuclear weapons. No amount of assurances will help here. In the course of combat operations, our servicemen are not going to sort out whether each particular aircraft of this type is equipped to deliver nuclear weapons or not. We will regard the very fact that the Ukrainian armed forces have such systems as a threat from the West in the nuclear sphere. The United States and its NATO satellites are creating risks of a direct armed clash with Russia, and this is fraught with catastrophic consequences. The conditions for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons are clearly defined in our military doctrine. They are well known, and I will not repeat them once again.”

And then there are the cluster munitions, promised by Biden two weeks ago after what must have been consultations with his astrologer, with at least some weapons reportedly being delivered by last Thursday. Cluster munitions are banned by over 100 countries in the world, including most of NATO’s member nations and many consider their use to be a war crime. They are particularly lethal when used in civilian areas as they disperse multiple small explosive charges over a wide area that sometimes do not detonate and kill many years later when they are encountered by accident. They were used extensively during the Vietnam War and are still killing farmers in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam itself. Ironically, the United States accused Russia of using cluster bombs last year after it invaded Ukraine, calling them an illegal weapon, but now it is handing them to a psychopath who will undoubtedly seek to use them inside Russia to create a massive escalation that he expects to bring NATO fully into the war on his side. World War Three then inevitably evolves.

Washington’s aggressive moves to arm Ukraine follow on Britain’s in recently supplying Kiev with depleted uranium shells which contaminate surrounding areas with a radioactive dust during and after use. Evidence from areas such as Fallujah in Iraq, where the US and Britain fired large numbers of these shells, suggests the contamination can include a decades-long spike in cancer and birth defects.

And then there is the final Biden gesture to bring about peace on earth which took place through a White House order issued on the day after the NATO Summit ended. It states that: “I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation Atlantic Resolve in and around the United States European Command’s area of responsibility… not to exceed 3,000 total members at any one time, of whom not more than 450 may be members of the Individual Ready Reserve, as they deem necessary, and to terminate the service of those units and members ordered to active duty.” While the numbers are not great and the language is governmentese, it is an order to send more soldiers to Europe to increase available resources for potential combat against the Russians. It may be the first of a number of such orders since NATO has reportedly assured Zelensky that the alliance would be increasing its so-called high readiness forces (ready to deploy in 30 days or less) to 300,000. Right now, the number of US troops in all of Europe is roughly 100,000 plus an estimated 100 CIA officers and some special ops personnel on the ground in Ukraine itself. One would not be surprised to learn that the first tranche of soldiers is bound for Poland, which borders Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and where there has already been a significant military build-up including troops from the 101^st Airborne and 3^rd Armored Division sent to the country for “training” last year.

There are also reports that the White House has moved B-52 bombers from their bases in the continental US to bases in Alaska closer to Russia to serve as a warning. One can only hope that somehow, some way this insanity will stop. We elect our leaders with the expectation that they will keep us safe, not engage in brinksmanship with nuclear weapons. If this is a pre-electoral ploy to re-elect Joe Biden next year by making him appear to be some kind of strong, wartime president, someone should pull the plug right now and tell Joe it is time to retire. Good going-going-gone to you Joe and whichever morons are advising you, most likely to be Antony, Jake and Victoria! You are well on the way to killing all of us for nothing!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

What if his song of 1971 “Imagine” says it all?

Here are the song’s lyrics:

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky

Imagine all the people
Livin’ for today
Ah

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine all the people
Livin’ life in peace
You

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

*

What if….

“Imagine there’s is no countries …
and the world will be as one”, and

“Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man” and

“Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…”

Is he the precursor and foundation of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, the key principles of the One World Order (OWO) philosophy, allegedly a world without borders – you will own nothing but will allegedly be happy, and everyone lives in a brotherhood of overall sharing – you will have a universal basic income (UBI) and allegedly will have all you need? It’s a pack of lies.

In contrast to The Great Reset, Lennon’s statement is a message of grassroots solidarity, democracy, peace and internationalism, precisely directed against the elites OWO…

The concepts raised by the OWO bear some similarity. While Lennon’s message emanates from the grassroots, the WEF’s proposal emanates from a “financial cabal” committed to impoverishment and depopulation. 

*

John Lennon was assassinated on the evening of 8 December 1980, in the archway of the Dakota, his residence in New York City.

While travelling in the car on the way back from The Record Studio, Lennon spoke to his wife Ono for the last time. “I said, ‘shall we go and have dinner before we go home?’” Ono recalled. “And John said, ‘No, let’s go home because I want to see Sean before he goes to sleep.’” Sean is their son.

*

What if we are living in a bubble of illusions – in a world that was planned hundred or more years ago? In a world that is now fed by lies after lies, propagated by controlled and highly paid media. And now, everything that departs the mainstream media narrative is censored.

All indications point in this direction. Bill Gates once said in an interview, paraphrased,

“… Even if I disappear tomorrow, all continues as planned for decades ahead…”

Of course, you will not find any source reference about this statement anywhere. Well-organized and well-paid “fact-checking” has eliminated all facts. Truth is poison for the evil monsters pretending running this globe.

What if the divided world – west versus east — was planned long ago, “divide to conquer”, when in truth they (almost) all pull on the same globalist string?

What if Ukraine was sacrificed for the purpose of deviating peoples’ minds from the truth with the help of the mainstream media? Therefore, they – the west – jointly put a corrupted criminal joker like Zelensky in the position of “President” into one of the world’s resource-richest countries to help destroy it for the benefit of the elite – supposedly destined to eventually mandate and control the OWO?

What if Ukraine was chosen – as it has historically been largely Europe’s bread basket — to capture one of the world’s most fertile agricultural lands, for privatization, for the benefit of a few, mainly a small but powerful financial elite? This is already happening. BlackRock is negotiating practically privatizing the country and setting up a reconstruction Trust Fund (TF), through which the financial behemoth could rake in billons if not trillions of profits, when the war ends.

The war ends when the perpetrators, the financial giants, decide to replace the mass destruction and mass killing by massive reconstruction, with the help of the TF, the usual villains such as the World Bank, IMF, regional development banks, multiple bilateral assistance, and, of course, the philanthro-capitalists.

What if the western-initiated and provoked conflict Ukraine vs. Russia – never winnable for Ukraine, clearly known to the perpetrators – was the result of longhand planning, potentially way back to at least WWI – or before – for the then emerging world hegemon to take control of this vast and resources rich territory?

What if the endeavor failed with two world wars, but the wannabe emperor has created NATO a war force with a total of 31 allied warrior countries which all agreed, including the corrupted Ukraine leadership, to embark on proxy-war sacrificing the Ukrainian population?

What if the steady onslaught of NATO provocation on Russia may trigger a nuclear WWIII?

What if the recent NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, was but a thinly veiled free-pass for launching a nuclear WWIII?

What if such a nuclear war was intent in causing a regime change, to submit Russia to western political and financial powers – à la Boris Yeltsin, after the fall of the Soviet Union — to finally exploit the riches of this enormous and wonderful country and at the same time reach a key objective of the newly to emerge OWO, a drastically reduced world population?

What if globalization is and has been dismantling basic food production, agriculture, at least since the 1980’s or before? In the 1990, the Rockefellers and World Bank imposed on India (and other countries around the globe) the Green Revolution with GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The resulting huge debt in India caused 400,000 Indian farmers to commit suicide and highly indebted India had to be helped with – again – WB granted so-called Structural Adjustment loans – more debt – debt that to this day enslaves India to the globalist agenda. “The new colonialism – expropriation of life”. See this by Vandana Shiva.

What if the 3,000 Dutch farms being eliminated, green-lighted by the European Union (EU), are to help bringing about a holocaust of famine and death? Similar to India and everywhere in the world – globalization commands the decimation of world population by any means, to leave the abundance of generous Mother Earth to a few globalist elites plus the corrupted world leaders and heads of those institutions cum instruments, playing along, the UN, World Bank, IMF, WHO, WEF and many more.

The people in the Netherlands are not even asked or considered. Holland is the second largest agricultural exporter in the world. In the name of guarding against “climate change,” this move towards more famine, more deaths by famine and misery, is an important step in the Gates / Rockefeller eugenist agenda. See this “EU has just okayed 3000 Dutch farms to be seized” (20 May 2023).

What if our minds are being impacted through a longstanding series of programs aimed at manipulating public opinion through intelligence agencies, think tanks, corporate media and a host of non-governmental organizations designed to engender fear, division, and uncertainty in the public. The Tavistock Institute for Social Manipulation is most certainly a key instrument for keeping most people on a track of lies – and comfortably happy.

What if unwittingly, China a socialist multi-polar proponent, offers western globalist powers that be – United Nations, World Economic Forum, and World Health Organization – a blueprint for the western cabal’s evil globalist plan? Bill Gates is often visiting China for discussions with high-level officials, and China has been hosting for the last 14 years a WEF Conference, they call the “Davos of China.”

What if the Big Plan towards OWO, where nobody owns anything but everybody is happy, has three major pillars which are right now being played out in full swing, with most people being propaganda-lie, alias “Tavistock-blinded”?

What if these three pillars could be described as

• Fear for life through fake plandemics followed by coerced campaigns of killer vaxxes of different kinds – causing eventually hundreds of millions, if not billions of deaths?
• Fake climate change narratives that rely on highly sophisticated ENMOD and HAARP technologies that can bring about extreme, crop destructive drought-inducing heatwaves in rapid interchange with enormous flash flood infrastructure and life annihilating tornados, thunderstorms and never-before-seen Monsoon rains? (ENMOD = Environmental Modification; HAARP = High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, linked to the US Air Force, alias Pentagon)?
• Digitization and absolute control of everything, including the human brain – transformation of humans to transhumans, and digitally controlled money, where an individual’s behavior record would be linked to his bank account?

What if the entire universe, including our Blue Planet and its inhabitants, are run by unlimited amounts of energy? All sentient lives, and especially as humans, we are beings of spirit and energy, and as such our lives and evolution are dynamic.

Life is not material but dynamic. Therefore, digitization based on linearism applied to any form of life, one of the Death Cult’s goals – transhumanism, robotization, is against the laws of nature and will not work. We must not allow Artificial Intelligence (AI) to progress to a point where it destroys life on earth, and with it, our civilization.

Sounds alarmist? According to many now freely-speaking scientists in the matter, including Elon Musk, a pioneer of 5G, digitization and AI, we may be closer than we think – to the point of no return.

*

Summarizing, based on a German “apolut” publication of 14 July 2023.

What if gigantic corporatism, including Big Pharma and Big Finance run the world?

“The belief in deadly viruses alone possesses such power through mass panic-stricken people that such madness is possible and feasible at all? Philanthrocapitalism [Gates, Rockefeller, Soros et al] is a money printing machine and, thus, an enormous power potential. Many of these super-rich [philanthropists] use similar logistical constructs to assert themselves as global players in world power fantasies. And there will be more and more, should there not be an awakening to these rampant monster-makers.

“LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, (questioning), intersex, asexual, and (agender)) – is such a monster, gender has been converted into a monster, the proxy war in Ukraine is such a monster. To declare the inflation of minimal realities into a mass phenomenon is their skill. Fear mongering and religious delusion is their toolbox. The commodity they create for themselves is “us”, the mass human being. Each of these monster-makers wants to create their normality through us, so that their philanthrocapital grows.

“If we do not stop the realization of their ideas, no one will. Because those who could and even should, do not do it, because they pick up the crumbs that fall off. In the meantime, a whole political caste has emerged, worldwide, that can only think and act in such categories. This class thinks that what they do is perfectly normal politics. They have been selected and trained that way, by the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL).

The WEF is the new fascism-maker. This time worldwide. The WEF is the fertile womb from which a flood of tyrants and bullies is crawling. One would like to quote Bert Brecht into today. Here the original: “That one (meaning Adolf Hitler) once almost ruled the world. The peoples became his masters. However, I did not want you to triumph already: The womb, from which this [Hitler and fascism] crawled, is still fertile;” wrote Brecht in his War Primer.”

“In recent times, this fertile womb has not given birth to a new Hitler. But what intends to crawl out of it in droves is, in today’s somewhat exaggerated sense, brown necromancy.”

See quote from “apolut“ 14 July 2023 in German, translated by DeepL. For full “apolut” video and text, see this (in German) .

*

What if the final escape from an ever-tightening grip around the world populace’s neck is exiting the entire UN system, especially the Big Finance-corrupted political UN body and its sub-tyrants, like WHO, as well as the European Union – Washington’s vassal organization – and create new social adherence organizations, for cohabitation in Peace and Harmony outside the tyrannical and deadly Matrix?

What if this were THE PROJECT for an ever more spiritually awakening population? The world currently counts with more than 200 countries and territories but only 193 are members of the UN so, exit must be possible. There is no international obligation, no international law to remain a UN member. Not even the rules-based order can reign over an unwilling population.

“Imagine all the people,
Livin’ life in peace” …

John Lennon’s vision is our vision, because, We the People, decide our own sovereign and peaceful destiny?

Video. “Imagine All the People”. Start Video at 5’40”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This was originally published in March 2022.

A the March 2022 gathering of US congressmen to hear the words of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened the event by crying out, “Slava Ukraini”—“Glory to Ukraine”—no less than five times. This expression has become popular in Washington, London, and elsewhere as of late, with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also bellowing out the cry in a session of the House of Commons and on Twitter.

American President Joe Biden, while not yet tackling the two Ukrainian words, claims at every moment that the more than one billion dollars’ worth of armaments he has poured into Ukraine—enough for every citizen to kill every other multiple times over—is to defend the “freedom” and “dignity” of that nation.

The origins of the term “Slava Ukraini” reveal something about the real relationship of the US and NATO to Ukraine’s working masses of all ethnicities and linguistic groups—Russian, Ukrainian, Jewish, Polish, etc. As biographer Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe explains in his book about Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, “Slava Ukraini” was part of the salute delivered by members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which were collectively responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of Soviets, Jews and Poles during World War II.

Neither the United States nor the EU nor any of their related institutions care now or have ever cared about the people of Ukraine, much less their liberty. Even as they have been using the country as a cat’s paw in their battle with Russia—as a result of which massive amounts of firepower are making their way into the hands of today’s Ukrainian fascists, and parts of the country are being blown to bits—the US and the EU have been economically strangling the Ukrainian people for decades.

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn (R) greets Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovich (L) at the IMF Headquarters April 12, 2010 in Washington, DC. [Photo: International Monetary Fund, Stephen Jaffe]

As measured by GDP per capita, Ukraine, with its 44.13 million inhabitants, is the poorest or second poorest country in Europe. It competes with Moldova, with about 2.6 million people, for these inauspicious titles.

The bottom 50 percent of Ukraine’s population gets just 22.6 percent of all the country’s income and 5.7 percent of its wealth. The top 10 percent own nearly 60 percent of Ukraine’s net personal assets, according to the World Inequality Database, a publication put out under the directorship of three of the globe’s leading specialists in inequality—Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman. In 2018, Ukrainian households’ average net savings stood at minus $245.

The median household income in Ukraine is around $4,400 a year, about on par with that of Iran, whose economy has been operating under crushing sanctions for years. The average wage in Ukraine is estimated to be just €330 a month, and the state-mandated minimum a worker can be paid is €144. According to the Ukrainian government, an individual ought to be able to survive on less than half that amount, as the subsistence minimum is €64. Retirees who are at the bottom rung of the pension scale take home €50 a month.

The country’s Institute of Sociology reports that the typical Ukrainian family spends 47 percent of its total income on food and another 32 percent on utility bills. In 2016, nearly 60 percent of people were poor according to government standards, including 60 percent of kids. That poverty rate dropped to “only” 37.8 percent in 2019. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization found that in 2020 15.9 percent of Ukrainian children under 5 were malnourished, and in 2019 17.7 percent of women of reproductive age were anemic, a condition caused by lack of iron in the diet. That number has been steadily rising since 2004. Twenty-four percent of the population is obese.

Between 2014 and 2019, the birthrate fell by 19.4 percent. Ukraine’s mortality rate is extremely high—14.7 per 1,000 people. It is well above that of many countries in Africa, the poorest continent on the globe. Its suicide rate, according to the World Bank, ranks 11th in the world. With deaths outstripping births by more than two to one and hundreds of thousands emigrating annually in search of anything better, the country’s population has shrunk every year since 1993. There are 8 million fewer Ukrainian citizens today than there were 30 years ago.

One could go on. Apart from the super-rich and a narrow layer of middle and upper-middle class people concentrated in the major cities, Ukraine is a sea of deprivation.

This is a direct outcome of economic policies imposed on the country by the very states that today parade around declaring their love for Ukraine. In an immediate sense, the current situation has its roots in the 2014 US-backed coup that brought to power a government in Kiev that immediately signed an association agreement with the EU requiring it to implement severe austerity measures. But it has even deeper roots.

The social and economic disaster in that country can be traced back to the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and the restoration of capitalism in all of the newly independent nation states, which saw their full integration into global financial and trade networks. Through a series of policies collectively known as “shock therapy”—worked out in close collaboration with Western advisers—nationalized property was transferred to private hands. Former Communist Party officials and their children, economic managers and directors of major Soviet factories and sections of industry, as well as criminal elements active in the shadow economy, won out at the expense of the working masses, through a combination of outright theft and bargain basement fire sales of Soviet resources.

Out of this wrecking operation, competing factions of big business emerged in Ukraine that were centered in Donetsk in the east and Dnipropetrovsk to its west, with coal mining and processing, energy production and transit, and metallurgy being their main sources of wealth. Banking and media empires emerged, and new sources of profits were soon realized in consumer products and agriculture.

The ranks of Ukraine’s billionaires began to grow from this period forward—Victor Pinchuk ($1.9 billion), Renat Akhmetov ($7.6 billion), Igor Kolomoyskyy ($1.8 billion), Henadiy Boholyubov ($1.1 billion), Petro Poroshenko ($1.6 billion), Vadim Novinsky ($1.4 billion), and on. For decades, Ukrainian politics has been consumed by conflicts, alliances, splits in alliances, and warring among them, which have intersected with the question as to whether the country would be pulled into closer economic relations with Europe, maintain its strong ties with Russia, or somehow manage the two simultaneously. The warfare has unfolded as geopolitical tensions between Washington and Moscow have grown, with Ukraine understood as a key zone of competition.

During the 1990s, even as great sums were being accumulated at one end of the spectrum, Ukraine’s economy was in free-fall. With per capita GDP declining by 8.4 percent between 1993 and 1999, its economy was among the worst of any European country. Inflation was at times completely out of control, reaching an annual high of around 376 percent in 1995, thereby wiping out the savings and spending power of Ukrainian workers early in the process of market restoration.

“Many young people, who lacked alternatives in the early 1990s, joined gangs and were used as pawns in the process of accumulation by criminals,” observes political economist Yuliya Yurchenko in her 2018 book Ukraine and the Empire of Capital, with warfare between competing business clans producing at times bodies in the streets. A two-and-a-half fold increase in crime between 1988 and 1997 was largely driven by various forms of “theft, robbery, swindling, and extortion” and “bribe taking, counterfeiting, and trading in narcotics,” she notes.

During this time, Ukraine received 10 loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, in the start of what would be a near-constant process of borrowing from international financial institutions over the course of the 2000s and 2010s. The terms of the loans have centered around a 1994 “Memorandum on Questions of Economic Policy and Strategy” signed by Ukraine and the IMF that, in the words of Yurchenko, “effectively limited Ukraine’s government decision-making power.”

Agreements with other international financial institutions, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, drafted on the principle of cross-conditionality—i.e., creditors set terms that coincide and reinforce one another—established similar limits. The noose around the loan recipients’ neck tightens in multiple directions.

Lenders demanded that the government in Kiev end policies that created obstacles for foreign trade, eliminate price regulations, reduce the state budget deficit, cut subsidies to “unproductive” industries, make manufacturing outlets more competitive by modernizing their plants and laying off workers, privatize more state-owned property, cut budgetary expenditures by targeting social programs and pensions, and impose value-added taxes such that the collection of money from sales would fall more heavily on consumers as opposed to business.

While these processes have accelerated and/or slowed down at times depending on whether the administration in Kiev has been more US- or more Russian-allied, every Ukrainian government has been a partner in implementing the demands of global capital. Having emerged out of the ashes of the great barbeque that was the breakup of the Soviet Union, the ruling class of Ukraine is a comprador class in the most complete sense of the term.

In 1998, for instance, Ukraine’s parliament granted President Leonid Kuchma the authority to impose a 30 percent reduction in government expenditures. This was done because the IMF told the country to do so. “In addition to meeting fiscal and monetary targets, the government must pass legislation on privatisation, tax reform, energy and agricultural sector restructuring, and flushing out its massive ‘shadow economy,’” observed an August 1998 article in the Financial Times.

“The reforms,” writes Yurchenko, “created mutually reinforcing negative effect on the economy by opening up outdated industry for competition with foreign transnational corporations and by reducing financial state support for enterprises and citizenry thus making the latter poorer and the former even less competitive with expected negative aggregate consumption and potential revenue drop.”

Ukraine’s debt continued to balloon over the course of the coming years, increasing from $10 billion in the period from 1997-2002 to $100 billion in 2008-2009, the equivalent of more than 56 percent of the country’s GDP and more than double the total value of all its exports at that time. While it has fluctuated in recent years, it is basically at the same level today as it was a decade ago. As a result, Ukraine has ended up in a constant cycle of indebtedness, careening at times towards default due to broader crises in the world economy, such as the 2008-2009 crash.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Eight decades ago it was not only in Russia and the Asia-Pacific areas, during the middle years of the Second World War (1942–43), that witnessed the decisive decline in the strength of the Axis powers, principally Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Italy.

By 1942 the struggle for supremacy in North Africa was entering its critical latter stages. German dictator Adolf Hitler believed that North Africa, by itself, was not of paramount importance in safeguarding Nazi Germany’s war objectives. All the same, Hitler felt it had been necessary to secure a German presence on the African continent in order to bolster the Italian troops already there, to increase Axis influence over the nearby Mediterranean Sea, and to protect the German and Italian flanks from the possibility of an Anglo-American landing.

Continued Axis military involvement in North Africa also tied down a number of Allied divisions. On 3 February 1941, Lieutenant-General Erwin Rommel was appointed by Hitler as the commander of German forces (Deutschland Afrika Korps) in North Africa.

The first Wehrmacht soldiers arrived in North Africa in mid-February 1941 where they landed in Libya. Rommel himself arrived in Libya on 12 February 1941, having flown in a Junkers Ju 52 transport airplane. According to Desmond Young, a British Army officer and writer, Rommel was “the perfect fighting animal: cold, cunning, ruthless, untiring, quick of decision and incredibly brave”.

Like many military commanders Rommel had naive political instincts, but he had been acquainted with Hitler for years having first met him in late September 1934. Rommel supported Hitler and welcomed the Nazi takeover of power in Germany, with the terrible consequences that followed. It is telling that Rommel experienced such good personal relations with Hitler.

At the end of 1941 the British authorities thought that Rommel was finished (Mitcham, p. 181). As a result, the British were building up their forces with the goal of taking the Libyan capital city, Tripoli, which was under Italian control. This belief of the British in late 1941 –that Rommel was on the way out – had been due to the Allied victory in their winter offensive, titled Operation Crusader, which began in mid-November 1941, with the fighting occurring in north-eastern Libya across the border into Egypt.

Rommel, along with his Italian partners under the command of their 65-year-old General Ettore Bastico, had between them 395 tanks. Out of the Axis total, 146 of the tanks were Italian vehicles. A considerable proportion of the Italian tanks were in some state of disrepair, partly because they had driven many more miles than the German panzers due to the longer Italian presence in Africa. The 395 Axis tanks were up against the 748 tanks of the British 8th Army (Lieutenant-General Neil Ritchie), assisted by their allies such as the Indians, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders and Poles.

Author Samuel W. Mitcham, who largely focuses on the Nazi regime, wrote,

“Operation Crusader lasted from November 18 to December 7, 1941, and was one of the most confusing battles of the Second World War. The British 8th Army attacked Rommel with 5 motorized infantry divisions and an armored division, plus 3 armored and 2 motorized brigades… Rommel still managed to defeat the initial attacks, but lost the battle when he became too impressed with his local successes, and led a fruitless raid into Egypt with the Afrika Korps, giving the British time to recover. Allied losses were much heavier until this point, but the Siege of Tobruk was broken on December 5, after 242 days. Three days later Rommel retreated from Cyrenaica [eastern Libya], having lost all but 26 of his panzers”. (Mitcham, p. 181)

In early January 1942, a German naval convoy carrying dozens of panzers and large amounts of arms, ammunition and other military hardware, successfully sailed past British-controlled Malta off the south coast of Sicily, and reached Tripolitania on Libya’s Mediterranean coast.

The above operation was possible chiefly because of the actions of the Luftwaffe’s 2nd Air Fleet, overseen by Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, which was raining down bombs on Malta in an attempt to neutralise the strategically important island. By this point Malta was in disarray.

On 21 January 1942 Rommel ordered the Axis forces to advance across northern Libya, where they struck the unprepared Allied defenders in the British assembly areas. The Allied troops were caught by surprise and stretched too thinly, fighting at the end of a long communications line (Goodspeed, p. 424). The British 201st Guards Brigade was overrun by the Axis tanks, as was half of the British 1st Armoured Division.

These worrying developments persuaded the British 8th Army to relinquish Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, and which rests on the Mediterranean. Benghazi was captured by the German and Italian soldiers on 29 January 1942.

The following day Rommel was promoted to Colonel-General by an appreciative Hitler, and the Afrika Korps was upgraded to become the Panzer Army Afrika. Rommel, who was earning the nickname “the Desert Fox” by friend and foe, maintained his pursuit of the enemy units, chasing them further east of Benghazi to the Gazala Line in far north-eastern Libya. Here the Axis troops had to halt because of a severe shortage of supplies. In the immediate ensuing months a lull came over the fighting in North Africa, as both the Axis and Allied soldiers amassed their military equipment for the next offensive.

Rommel was becoming pressed for time and, as usual, he would strike first. He now had 333 panzers, while Bastico possessed 228 tanks, for a combined Axis total of 561 tanks (Goodspeed, pp. 424-425). Bastico, with the title of Commander-in-Chief of all Axis forces in North Africa since 19 July 1941, was technically Rommel’s superior; but the German general enjoyed significantly more influence in North Africa than Bastico. In part this was because the German armoured presence had grown larger than its Italian ally.

The two men also did not get on well, and Rommel often undermined Bastico’s authority by ungraciously ignoring his orders, or completely bypassing him. Rommel and Bastico regularly disagreed on military topics; Rommel was a risk-taker, Bastico was a more cautious and pragmatic officer.

With the new Axis offensive about to start towards the end of May 1942, the 561 German and Italian tanks were in opposition to an Allied tank force of 900. Worse again for the Axis troops, the Allied divisions had 10 times more armoured cars than them, 37.5% more artillery and 8% more aircraft (Mitcham, p. 182). The odds clearly favoured the Allies, or anyway should have.

Rommel launched his assault on the Gazala Line on the night of 26 May 1942, when there was a full moon and clear skies, and so began the Battle of Gazala (26 May–21 June 1942). The main Axis thrust was directed towards the desert flank in the south, accompanied by a deception attack further north. General Claude Auchinleck, the British Commander-in-Chief Middle East, had anticipated the Axis move and he advised Neil Ritchie, commander of the British 8th Army, as to what method of attack Rommel would choose.

The 57-year-old Auchinleck informed Ritchie to keep his superior armoured forces concentrated together for a counterblow, rather than stretching them over a broad area. Ritchie, believing he knew better than the more senior ranked Auchinleck, disregarded the older man’s advice and dispersed his armour (Goodspeed, p. 425). Ritchie’s positioning of his forces must have pleased Rommel and Bastico a great deal.

Because of these weaknesses in the Allied defence the Axis armour, kept closely together, was able to smash through the Gazala Line, despite it being quite heavily mined, and they subsequently outfought the Allies. Regardless, Rommel had advanced to such a depth that he put his troops in danger of being cut off and encircled. Recognising the threat in time Rommel skilfully extricated his soldiers from a potential trap, by outmaneuvering the enemy and inflicting heavy losses on them.

Following this Rommel temporarily went on the defensive, gathering his panzers behind the Gazala Line in a formidable rearguard position. On 4 June 1942, Ritchie sent in a poorly co-ordinated attack against the Axis forces. The Allied attack failed terribly. By now American armoured units, equipped with M3 medium tanks, had entered the battle to strengthen the Allies; but the failure of Ritchie’s offensive allowed Rommel to regain the initiative.

A large-scale tank battle erupted around Knightsbridge, in the far north-east of Libya, on the 12th and 13th of June 1942. The Axis tanks won a decisive victory and Ritchie decided to pull out entirely from the Gazala Line on June 14th, as the Allies started to retreat further east towards the frontiers of Egypt.

Rommel continued with the offensive eastwards and he authorised a storming attack on Tobruk, the Libyan port city. Mitcham wrote, “Hardly allowing his exhausted men a pause, the Desert Fox pursued his defeated enemies to Tobruk, which he finally captured on June 21 [1942], with a bag of 32,000 prisoners. The next day a grateful Fuehrer promoted him to field marshal”. (Mitcham, p. 182)

Compounding the disaster for the Allies, the Axis troops captured a very large quantity of supplies at Tobruk, including many hundreds of motor vehicles and huge reserves of petrol. Very little of this should have been allowed to fall into Axis hands. Tobruk harbour was almost undamaged and the German and Italian divisions had a major port under their control.

Rommel celebrated victory in the Battle of Gazala by eating pineapples from a tin, and drinking whiskey with water. He wrote to his wife, “Hitler has made me a field marshal. I would much rather he had given me one more division”. At age 50, Rommel became the youngest field marshal in the Wehrmacht. Axis casualties amounted to 6,360 during the Battle of Gazala. Allied casualties were almost 8 times higher, the majority of their personnel losses those who surrendered at Tobruk.

Meanwhile, in Italy’s capital city Rome, having been following the Italian soldiers’ progress, Benito Mussolini became most enthusiastic about the prospect of taking Egypt. The Italian leader took a plane to northern Libya, close to the Egyptian border, and he managed to procure a fine white horse. Mussolini was planning to ride his white horse in triumph through the streets of Cairo, once the capital city was taken by the Axis forces.

Mussolini’s confidence did not seem so misplaced. With Axis troops at the boundaries of Egypt, the British Mediterranean Fleet left the port city of Alexandria in northern Egypt to seek safety in the Red Sea. There was panic in Egypt among pro-Allied factions in the country. During late June 1942, the Germans and Italians proceeded to attack Egypt and they swept the Allied forces out of Mersa Matruh, on the Mediterranean. Another 6,000 Allied troops were taken prisoner.

After capturing Tobruk on June 21st, Rommel had 55 panzers remaining and Bastico had 40 tanks. Following victory at Mersa Matruh on June 29th, the Axis troops were increasingly overextended and tired. Rommel should really have paused which is what Bastico favoured doing.

Rommel felt that if he could proceed further and strike hard and quickly enough, the Axis soldiers would be able to capture Alexandria and, 120 miles south-east of Alexandria, Cairo. He hoped that in doing so they would inflict a deadly blow on the Allies. Winston Churchill had previously highlighted the importance of Egypt to the British Empire, in a war cabinet directive of 28 April 1941. “The life and honour of Great Britain depend upon the successful defence of Egypt”, the British prime minister outlined. (Goodspeed, p. 381)

Seeing the mirage of victory, Rommel steamed on ahead with another advance through Egypt. The Germans and Italians got to within 70 miles of Alexandria at the coastal town of El Alamein. During what is known as the First Battle of El Alamein (1 July–27 July 1942), on July 1st Rommel attacked on the northern half of the front at the locality of Deir el Shein, but met with unexpectedly stiff resistance there by the British 8th Army. This force was now under the leadership of Auchinleck, who removed Ritchie on June 25th (Bernard Montgomery would assume command of the British 8th Army in mid-August 1942).

Auchinleck’s troops had taken up a position from El Alamein along a line south to Alam Nazil, and just north of the Qattara Depression, which consists of extensive salt marshes and sand dunes and was impassable for heavy vehicles. Auchinleck hastily implemented a flank running east, at right angles, astride the Alam el Halfa Ridge. In the 40 mile distance between the coast at El Alamein and the Qattara Depression, Auchinleck had constructed 4 defensive localities or “boxes” positioned for all round defence.

The Axis divisions resumed attacking on the afternoon of 2 July 1942 but had no success. Another German-Italian attack was launched on July 3rd and it gained some territory at least, but the Axis forces had nearly used up all of their ammunition for heavy artillery, such as the German 88mm guns. The medium artillery which they had consisted mainly of captured British guns and shells. Auchinleck then ordered a counterattack but it was too indecisive to succeed.

For the next 3 weeks until 27 July 1942, the opposing sides struck glancing blows at each other. Historian Donald J. Goodspeed wrote, “In that time the fighting was sporadic, though often heavy – on July 21 the British lost 118 tanks to Rommel’s 3 – but neither side could gain a conclusive advantage” (Goodspeed, p. 426). Presumably quite a number of these British tanks had failed due to mechanical trouble.

The First Battle of El Alamein officially ended in stalemate. British casualties in this battle totalled 13,500, while the Axis divisions saw more than 7,000 of their troops surrender, with 10,000 killed or wounded. The 10,000 men killed/injured were not all irretrievable losses, as some of the wounded German and Italian soldiers would recover from their ailments and rejoin their units.

The inability of the Axis powers, in the high summer of 1942, to drive the Allies out of North Africa would have serious repercussions for the Axis regimes. In the second half of August 1942, the Allies landed 500,000 tons of military supplies in North Africa, compared to just 13,000 tons of Axis military equipment in the same two week period.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Geopolitica.RU.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

“[Lieutenant-General] Neil Ritchie”, History Learning

Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Hitler’s field marshals and their Battles (Leo Cooper Ltd. edition, 1 February 1988)

“General Ettore Bastico (1876-1972)”, Comando Supremo, 12 February 2019

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

“M3 General Grant [tank]”, QRH Museum

“German 88mm Artillery”, Defense Media Network, 19 August 2013

“WW2 People’s War [Qattara Depression, Account of Scots Guards], BBC, 24 June 2004

Featured image is from Geopolitica.RU

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The American people urgently need to know the true history of the war in Ukraine and its current prospects. Unfortunately, the mainstream media ––The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, MSNBC, and CNN –– have become mere mouthpieces of the government, repeating US President Joe Biden’s lies and hiding history from the public. 

Biden is again denigrating Russian President Vladimir Putin, this time accusing Putin of a “craven lust for land and power,” after declaring last year that “For God’s sake, that man [Putin] cannot stay in power.” Yet Biden is the one who is trapping Ukraine in an open-ended war by continuing to push NATO enlargement to Ukraine. He is afraid to tell the truth to the American and Ukrainian people, rejecting diplomacy, and opting instead for perpetual war.

Expanding NATO to Ukraine, which Biden has long promoted, is a U.S. gambit that has failed. The neocons, including Biden, thought from the late 1990s onward that the US could expand NATO to Ukraine (and Georgia) despite Russia’s vociferous and long-standing opposition.  They didn’t believe that Putin would actually go to war over NATO expansion.

Yet for Russia, NATO enlargement to Ukraine (and Georgia) is viewed as an existential threat to Russia’s national security, notably given Russia’s 2,000-km border with Ukraine, and Georgia’s strategic position on the eastern edge of the Black Sea.  U.S. diplomats have explained this basic reality to U.S. politicians and generals for decades, but the politicians and generals have arrogantly and crudely persisted in pushing NATO enlargement nonetheless.  

At this point, Biden knows full well that NATO enlargement to Ukraine would trigger World War III. That’s why behind the scenes Biden put NATO enlargement into low gear at the Vilnius NATO Summit. Yet rather than admit the truth – that Ukraine will not be part of NATO – Biden prevaricates, promising Ukraine’s eventual membership. In reality, he is committing Ukraine to ongoing bloodletting for no reason other than U.S. domestic politics, specifically Biden’s fear of looking weak to his political foes. (A half-century ago, Presidents Johnson and Nixon sustained the Vietnam War for essentially the same pathetic reason, and with the same lying, as the late Daniel Ellsberg brilliantly explained.)  

Ukraine can’t win. Russia is more likely than not to prevail on the battlefield, as it seems now to be doing. Yet even if Ukraine were to break through with conventional forces and NATO weaponry, Russia would escalate to nuclear war if necessary to prevent NATO in Ukraine.

Throughout his entire career, Biden has served the military-industrial complex. He has relentlessly promoted NATO enlargement and supported America’s deeply destabilizing wars of choice in Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine. He defers to generals who want more war and more “surges,” and who predict imminent victory just ahead to keep the gullible public onside.   

Moreover, Biden and his team (Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland) seem to have believed their own propaganda that Western sanctions would strangle the Russian economy, while miracle weapons such as HIMARS would defeat Russia.  And all the while, they have been telling Americans to pay no attention to Russia’s 6,000 nuclear weapons.

Ukrainian leaders have gone along with the US deception for reasons that are hard to fathom. Perhaps they believe the US, or are afraid of the US, or fear their own extremists, or simply are extremists, ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to death and injury in the naïve belief that Ukraine can defeat a nuclear superpower that regards the war as existential. Or possibly some of the Ukrainian leaders are making fortunes by skimming from the tens of billions of dollars of Western aid and arms.

The only way to save Ukraine is a negotiated peace. In a negotiated settlement, the US would agree that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine while Russia would agree to withdraw its troops. Remaining issues – Crimea, the Donbas, US and European sanctions, the future of European security arrangements – would be handled politically, not by endless war.

Russia has repeatedly tried negotiations: to try to forestall the eastward enlargement of NATO; to try to find suitable security arrangements with the US and Europe; to try to settle inter-ethnic issues in Ukraine after 2014 (the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements); to try to sustain limits on anti-ballistic missiles; and to try to end the Ukraine war in 2022 via direct negotiations with Ukraine. In all cases, the US government disdained, ignored, or blocked these attempts, often putting forward the big lie that Russia rather than the US rejects negotiations. JFK said it exactly right in 1961: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”  If only Biden would heed JFK’s enduring wisdom.

To help the public move beyond the simplistic narrative of Biden and the mainstream media, I offer a brief chronology of some key events leading to the ongoing war.

January 31, 1990. German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich-Genscher pledges to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that in the context of German reunification and disbanding of the Soviet Warsaw Pact military alliance, NATO will rule out an “expansion of its territory to the East, i.e., moving it closer to the Soviet borders.”

February 9, 1990. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III agrees with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.”

June 29-July 2, 1990. NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner tells a high-level Russian delegation that “the NATO Council and he [Woerner] are against the expansion of NATO.”

July 1, 1990. Ukrainian Rada (parliament) adopts the Declaration of State Sovereignty, in which “The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.”

August 24, 1991. Ukraine declares independence on the basis of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty, which includes the pledge of neutrality.  

Mid-1992. Bush Administration policymakers reach a secret internal consensus to expand NATO, contrary to commitments recently made to the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation.

July 8, 1997. At the Madrid NATO Summit, Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic are invited to begin NATO accession talks.

September-October, 1997. In Foreign Affairs (Sept/Oct, 1997) former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski details the timeline for NATO enlargement, with Ukraine’s negotiations provisionally to begin during 2005-2010.

March 24-June 10, 1999. NATO bombs Serbia.  Russia terms the NATO bombing “a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter.”

March 2000. Ukrainian President Kuchma declares that “there is no question of Ukraine joining NATO today since this issue is extremely complex and has many angles to it.”

June 13, 2002. The US unilaterally withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Weapons Treaty, an action which the Vice-Chair of the Russian Duma Defense Committee characterizes as an “extremely negative event of historical scale.”

November-December 2004. The “Orange Revolution” occurs in Ukraine, events that the West characterizes as a democratic revolution and the Russian government characterizes as a Western-manufactured grab for power with overt and covert US support.   

February 10, 2007. Putin strongly criticizes the U.S. attempt to create a unipolar world, backed by NATO enlargement, in a speech to the Munich Security Conference, declaring:

“I think it is obvious that NATO expansion … represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

February 1, 2008. US Ambassador to Russia William Burns sends a confidential cable to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, entitled “Nyet means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” emphasizing that “Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.”

February 18, 2008. The US recognizes Kosovo independence over heated Russian objections. The Russian Government declares that Kosovo independence violates “the sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia, the Charter of the United Nations, UNSCR 1244, the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework and the high-level Contact Group accords.”

April 3, 2008. NATO declares that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO.” Russia declares that “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.”

August 20, 2008. The US announces that it will deploy ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems in Poland, to be followed later by Romania.  Russia expresses strenuous opposition to the BMD systems.

January 28, 2014. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt plot regime change in Ukraine in a call that is intercepted and posted on YouTube on February 7, in which Nuland notes that “[Vice President] Biden’s willing” to help close the deal.

February 21, 2014. Governments of Ukraine, Poland, France, and Germany reach an Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine, calling for new elections later in the year. The far-right Right Sector and other armed groups instead demand Yanukovych’s immediate resignation, and take over government buildings. Yanukovych flees. The Parliament immediately strips the President of his powers without an impeachment process.   

February 22, 2014. The US immediately endorses the regime change.

March 16, 2014. Russia holds a referendum in Crimea that according to the Russian Government results in a large majority vote for Russian rule. On March 21, the Russian Duma votes to admit Crimea to the Russian Federation. The Russian Government draws the analogy to the Kosovo referendum. The US rejects the Crimea referendum as illegitimate.

March 18, 2014. President Putin characterizes the regime change as a coup, stating: “those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots.”

March 25, 2014. President Barack Obama mocks Russia “as a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength but out of weakness,”

February 12, 2015. Signing of Minsk II agreement. The agreement is unanimously backed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2202 on February 17, 2015. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel later acknowledges that the Minsk II agreement was designed to give time for Ukraine to strengthen its military. It was not implemented by Ukraine, and President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged that he had no intention to implement the agreement.

February 1, 2019.  The U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. Russia harshly criticizes the INF withdrawal as a “destructive” act that stoked security risks.

June 14, 2021. At the 2021 NATO Summit in Brussels, NATO reconfirms NATO’s intention to enlarge and include Ukraine: “We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance.”

September 1, 2021. The US reiterates support for Ukraine’s NATO aspirations in the “Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership.” 

December 17, 2021. Putin puts forward a draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees,” based on non-enlargement of NATO and limitations on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

January 26, 2022. The U.S. formally replies to Russia that the US and NATO will not negotiate with Russia over issues of NATO enlargement, slamming the door on a negotiated path to avoid an expansion of the war in Ukraine. The U.S. invokes NATO policy that “Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations.” In short, the US asserts that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is none of Russia’s business.

February 21, 2022. At a meeting of the Russian Security Council, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov details the U.S. refusal to negotiate:

“We received their response in late January. The assessment of this response shows that our Western colleagues are not prepared to take up our major proposals, primarily those on NATO’s eastward non-expansion. This demand was rejected with reference to the bloc’s so-called open-door policy and the freedom of each state to choose its own way of ensuring security. Neither the United States, nor the North Atlantic Alliance proposed an alternative to this key provision.”

The United States is doing everything it can to avoid the principle of indivisibility of security that we consider of fundamental importance and to which we have made many references. Deriving from it the only element that suits them – the freedom to choose alliances – they completely ignore everything else, including the key condition that reads that nobody – either in choosing alliances or regardless of them – is allowed to enhance their security at the expense of the security of others.”

February 24, 2022. In an address to the nation, President Putin declares:

“It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.”

March 16, 2022. Russia and Ukraine announce significant progress towards a peace agreement mediated by Turkey and Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. As reported in the press, the basis of the agreement includes: “a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces.”

March 28, 2022. President Zelensky publicly declares that Ukraine is ready for neutrality combined with security guarantees as part of a peace agreement with Russia. “Security guarantees and neutrality, the non-nuclear status of our state — we’re ready to do that. That’s the most important point … they started the war because of it.”

April 7, 2022. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov accuses the West of trying to derail the peace talks, claiming that Ukraine had gone back on previously agreed proposals. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett later states (on February 5, 2023) that the U.S. had blocked the pending Russia-Ukraine peace agreement. When asked if the Western powers blocked the agreement, Bennett answered: “Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.” At some point, says Bennett, the West decided “to crush Putin rather than to negotiate.”

June 4, 2023. Ukraine launches a major counter-offensive, without achieving any major success as of mid-July 2023.

July 7, 2023. Biden acknowledges that Ukraine is “running out” of 155mm artillery shells, and that the US is “running low.”

July 11, 2023. At the NATO Summit in Vilnius, the final communique reaffirms Ukraine’s future in NATO: “We fully support Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements.  Ukraine’s future is in NATO … Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance, and has made substantial progress on its reform path.”

July 13, 2023. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reiterates that Ukraine will “no doubt” join NATO when the war ends.

July 13, 2023. Putin reiterates that

“As for Ukraine’s NATO membership, as we have said many times, this obviously creates a threat to Russia’s security. In fact, the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the reason, or rather one of the reasons for the special military operation. I am certain that this would not enhance Ukraine’s security in any way either. In general, it will make the world much more vulnerable and lead to more tensions in the international arena.  So, I don’t see anything good in this. Our position is well known and has long been formulated.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Geopolitica.RU

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

AI is not only technically developing at record speed. The speed of its implementation is set to break all records too. It “used” to take 10-15 years for business and society to absorb a new IT technology. It took that long with the PC. It took that long with the internet too. With AI, forget about how long time things “used” to take.

Companies and their employees are today more ready than ever to absorb a ground-breaking new technology like AI. An article in today’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ) highlights what I refer to. See this.

Everywhere, CEOs are fully aware of the revolutionary potential of AI, they are fast learning about AI and discussing it.

Forget about the days, when CEOs had no understanding of PCs or computing.

The leaders of US companies today know that AI is going to change their business, and they are eager to take advantage of this and not fall behind competitors who act quicker. And they are involving not only their IT departments, but also the employees in all their working departments. Because employees are all also familiar with computing, and because of the ease with which AI can be used, employees’ adaptation of AI will be fast and revolutionary.

ChatGPT was only released less than 8 months ago, end of November 2022, and a whole tsunami of activity has already started throughout the US business to implement AI in the best, fastest, and most effective way. This is a very good sign. Companies are not just trying one way, but are trying several methods of experimenting and working with AI. And it’s not just “top-down”. Companies are experimenting with promising mixtures of top-initiative, employee involvement, and IT support.

Just a month ago, I had the expectation that the implementation of AI would start in 2023, and that we would start to see the transformative effects of AI in 2024 and onwards. I thought that was pretty fast, actually. But not fast enough for AI.

Reality has already surpassed expectations. We are already seeing the implementation of AI on a vast scale here mid-2023 – and we are beginning to see the transformative effects now. Already at the end of 2023, will we see the first decisive impacts of AI, especially on US business.

The effects of AI on business will not “just” be limited to computing or data handling. It will be much bigger than that. As the WSJ article demonstrates, AI is about to change the whole way businesses are structured and work. AI will not only lead to a technical revolution in effectiveness – AI will become a cultural, social, and organizational revolution as well. And fast.

The laptop and smartphone have put unprecedented computing power in the hands of every single individual. The internete and wireless connected the computing power of every individual with the big wolrd of other individuals and amounts of data. AI will now enable every individual to handle immense amounts of data in new, fast, and creative ways. At the same time, the concepts are fully in place to make sure that data going into AI are still not in the hands of those who are not entitled to have them. This gives companies and organizations the room and confidence to let every person work with AI. A lot of empowerment can thus come to employees.

This is devastating for China and Russia.

All they have are disjointed AI models on modest scale. They have no access to the large-scale AI which is being rolled out across the USA.

And they don’t even have time until somewhere in 2024 (or later) to face a USA fiercely transformed by AI. Even worse, due to their disconnectedness from the big development now happening across the USA in AI, China and Russia will not even know what hits them, when the effect reaches them in a negative way.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 on her report on arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It also started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related forms of intolerance on her reports on increasing efforts to implement international legal provisions providing protection from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and on combatting the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and related ideologies.

Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, presenting her report on arbitrary deprivation of liberty, said since 1967, Israel had detained approximately one million Palestinians in the occupied territory, including tens of thousands of children.  Currently, there were 5,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, including 160 children, and approximately 1,100 of them were detained without charge or trial.

The Special Rapporteur said the occupied Palestinian territory had been transformed as a whole into a constantly surveilled open-air prison. The occupying power framed the Palestinians as a collective incarcerable security threat, ultimately de-civilianising them, namely eroding their status as protected persons.  Israel’s unlawful carceral practices were tantamount to international crimes which warranted an urgent investigation by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.  All the more as these offences appeared to be part of a plan of ‘de-Palestinisation’ of the territory.  This threatened the existence of a people as a national cohesive group.

*

NATO Summit Aftermath

By Michael Averko, July 18, 2023

NATO didn’t completely ditch him. Zelensky clearly didn’t get what he wanted in terms of a more definitive road map for joining NATO, along with the number and specific types of weaponry he seeks.

Black Alliance for Peace Once Again Calls on the International Community to Reject U.S./U.N./CARICOM Plan for an Armed Intervention of Haiti

By Black Alliance for Peace, July 18, 2023

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) is alarmed that representatives of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) are at the forefront of the call for armed intervention in Haiti calling on Rwanda and Kenya to help lead the charge. Once again the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on the international community to reject U.S., UN, and CARICOM plans for an armed intervention in Haiti.

The Beneficiaries of U.S. Imperialism

By Eric Zuesse, July 18, 2023

NATO is expanding, and the U.S. has recently created also new military alliances to conquer ultimately China, such as AUKUS, which is a nascent version of NATO for the Pacific Ocean and the rest of Asia against China, just like the established NATO is for the Atlantic Ocean and Europe against Russia.

Truth or Consequences in the War in Ukraine. Dangerous Moment in Time, “Who Do You Trust If You Can’t Trust Those in Power?”

By Irwin Jerome, July 17, 2023

This writer recently sent out, worldwide, as a quasi-Public Service Announcement, a document titled “Scott Ritter Investigation: Agent Zelensky – Part One.” This document, at this particularly dangerous moment in time, serves as an especially prescient warning of caution to NATO as it currently deliberates Ukraine’s membership within the alliance.

Countering the WHO’s “Global Tyranny”: Launch of a New Doorway to Freedom

By Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. Meryl Nass, July 17, 2023

The implications for public health are enormous and extremely troubling. The WHO is basically laying the foundation to take control over all aspects of everyone’s lives, across the world, under the auspice of “biosecurity.”

Turbo Cancer of Salivary Glands: Tragic Story of 33-year-old Californian Woman Whose Life Was Destroyed by Three Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

By Dr. William Makis, July 17, 2023

Turbo cancer is a brand new pathophysiologic entity specific to Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Oncologists have nothing to offer in terms of treatment, because they don’t understand it. Generally speaking, you can’t treat something you have zero understanding of.

Fear and Loathing on Air Force One. Seymour Hersh

By Seymour M. Hersh, July 17, 2023

Let’s start with a silly fear but one that does signal the Democratic Party’s growing sense of panic about the 2024 Presidential election. It was expressed to me by someone with excellent party credentials: that Trump could be the Republican nominee and will select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his running mate. The strange duo will then sweep to a huge victory over a stumbling Joe Biden, and also take down many of the party’s House and Senate candidates.  

Worse Than CBDCs: Globalists Publish Plan for Worldwide “Financial Enslavement” Under “Unified Ledger”

By Mike Adams, July 17, 2023

If you thought Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) plans sounded dystopian, just wait to read the new “unified ledger” agenda released by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, known as the “bank of central banks”).

Judge Rejects Biden Administration Bid to Overturn Injunction in Social Media Censorship Case

By Michael Nevradakis, July 17, 2023

A federal judge on Monday denied a request by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to pause an injunction barring the Biden administration from a wide range of communications with social media platforms.

Western-supplied Weapons “All Burned” in Ukrainian Failed Counteroffensive – NYT

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, July 17, 2023

More and more evidence show the absolute failure of the “Ukrainian counteroffensive”. According to a major Western media outlet, around 20% of Kiev’s [NATO-supplied] weapons were destroyed by the Russian armed forces during the first two weeks of the Ukrainian counterattack. Sources believe that this military disaster led the Ukrainian authorities to “pause” the operation, given the high casualty rate.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A friend sent me this note concerning a photo taken of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during the recent NATO meeting in Vilnius:

“NATO literally turned his back on him. I didn’t think that would happen.

What do you think will happen next?”

NATO didn’t completely ditch him. Zelensky clearly didn’t get what he wanted in terms of a more definitive road map for joining NATO, along with the number and specific types of weaponry he seeks.

A consensus among some has the collective West giving the Kiev regime until the end of this year to roughly 12 months from now, to make its case on the battlefield. That stance comes across as a roundabout acknowledgement of the practical limits on opposing Russia, which appears to comparatively have more in reserve to continue the conflict if need be.

 

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the NATO Vilnius Summit. 

Another prevailing factor is US President Joseph Biden, who will still be in office within this time frame and can’t politically afford another Afghanistan scenario with a looming election. Following the recent NATO gathering, Biden said that Russian President Vladimir Putin has already lost, further digging a likely deeper hole for the former. Putting aside Biden’s neocon-neolib bluster, the Kiev regime and collective West can arguably/reasonably best expect a frozen conflict for the purpose to build up the Kiev regime. Russia will be understandably wary of such.

The Kiev regime is somewhat like a car which has become a money pit to the degree that the owner increases the thought of ditching it. For its part, Russia would like to do other things with its budget and resources. It definitely didn’t want this conflict, waiting years for a peaceful option to be honored in the form of the Minsk Accords, as well as trying to have a new security arrangement with the collective West. 

Russia views securing geopolitical stability on its border as a necessity that it can’t ignore and will successfully see enacted in one way or another, albeit with some hardship which their opponents have experienced in varying degrees as well. 

The Kiev regime and its main backers wishfully hoped for heightened civil conflict between some (definitely not all) Wagner Group personnel and the Russian armed forces. That incident dwindled with a reality giving Putin (in my opinion and that of some others) the continued greater odds of outlasting (in the role of head of state) Biden and Zelensky, as well as the current leaders in France, Germany and the UK. In turn, new leadership among the leading Western nations potentially increases the likelihood of ending the proxy war.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) is alarmed that representatives of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) are at the forefront of the call for armed intervention in Haiti calling on Rwanda and Kenya to help lead the charge. Once again the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on the international community to reject U.S., UN, and CARICOM plans for an armed intervention in Haiti. We have been consistent in our support for Haitian people who view the presence of the United Nations Integrated Office (BINUH) and the Core Group as a foreign occupation. Since 2004, they have suppressed Haiti’s independence and sovereignty. A U.S./UN-led armed foreign intervention in Haiti is not only illegitimate, but illegal. 

CARICOM has caved in to pressure from the Biden administration and now supports the US/UN plan to violently attack Haiti under the racist guise of humanitarian intervention. This stance reverses a position that many members of CARICOM held early this spring; at that time, the organization’s president and Prime Minister of Bahamas, Philip Davis, said that the Caribbean countries had no intention of sending forces to Haiti. BAP condemns CARICOM’s betrayal of the people of Haiti and their complicity in surrendering regional sovereignty to the U.S. and the Core Group’s undemocratic and imperialist aims.

And what was the argument advanced by U.S. officials concerning Haiti? We are told that the interest of the U.S. is humanitarian, that it wants to protect the Haitian people from gang violence. Yet, no mention has been made of the Haitian people’s constant call for the disbanding of the Core Group, for an arms embargo against the Haitian and U.S. elite who import guns into the country, for the end of support for Haiti’s installed puppet government, and for the deep financial crises placed on the people by the IMF-led move to remove fuel subsidies. There are no calls to build either hospitals or schools. And there are no efforts to provide asylum for the thousands of Haitians in the United States, Mexico – and the CARICOM countries themselves.

The call for an armed intervention of Haiti is not about humanitarianism. Indeed, as Erica Caines, co-coordinator of BAP’s Haiti/Americas Team, argues:

“It is an ahistorical absurdity that U.S. officials would have any concerns about the lives of the Black people of Haiti. The U.S. has one agenda, and one agenda only, and that is to maintain its hegemonic control over the peoples and territories of the Caribbean and Latin America. The real reason for the violent intervention into Haiti by the U.S. with its European allies, is to shore-up the undemocratic and illegitimate government of Ariel Henry.”

It is understandable that unprincipled servants to white power like Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the U.S. House Democrats who attended the CARICOM meeting along with the warmongering U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, would advocate for an imperialist military assault into Haiti to prop-up its unelected puppet regime. But it is a sad day for the Caribbean that a majority of the Black heads of state in CARICOM have agreed to give political cover to this white power intervention against the dignity and rights of the Haitian people. As we said in our earlier letter to CARICOM, “We call on your countries to respect Haitian sovereignty and to support the Haitian masses in their stand against the ongoing occupation of their country by foreign powers.”

BAP, once again, is also compelled to call on the representatives of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation to vote against any UNSC resolution sanctioning military force to Haiti.

In our initial communication with the representatives from Russia and China, we made it clear that, “in alignment with the wishes of the Haitian masses and their supporters, [we] absolutely stand against any foreign armed intervention in Haiti.” We further demand a stop to the unending meddling in Haitian affairs by the United States and Western powers. We hope that the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China will stand with the people of Haiti in its fight for liberation by voting NO on another military invasion to brutalize the long-suffering Haitian masses.

No to Occupation! No to Foreign Militarism! No to CARICOM Neocolonialism!

Yes to Self-Determination!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

NATO is expanding, and the U.S. has recently created also new military alliances to conquer ultimately China, such as AUKUS, which is a nascent version of NATO for the Pacific Ocean and the rest of Asia against China, just like the established NATO is for the Atlantic Ocean and Europe against Russia. In addition, the U.S. and its European vassal nations have recently stepped-up their efforts to recruit new versions of Ukraine but not on Russia’s western border (such as Ukraine is): these are instead on Russia’s southern border. America’s recruiting efforts here are to gain military access against Russia from Georgia, and also from the several “stans,” such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

The techniques that are employed are to threaten these southern Russia-bordering nations with creating “color revolutions” in them, such as was effectively done in Ukraine in the decades prior to the U.S. coup in Ukraine in February 2014 (which coup actually started the war in Ukraine). (So: if these efforts succeed, then the given nation(s) that become conquered will be taking the path that Ukraine now is experiencing.)

For example, the U.S. Department of State’s 5 February 2020 study “United States Strategy for Central Asia 2019-2025: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity (Overview)” says that “Central Asia is a geostrategic region important to United States national security interests”, though this region is actually on the opposite side of the world, far away, from the U.S., and is therefore not at all of any “national security interest” to the U.S., and these areas instead border directly on Russia — which is the actual reason why the U.S. empire now is focusing on that region: so as to ultimately become able to invade Russia entering from Russia’s southern borders and not (or no longer) only from Russia’s western borders (the newly expanded territories of NATO, which have been to Russia’s west).

A superb summary of the U.S. regime’s (via its EU vassals) intensified efforts to conquer those southern neighbors of Russia, titled “Taking a dagger to the ‘soft underbelly’: How the West has opened yet another front against Russia” was published on June 28, by George Trenin.

Taking Ukraine has been very profitable for America’s billionaires. The sales-volumes of their weapons-manufacturers such as Raytheon Corporation have soared. Even the sales-volumes of the weapons-making firms in America’s vassal nations — all of which manufacture according to the standard that its NATO sets — are booming.

Also, America’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) producers have boomed because the U.S. sanctions against Russia have squeezed out from the EU the lowest-cost energy-producer, Russia, which used to supply the cheap energy that enabled EU nations to enjoy high living-standards.

And on June 24th I headlined “Now the Pay-off Comes from Blowing Up the Nord Stream Pipeline” and reported that because of the sanctions and of the U.S.’s having blown up the two Nord Stream pipelines that were set to supply Europe and especially Germany even lower prices than before on gas,

Germany’s Government had just signed onto a 20-year contract to pay vastly higher prices to American billionaires for super-cooled liquefied and canned non-natural (fracked) canned and shipped-across-the-Atlantic “liquefied natural gas” (LNG) from Louisiana in the U.S. — an enormous contract, which will lock Germany in to the economic status of now irretrievably being a shrinking national economy and a former manufacturing giant.

Those types of benefits to the U.S., however, accrue only to the U.S. international corporations — and the mega-investors who control them — but not to the U.S. public.

What the U.S. public experience is instead 53% of all U.S. Government annually authorized spending to go to America’s military, and half of that 53% (26%) going to the armaments-sellers to the Pentagon and to the U.S. Government’s allied or vassal Governments, including to the German Government.

So, basically, this is a money-funnel from the public to the billionaires and to the rest of America’s richest 1% of the richest 1% (the richest one in ten thousand). Political ‘scientists’ call this American ‘democracy’. But if it’s democracy, then what isn’t? And what, then, would the phrase “fascist imperialism” be referring to, if not to that?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This writer recently sent out, worldwide, as a quasi-Public Service Announcement, a document titled “Scott Ritter Investigation: Agent Zelensky – Part One” This document, at this particularly dangerous moment in time, serves as an especially prescient warning of caution to NATO as it currently deliberates Ukraine’s membership within the alliance.

Scott Ritter calls the world’s attention to the underlying truths of those powers like Zelensky and others involved in the commission of the war in Ukraine, who the corporate mainstream media would prefer the general public to implicitly trust, yet know as little about as possible.

Yet the overwhelming silence received about Scott Ritter’s shocking revelations have been as frightening and alarming as the topic of his documentary about the Neo-Con’s and fascists in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NATO and throughout the Western World who don’t want the general public to ever know about what the ‘intel’, the goods, as they say, are that exist on Zelensky and all those other Neo-Nazis warmongers behind him, who continue to recklessly drive the war unswervingly towards a nuclear catastrophe with both Russia and China and, in short, the world.

This writer, as one, who from the beginning of his professional career as a ‘young Turk’ seeker-of-truth in all matters-of his life, from the very start of the current carnage of war violence in Ukraine some- 500 plus days ago, going back to 2014 and even decades longer still, is proud to count himself among the few, but growing, advocates of truth consciousness who have long admired and followed the acumen of truth-seekers like Scott Ritter, Columbia University Professor’s Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Brenner and many others who continue to speak truth-to-power about the critical geo-political realities of our time in the world.

Consciousness, or the lack thereof, is always the difference between truth and abject ignorance. With the advent of the war in Ukraine, this writer continues to be shocked beyond belief at the lack of consciousness among the general populace, even among his own immediate friends and loved ones, regarding the particulars of what caused this current war; a war that teeters so precipitously on the edge of nuclear obliteration of the human population and the natural world of our beautiful Mother Earth and all her innocent denizens. Sadly, no more wisdom, or lack thereof, remains apparent among the human population and their leaders than was manifested in WWI, WWII, or all the other wars that preceded them or since have followed.

What Is Consciousness or the Absence of It

Consciousness is a delicate, fragile thing. every human being either has or doesn’t. They either are able to independently think for themselves and always hunger for the truth in all matters of life or they don’t, and instead happily swallow whole whatever untruths, lies, propaganda and mind garbage with which those, like the evil, malicious corporate mass media, daily, second-by-second, minute by minute, tirelessly endeavors to force feed them.

Truth, like consciousness, also is a delicate, fragile thing that can be irretrievably shattered forever, in an instant, once it has been violated. Long ago, this writer, as a young optimistic idealist, who believed his president who enjoined us all to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” opted to work for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to learn more of its fundamental importance in intelligence work and how he might contribute to the greater cause. Yet, only a few months later quickly left ‘The Company’, disillusioned, once that delicate, inviolable mutual sacred bond of trust was irretrievably violated; and he knew he never again would be able to fully trust or believe again the  omnipotent powers-that-be; as was so brilliantly portrayed by the late famous Canadian actor Christopher Plummer in the movie, “Agent of Influence.”

Which leaves unanswered the simple question to every one of us at this dangerous moment in time, “Who Do You Trust If You Can’t Trust Those in Power?”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The writer Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American writer who originally was a Criminology student working in one of America’s local police departments. For decades, Irwin has sought to call world attention to problems of environmental degradation and unsustainability caused by a host of environmental-ecological-spiritual issues that exist between the conflicting world philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a spiritual odyssey among the native peoples of North America that has led to numerous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & the U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; the many violations constantly being waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul. The author and his wife are long-time residents on the North Shore of British Columbia.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The World Health Organization is laying the foundation to take control over all aspects of everyone’s lives, across the world, under the auspice of “biosecurity”

A new organization called Door to Freedom is being set up as a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely

The global cabal that is trying to seize control over the world have access to loads of capital, but they’re also using our tax dollars. The U.S. government has spent some $5 trillion on the pandemic response. Much of that money went to bribe media, hospitals, influencers, churches, medical groups and other social organizations to push the official narrative

Current laws give immunity to a lot of bad actors, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, everybody who works for the WHO and the UN, federal government employees as well as many private organizations. Vaccines and their manufacturers are also indemnified

We need to pass new laws that eliminate all of these indemnifications, so that we can retroactively take them to court for the crimes they’ve committed

*

In this video, I interview repeat guest Dr. Meryl Nass, who has a monthly podcast with journalist James Corbett on Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV. Their show is focused on the implementation of the World Health Organization’s efforts to install global tyranny with respect to health and global governance.

The implications for public health are enormous and extremely troubling. The WHO is basically laying the foundation to take control over all aspects of everyone’s lives, across the world, under the auspice of “biosecurity.”

In this interview, Nass explains how the WHO is being set up as a central governing body for the world, and what we can do to stop it. She also details the price she’s paid for taking a stand against the false COVID narrative and offering early treatment.

Sacrificial Lamb

Nass was one of the doctors who, during the COVID pandemic, offered patients early treatment in Maine and Maryland. As a result, her medical license was suspended and the medical board forced her to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Apparently, in the present era, doctors who think saving lives is more important than following unscientific medical advice created by bureaucrats is considered insanity. She comments:

“This whole pandemic, and the takeover of the world by ‘elites, (global cabal)’ has been orchestrated primarily through fear, and one thing that’s necessary is to make doctors cooperate. To do that, the best way is to scare them, and the best way to scare them is to threaten their medical licenses …

Apparently, this was not enough to stop doctors from prescribing ivermectin, and in states where it was allowed, hydroxychloroquine. These are both licensed drugs and the federal government had no legal authority to take them off the menu.

Licensed doctors could prescribe licensed drugs, as could nurse practitioners, PAs [physician’s assistants], et cetera. Neither one had a black box warning, neither one was a controlled substance. They were both safe, and they both had been used for a number of decades.

So, instead, it had to be done through the states — because states regulate medical practice in the U.S., and pharmacy practice — so, about 30 states issued either guidelines or rules to pharmacists and doctors telling them whether they could prescribe these drugs and under what circumstances.

That had happened in early 2020. In my case, the board got an anonymous complaint against me saying I was spreading misinformation — another charge that the government really needed to control people on. They couldn’t have the truth coming out about COVID, the drugs, the vaccines, and about this whole takeover.

So, they created this baloney concept of ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ and pretended that it was the law, that people who spread misinformation could be charged, and had to stop. A whole huge system was created within the federal government to surveil our online presence and go after people [who went against the narrative].

So, I was accused, initially, not of using these drugs, because I used them legally, but of spreading misinformation. And I think that the feds were looking for an excuse to really scare doctors … I was fairly well known.

So they went after me and said, ‘Not only are we investigating you, but we find, even before an investigation goes forward, even before any hearing, before the medical board even gets to see you and you get to say one word to them, we’ve decided that you are such a danger to the people of Maine, we must immediately suspend your license.’ They did that on January 12, 2022.”

Kangaroo Court

Nass has not been able to practice medicine since. Before the first hearing, the state medical board tried to get her to plea bargain and surrender her license voluntarily. She refused. By then, she was already working with CHD, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who founded CHD, offered to pay for her legal defense.

Of course, before the first hearing, they realized they couldn’t possibly take Nass to court for misinformation. After all, the First Amendment allows her to say whatever she wants. So, they dropped the misinformation charges and charged her with using medications off-label instead — only, that’s perfectly legal as well.

So, they dropped that charge, and instead argued she’d been speaking ill of the COVID vaccines. But that wasn’t a winning strategy either, because, of course, they didn’t want to defend the shots in court.

“So, basically, they went through my records and they tried to find little piddly things, like my records weren’t neat enough. I had been doing telemedicine and I hadn’t written down the vital signs for a patient, things like that,” Nass says.

“So in the hearings that have gone on so far, we’ve managed to shoot down all of those charges. There’s nothing substantive, there’s nothing left for them. In fact, the attorney general didn’t even question my last witness, who was Harvey Risch, an emeritus professor and M.D., Ph.D., from Yale, who blew apart the part-time ER doctor’s testimony that I hadn’t done things correctly.

So, that’s where we are. They don’t have a case, so what they want to do instead is drag this out forever, which will do two things that are good for them: One, prevent me from being able to say I won my case and get national attention for that, because they managed to put me in the national news when they took my license;

No. 2, they want to cost Children’s Health Defense a whole lot of money by just dragging it out, and it doesn’t cost them anything to drag it out. They’ve got the assistant attorney generals who are already working for the state managing the case.

Somebody up there is pulling the strings and figured out how to make this as painful as possible for myself and CHD. Well, I want to assure them that it’s not painful at all because we’ve had up to 180,000 people watching each hearing in real time.

CHD and Epoch Times have streamed every one, so everyone has been able to see what kind of kangaroo court this is, and the state of Maine has a black eye already. So let’s go forward. Let’s give them some more black eyes.”

Most Doctors Are Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Unfortunately, threatening a doctor’s medical license is an exceptionally effective way to ensure compliance, and an effective coercion to follow the rules even though they are wholly unlawful. The reason for this is simple economics. Most doctors owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, and unless they’re independently wealthy, they can’t afford to go into private practice.

That means they work as an employee for a hospital or big clinic, where the rules are being set by hospital administrators. In addition to that, medical education is wholly captured by Big Pharma, and has been for the last 100 years. As such, medical students are being brainwashed from Day One. On top of that, you have peer pressure.

“We’re in the middle of a war,” Nass says. “It’s a war about who gets control of people, and doctors just happened to be a necessary chess piece for them. By doing this to me and others, the state has been very successful at getting most doctors to keep their mouth shut and go along, and comply with what they want.”

Indeed, it takes enormous courage and commitment to patient welfare to buck a system that has all these built-in pressures. In my estimate, perhaps only 5% of the 1 million doctors in America took a stand against the COVID tyranny.

“More than 75% of doctors are employed by somebody else, and that means they don’t have a say,” Nass explains. “If they’re employed by a hospital, the hospital bean-counters said, ‘Look, everybody who comes in is getting remdesivir, that’s it, if they’re admitted with COVID.’ And they can’t fight back.

There was so much money involved that people who tried to fight back lost their jobs. And this was what hospitals and employers were told to do by government and so-called ethicists like Art Caplan. You fire people and then everybody else goes along. So that’s what happened.

The other thing is … you can’t expect someone to believe something if their salary depends on their not believing it. So there’s that. The peer pressure is huge, for several reasons. One is malpractice. If you don’t go along with everybody else, you are liable for malpractice if your patient doesn’t do well.

So if I give someone hydroxychloroquine for COVID and they wind up dying, I can be sued for malpractice because I wasn’t following the standard of care. But if I gave them remdesivir and they die, I was following the standard of care, and I can’t be sued for that.

These are terrible things. This means that the entire profession has been pushed — through these rules and standards — to do things wrong. And all of this was probably thought of, or even planned, long ago, so that it would be relatively easy to control all the doctors.”

The Global Takeover Is Well Underway

As noted by Nass, most of you who are paying attention will have noticed that all kinds of crazy things are now happening all at once. We were mandated to get fast-tracked “vaccines” that turned out to be both ineffective and extremely dangerous, and even though the proverbial cat is now out of the bag, government is still trying to pressure people into taking additional boosters.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized vaccine manufacturers to make a third, bivalent, version of the mRNA shot, to be rolled out in the fall in combination with the flu shots.

“Why would that be, when everyone knows that after a few weeks, [the shots] make you more susceptible to get the disease, as well as have heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, et cetera, and sudden death?” Nass asks.

We’re also facing the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and an international digital vaccine passport. We also know that the U.S. government was funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to design more lethal coronaviruses. Why did they do that? To what end?

We’ve also seen stupendous changes within our school system. Transgender ideology now trumps everything else. We’ve seen a rapid growth of online schooling and the lowering of educational standards at all levels, all while using the right pronoun has become incredibly important.

We’ve also seen a radical shift away from true environmentalism in favor of a “green” agenda that forces the poor and middle class to lower their standard of living while the wealthy profit. The fact is, the destruction of our environment and the raping of underdeveloped countries for their natural resources was done by the same globalists that now blame all of these problems on the public.

“What’s going on now is that the ‘elites’ (global cabal) have somehow gained control of enough pieces of our culture and our education system, and certainly our mass media and government, to roll out these cultural concepts and convince people of their validity,” Nass says.

“The elites have decided — they’ve got the ability now, through surveillance, through control of media and control of governments — to take over much of the world. The simplest and most legal way for them to do that, without having to fight wars, is to take over public health, and wrap the rest of the world into public health.

So public health is not just between you and your doctor. Public health now involves wild animals … They want to control the interactions of humans and wild animals.

They also want to control what happens with our livestock … so, livestock have become part of health. Ecosystems have also become part of health, and so has everything else. The name for this is ‘One Health.’

The WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) — the world organization on animal health — and the UN Environmental Program, are all pushing for these things to be part of One Health and public health.

This didn’t happen by chance. It’s a scheme … funded by the Rockefeller Foundation around 2009. Many U.S. federal agencies are supposed to be using the One Health approach. This means that health problems have to be solved with a whole committee of people, not just doctors, not just veterinarians, but you need the ecologists, the plant pathologists, the livestock people, et cetera.

Everybody has to work together. But that’s not enough. You also have to throw in the police. You also have to throw in governments and legislators and everyone else into this concept of One Health.”

As noted by Nass, One Health is already enshrined in U.S. law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), so there’s no question that U.S. agencies are all on the same track as the WHO.

Who’s Part of the Global Cabal?

In the interview, Nass goes on to name some of the organizations that are part of the global cabal that is reworking society for their own aims. Named players include the Rhodes organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and Chatham House, which is the equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.K.

All these groups, and many more, are linked to each other. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger cofounded the Trilateral Commission and was a Rhodes scholar and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Kissinger selected Klaus Schwab to create the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, and they’ve been working together ever since.

In 1993, the WEF founded a Young Global Leaders program to groom international heads of state. Today, Germany, France, Canada, Finland and other countries are led by graduates of this program.

“It’s not exactly a secret society, but Klaus Schwab and his group have managed to identify people who would go along with their program,” Nass says. “I suspect these are people who are not the most intelligent, who lack imagination and are very obedient.

Therefore, they have been convinced that climate change is a dire emergency, and that they need to take extraordinary measures to deal with it — even if they have to reduce the population, even if they have to reduce our standard of living, even if they have to impose 15-minute cities, get rid of air travel and … eat bugs.”

How the WHO Is Being Set Up as the Central Authority

As explained by Nass, from its inception in 1948, the WHO has been an organization that transferred money from wealthier countries to poorer countries to help them with health problems like tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria.

During the COVID pandemic, the WHO and diplomats from member countries decided that a comprehensive pandemic treaty was necessary. The justification was that COVID had been mismanaged, hence we need a central decision-maker.

“Of course, what was never said is that things were managed so poorly because most countries were following the WHO advice, which was absolutely awful,” Nass says.

If this pandemic treaty goes through, either a regional epidemic or global pandemic would authorize the WHO to step in and dictate how the matter should be addressed. WHO members are also working on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), which would strip member nations of their sovereignty to make health-related decisions.

And, recall that “health” is being redefined to include all aspects of life, under the already existing One Health paradigm. As Nass explains:

“What has been proposed is that either a regional director-general or the WHO director-general can simply declare a public health emergency of international concern, or the potential for a public health emergency of international concern.

Once they make that declaration, all these powers would then accrue to the director-general of the WHO, if it’s for all countries, or if it’s regional, to that regional director-general.

That person could then say, ‘OK, medicines in your country need to be shipped to this other country.’ Intellectual property on how to make vaccines need to go away. Let’s say Abbott has a vaccine to combat whatever it is. They have to now give the recipe to Rwanda so they can make that vaccine in their own country and use it for their own people.

They can close borders. The WHO director-generals could basically take control of anything. If they say, ‘Oh, people are getting this from animals,’ they can stop contact with animals, stop you eating chicken or whatever, because One Health has taken jurisdiction over ecosystems.

The entire planet is ecosystems, and that’s part of One Health. Animals and plants are also part of One Health. So, they can tell you what to eat, they can tell you where to go and where not to go. They can lock you in your home. They can put masks on you, they can mandate vaccinations — if these [IHR] amendments and the pandemic treaty are passed.

They’re still being negotiated. The final versions are not out. But we have certainly criticized and analyzed the early versions, and they will be voted on next May [2024], and could potentially go into force on a provisional basis. The treaty could go into force almost immediately.”

How These Instruments Alter the WHO’s Existing Authority

In many ways, it seems the WHO was already exercising these powers, or at least attempting to, during the COVID pandemic. So, how do these two instruments — the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty — alter their existing authority? Nass explains:

“There are existing international health regulations and they’ve been in existence since at least 1969 … Although the WHO claims that part of the IHRs that exist right now are binding, they aren’t binding. So, countries followed them, but there was no legal requirement for them to do so.

The International Health Regulations stated very clearly that the way they were to be carried out was with ‘full respect for freedom of persons’ dignity and human rights.’ In the new version that is being negotiated, they have struck that out. There is no longer a need to respect human rights, dignity or freedom of persons.

And, they have specifically said that these new regulations will be binding on countries, and countries are required to have a focal point that is required to carry them out and report back to the WHO how they’ve been carried out.

There are additional new provisions that countries are required to perform surveillance of their populations. They want you to think this is surveillance of only bacteria or surveillance of only social media, but it’s both. So, the WHO could require people to be swabbed in your country, whether or not they’re crossing a border.

Say there’s an outbreak. Everybody has to line up and get swabbed to see if they’re infected with X. And animals have to be surveilled as well, because they’re looking for pathogens that have the potential to be become pandemics. So that is supposed to happen.

Now, there’s a huge problem with that, and that is, you can always find viruses that have the potential to become pandemics … So, if you start surveilling for them, you’re going to find them, which means that would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency anytime he or she wants.

The other surveillance is they require countries to surveil their social media and mainstream media, and censor anything that goes against the public health messaging of the WHO. So this is big. This is huge.”

Is Global Tyranny an Inevitability?

While it may seem there’s no way to derail this proverbial bullet train, Nass remains optimistic. “This is a dystopian future that actually is not good for anybody. Even the people who want it are going to find it’s not good for them either,” Nass says.

Now, the global cabal that is trying to seize control have access to essentially unlimited capital. But they’re also using our tax dollars. As noted by Nass, the U.S. government has spent some $5 trillion on the pandemic response.

“That’s our money, not theirs,” she says, “and a lot of that money, most likely, went to bribe media.” Hospitals were also paid to go along with the narrative, as were celebrities, churches, medical groups and other social organizations.

“These very wealthy people do not want to spend their own money to take over the world. They want to spend our money or put us in debt. But are these expenditures justified and legal?

If we get governments of people who are responsive to normal life, we can investigate where that money went. What are these public officials doing? We can put them on trial, and we can probably even claw back a lot of this money.

Now, to do that might require some new laws, but if we had really good people in office — like Bobby Kennedy — we could potentially create the laws, very quickly, that will allow us to try government officials and others, heads of media, et cetera, if they’re doing things that are against the law.”

Why We Need New Laws

The reason we need new laws is because current laws give immunity to a lot of bad actors, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, everybody who works for the WHO and the UN, and federal government employees as well as many private organizations.

Vaccines and their manufacturers are also indemnified. We need to pass new laws that eliminate all these indemnifications, so that we can retroactively take them to court for the crimes they’ve committed.

“This whole thing goes against the principles of the Constitution, the principles of natural law. This is a dystopian nightmare that was figured out by some very clever people in public relations and in consulting groups. We know the French government paid something like €1 billion or €2 billion to McKinsey to help manage the pandemic response.

So we can identify organizations that have brought these things on us and go after them. We also need to tell our members of Congress, our parliamentarians, and legislators, we don’t want this dystopia. Government doesn’t give us rights. We have rights. We are giving government authority. Government doesn’t have authority and own us. We own the government.

We’ve been led to believe that it’s the other way around, but it isn’t. And we can fix all this. There are about 50 members of Congress already who have signed on as co-sponsors to HR79 [the WHO Withdrawal Act¹]. We need to get out of these international organizations.

The UN is trying to do something similar. The WHO was simply pulled in because there was an opportunity to gain control legally through the WHO because of the way its constitution exists, because of several Supreme Court cases, et cetera, there was an ability to use the WHO. The cabal may try to use other international organizations or other means to gain control.

But look, there’s a few thousand of them. There’s 8 billion of us. This is like a million to one. We can beat them. We don’t have to go along with any of it. If everybody says no, if the police don’t enforce, if the Army doesn’t enforce, it’s not going to happen. So people just need to realize what’s going on.”

Door to Freedom

To that end, Nass is working with a new organization called Door to Freedom. Their website, which will launch shortly, will contain all the relevant WHO and UN documents, criticisms of those documents, and both long and short explanations of what’s going on.

It’ll be a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely.

Personally, I’m skeptical about the likelihood of winning this battle through legislative efforts because this cabal has been working on this plan for decades, if not centuries. So, they already have everything buttoned up, or close to it. Perhaps someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could get it done, but it will take a small miracle to get him into office as well.

What I do hold out hope for is that public resistance will block attempts of implementation. So, the key, I think, is to educate people. Henceforth, most of the day-to-day choices you make will take the world either closer to freedom, or closer to slavery, so it’s crucial to understand where we are, where the cabal intends to take us, and how they intend to get us there.

That way, you can make decisions and take actions that will move us in the opposite direction. Door to Freedom will be able to help you understand all of that, so please bookmark doortofreedom.org, and check back regularly.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Note

¹ HR 79 WHO Withdrawal Act

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

33 year old Estelle Puccio Coplin lives in San Francisco Bay area, California. She had a bridal shower in Feb. 2022 and got married in March 2022:

By Aug. 2022, Estelle was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. How? Estelle explains in her words:

If the above post isn’t clear, Estelle was questioning whether to get the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine booster shot in March 2022 to be able to honeymoon in Bora, Bora.  

She eventually “gave into social pressure to be around family, friends, attend concerts, restaurants, go to my office, go on our honeymoon”.

The backstory starting with first two Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines is: 

In July 2022 (4 months after her Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA booster shot) she was diagnosed with ACC = Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma (salivary gland cancer), Stage 4.

What happened in 2023:

My Take… 

These are very difficult stories to write about.

An Epoch Times journalist contacted me a few days ago and she said: “Dr.Makis, you’re an expert on turbo cancers, how do COVID-19 vaccines cause turbo cancers?”

I gave her a very long answer. Once her article is published and has been given its due, I will write a substack about it.

I don’t consider myself an expert, but corrupt and incompetent Oncologists around the world won’t do their damn job, so it’s left to me to do this.

Here are the key elements and lessons of this tragic case:

• From Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot to Stage 4 cancer diagnosis was 4 months.This is a pattern that I’ve noticed in many cases, 3-4 months post jab until Stage 4 cancer diagnosis. Similar timeline as the case of 12 year old Alrence Qunitana and his post Moderna mRNA vaccine brain cancer that I wrote about (click here)
• Extensive cancer spread upon diagnosis (“started in the nasal pharynx and spread to the entire right side of my head and down my spine”) – Stage 4.
• Extremely rapid growth (“size of this tumor normally takes 10-15 years to grow”)
• Shocked oncologists (“all of the doctors and medical teams are in shock at how fast my “slow growing” cancer is growing”). These are supposed to be “experts”.
• Extremely rapid spread – her oncologists couldn’t keep up with the tumor spread which spread to the spine and paralyzed her from the waist down by March 2023
• Resistant to chemotherapy and radiation therapy – she had both. Didn’t work.
• Oncologists have nothing to offer to treat turbo cancer because they don’t understand it (“I was given the news by my doctor today that UCLA has run out of treatment options for me and that I have 2-6 months to live”.

Turbo cancer is a brand new pathophysiologic entity specific to Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Oncologists have nothing to offer in terms of treatment, because they don’t understand it.

Generally speaking, you can’t treat something you have zero understanding of.

They can’t even begin guessing at what might work.

But what is much worse, is they don’t want to understand it. They gave the mRNA poison to all their patients and took the poison themselves, then gave it to their families and recommended it to all their friends.

They sold their Hippocratic Oath, their medical ethics and their very souls.

It’s much easier to ignore the consequences, than face them with courage and humility.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

---

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Let’s start with a silly fear but one that does signal the Democratic Party’s growing sense of panic about the 2024 Presidential election. It was expressed to me by someone with excellent party credentials: that Trump could be the Republican nominee and will select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his running mate. The strange duo will then sweep to a huge victory over a stumbling Joe Biden, and also take down many of the party’s House and Senate candidates.  

As for real signs of acute Democratic anxiety: Joe Biden got what he needed before the NATO summit this week by somehow turning Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan inside out and getting him to rebuff Vladimir Putin by announcing that he would support NATO membership for Sweden. The public story for Biden’s face-saving coup was talk about agreeing to sell American F-16 fighter bombers to Turkey.

I have been told a different, secret story about Erdogan’s turnabout: Biden promised that a much-needed $11-13 billion line of credit would be extended to Turkey by the International Monetary Fund. “Biden had to have a victory and Turkey is in acute financial stress,” an official with direct knowledge of the transaction told me. Turkey lost 100,000 people in the earthquake last February, and has four million buildings to rebuild. “What could be better than Erdogan”—under Biden’s tutelage, the official asked, “finally having seen the light and realizing he is better off with NATO and Western Europe?” Reporters were told, according to the New York Times, that Biden called Erdogan while flying to Europe on Sunday. Biden’s coup, the Times reported, would enable him to say that Putin got “exactly what he did not want: an expanded, more direct NATO alliance.” There was no mention of bribery.

A June analysis by Brad W. Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations, “Turkey’s Increasing Balance Sheet Risks,” said it all in the first two sentences—Erdogan won re-election and “now has to find a way to avoid what appears to be an imminent financial crisis.” The critical fact, Setser writes, is that Turkey “is on the edge of truly running out of usable foreign exchange reserves—and facing a choice between selling its gold, an avoidable default, or swallowing the bitter pill of a complete policy reversal and possibly an IMF program.” 

Another key element of the complicated economic issues facing Turkey is that Turkey’s banks have lent so much money to the nation’s central bank that “they cannot honor their domestic dollar deposits, should Turks ever ask for the funds back.” The irony for Russia, and a reason for much anger in the Kremlin, Setser notes, is the rumor that Putin has been providing Russian gas to Erdogan on credit, and not demanding that the state gas importer pay up. Putin’s largesse has been flowing as Ergodan has been selling drones to Ukraine for use in its war against Russia. Turkey has also permitted Ukraine to ship its crops through the Black Sea.

All of this European political and economic double dealing was done openly and in plain sight. Duplicity comes much differently in the United States. 

Careful readers of the Washington Post and the New York Times can sense that the current Ukraine counter-offensive is going badly because stories about its progress, or lack thereof, have mostly disappeared from their front pages in recent weeks. 

Last week Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, called in a few journalists to insist that Putin’s squabble with Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner militia, was an armed mutiny that showed weakness in the Russian’s leader command and control of his military. There’s simply no evidence for such assertions. If anything, I was later told by those with access to current intelligence, that Putin emerged stronger than ever after the Prigozhin implosion, which led to the absorption of many of his mercenaries into the Russian army.

Sullivan also took issue with the notion—he apparently did not say where it originated—that the Biden administration was paralyzed by the threat of a Russian nuclear attack and so would not fully support Ukraine. Such views were “nonsense,” he said, and cited Biden’s recent controversial decision to provide cluster bombs to the Ukraine military. He suggested that the anti-personnel weapons—each bomb can spread hundreds of bomblets—could give Ukraine an edge in the war and prompt Putin to deploy nuclear weapons. “It is a real threat,” Sullivan said, of a nuclear bomb. “And it’s one that does evolve with changing conditions on the ground.”

The only good news about such primitive and circular thinking, I have been told, is the impossibility at this point of any significant Ukraine success. “Biden’s principal issue in the war is that he’s screwed,” the informed official told me. “We didn’t give Ukraine cluster bombs earlier in the war, but we’re giving them cluster bombs now because that’s all we got left in the cupboard. Aren’t these the bombs that are banned all over the world because they kill kids? But the Ukrainians tell us they are not planning to drop them on civilians. And then the administration claims that the Russians have used them first in the war, which is just a lie.

“In any case,” the official said, “cluster bombs have zero chance of changing the course of the war.” He said the real worry will come later this summer, perhaps as early as August, when the Russians, having easily weathered the Ukraine assault, will counter-strike with a major offensive. “What happens then? The US has painted itself in a corner by calling for NATO to do something. “Will NATO respond by sending the brigades now training in Poland and Romania on an airborne assault?” We knew more about the German army in Normandy in World War II than we know about the Russian army in Ukraine.”

I have been told of other signs of internal stress inside the Biden administration. Undersecretary of State for Policy Victoria Nuland has been “blocked” —a word used by one Democratic Party insider—from being promoted to replace the much respected Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman. Nuland’s anti-Russian politics and rhetoric matches the tone and point of view of Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken. And a newcomer to the upper reaches of the American intelligence community—CIA director Bill Burns—trumpeted his love for Biden and his intense dislike of all things Russian, including Putin, in a speech on July 1 in England.

Burns, a long-time diplomat who served as ambassador to Russia under George W. Bush as well as deputy secretary of state under Obama, had won the respect of a hard core of CIA officers and agents for his discrete handling of the nine-month planning and execution of the covert operation, approved by Biden, to destroy the Nord Steam I and II pipelines running from Russia to Germany. He was the liaison between the intelligence team operating out of Norway and the Oval Office. When he asked how much he needed to know, he accepted the CIA’s answer of “very little” with aplomb. 

Burns was also known for his warning, published in a memoir after his retirement as ambassador, that continued expansion of NATO to the east—NATO now is now on the verge of totally covering Russia’s western border—would inevitably lead to conflict. 

It was this nuance—the notion that Putin could be pushed only so far—that Burns recounted in the UK. “One thing I have learned,” he said, “is that it is always a mistake to underestimate Putin’s fixation on controlling Ukraine and its choices, without which he believes it is impossible for Russia to be a major power or him to be a great Russian leader. … Putin’s war already has been a strategic failure for Russia—its military weaknesses laid bare; its economy badly damaged for years to come; its future as a junior partner and economic colony of China being shaped by Putin’s mistakes; its revanchist ambitions blunted by a NATO which has only grown bigger and stronger.”

Biden, who is not revered throughout the CIA, as many presidents have not been, was cited repeatedly during his speech. The highly respected intelligence official explained Burns’s glowing words by telling me, cryptically, that all was in flux throughout the Biden national security bureaucracy. “Yes. Yes,” he said in a message. “Big shuffle. Big power struggle. Biden oblivious. All the ants fighting for the crumbs of a dying administration. Advised all the professionals inside to shelter in place. Wait and see the color of the smoke from the Vatican Chancellery. Explain Burns’ Kool-Aid remarks in the UK.”

I was told that Burns’s speech was essentially a job application in a future government, or perhaps in the one at hand, for secretary of state. “He was showing his competence and his experience,” the official said, “He realized that he was going down the drain, professionally, while  at the Agency. He was awful”—that is, inexperienced—“but he realized it was not going down well with the boys, and then he did right.” The key issue for Burns, I was told, as some in the CIA saw it, was ambition. “Once you are a secretary of state, the world is your oyster.”

The official remarked that “running the CIA is not that much.” He cited the example of Stansfield Turner, a retired Navy admiral who was appointed CIA director in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. Turner and Carter had been midshipmen together at the US Naval Academy. After his retirement Turner ended up giving speeches on ocean cruises.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

If you thought Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) plans sounded dystopian, just wait to read the new “unified ledger” agenda released by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, known as the “bank of central banks”).

The plan, found at this link on BIS.org, is entitled, “Blueprint for the future monetary system: improving the old, enabling the new.”

I provide a full analysis in today’s Brighteon Broadcast News video, below.

This new plan describes an Orwellian, globalist-run “unified ledger” that records the ownership of all assets (checking accounts, real estate, bonds, stocks, etc.) on a centralized exchange run by the globalists. All assets will be “tokenized,” a process that the BIS describes as, “recording claims on financial or real assets that exist on a traditional ledger on a programmable platform.”

This unified ledger will feature “programmable” entries, meaning that your ownership of assets can be revoked or altered at any time, according to the social engineering desires of the globalists. If you speak out against child sex trafficking, for example, or child trans mutilations, all your assets can vanish from the unified ledger.

That’s how you will “own nothing,” in case you were curious.

This centralized, globalist-controlled unified ledger stands in sharp contrast to cryptocurrencies which are structured on decentralized, distributed ledgers with no centrally controlled authority. Additionally, most blockchains are non-programmable and also immutable, meaning no one can go back in time and retroactively change the ledger entries for Bitcoin, for example.

Thus, it’s now abundantly clear that the western finance globalists are at war with human freedom and decentralization, and that cryptocurrencies are on the side of human freedom, self-custody and self-determination.

Brighteon.com/fbf2df0c-1b78-4734-854d-dbe682a2d727

VIDEO

Self-custody of Crypto Means Globalists Can’t Take It Away From You

What globalists want to achieve is a system of assets and finance where you never have custody of anything. When you deposit money into a bank, for example, you have no custody of that money. The bank does. And the bank can decide at any time to seize it, or freeze your account, or declare bankruptcy. A government or law enforcement agency may also order those assets seized, and the bank will readily comply.

When you hold cryptocurrency, gold or silver, on the other hand, you have custody and no one can take them from you except by force. Holding bitcoin in a crypto wallet, for example, gives you total control (and hence ownership) over those assets.

Even better, if you use a privacy coin like Monero, no one can even see how much you hold or how you spend it.

BIS Wants to “Harmonize” All Central Banks Under Centralized Globalist Control

Right from the summary of the BIS document linked above, we find out that the BIS sees its new “unified ledger” tracking all the assets issued by central banks. In other words, this is even larger than just CBDCs… it combines the assets of all central banks while also tokenizing and controlling real estate assets, stocks, bonds, pensions and anything else that can be represented through digital records:

“A new type of financial market infrastructure – a unified ledger – could capture the full benefits of tokenisation by combining central bank money, tokenised deposits and tokenised assets on a programmable platform.”

The BIS document goes on to state that all tokenized assets can be subjected to regulatory rules set by governments. These would include regulations involving speech, climate change, acceptance of LGBT narratives, conformity to vaccine demands and so on. From the paper:

“…this dual nature of tokens could be used to good effect in a supervisory and compliance setting by directly embedding supervisory features into the token itself, which can be tailored to specific rules.”

The upshot of all this is that globalists will have total control and ownership over all your assets, and those assets’ very existence will be subject to increasingly insane globalist rules about accepting propaganda lies about the climate, transgenderism, child mutilations, elections, pandemic, war, vaccines and more. If you don’t conform to their transhumanism demands, all your assets will vanish.

That’s why governments, central banks and the BIS are absolutely terrified by the idea of self-custody, where individuals maintain ownership and control over their own assets.

And that’s exactly why self-custody is the perfect answer to escape this globalist tyranny. If you want to have any assets at all, they must be assets held in self-custody.

Bank accounts are not in your custody. Nor are stocks, treasuries, bonds or almost any other investment instrument.

Real estate can be in your custody if you live on the property or can assert a physical presence at the location of the asset.

Gold and silver in your possession are obviously self-custody assets. And cryptocurrency, when held in your own wallets (with your own keys), is of course the ideal form of self-custody.

That’s why smart people are currently converting fiat currency holdings into gold, silver and crypto.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Mike Adams (aka the “Health Ranger“) is the founding editor of NaturalNews.com, a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on Amazon.com called “Food Forensics“), an environmental scientist, a patent holder for a cesium radioactive isotope elimination invention, a multiple award winner for outstanding journalism, a science news publisher and influential commentator on topics ranging from science and medicine to culture and politics.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A federal judge on Monday denied a request by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to pause an injunction barring the Biden administration from a wide range of communications with social media platforms.

Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division rejected the Biden administration’s argument that the injunction could hamper the government’s law enforcement efforts online.

He also said the DOJ failed to provide specific examples of how the injunction “would provide grave harm to the American people or our democratic processes.”

In a 13-page ruling, Doughty cited several examples of government censorship of online speech, including a Jan. 23, 2021, White House demand for the removal of a tweet by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman on leave of Children’s Health Defense.

#HankAaron's tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly closely following administration of #COVID #vaccines. He received the #Moderna vaccine on Jan. 5 to inspire other Black Americans to get the vaccine. #TheDefenderhttps://t.co/vbuHt22bJz

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 22, 2021

Doughty wrote that the plaintiffs:

“are likely to prove that all of the enjoined defendants coerced, significantly encouraged, and/or jointly participated [with] social-media companies to suppress social-media posts by American citizens that expressed opinions that were anti-COVID-19 vaccines, anti-COVID-19 lockdowns, posts that delegitimized or questioned the results of the 2020 election, and other content not subject to any exception to the First Amendment.

“These items are protected free speech and were seemingly censored because of the viewpoints they expressed.”

Responding to Monday’s ruling, Jim Hoft, founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, wrote, “Judge Doughty is a rock [who] stands firm on the First Amendment.”

🚨BREAKING: The federal district court that issued the injunction in Missouri v. Biden just denied the federal government's motions for stay, keeping the injunction in place.

This is another big win, but the fight to end the government's vast censorship enterprise continues on. pic.twitter.com/oEhoRHaVLh

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) July 10, 2023

‘Airtight Evidence’ Feds Worked with Big Tech to Censor Speech

Doughty issued the injunction on July 4 as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed in May 2022 by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana along with several medical experts and journalists, who alleged key Biden administration agencies and officials colluded with social media platforms to censor their views, which ran counter to the government’s official COVID-19 narrative.

In that ruling, Doughty said there is “substantial evidence” the government violated the First Amendment by engaging in a large-scale censorship campaign.

As part of the July 4 injunction, several federal agencies and top administration officials were temporarily prohibited from working with the companies in ways that are aimed at “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

These agencies and officials include the DOJ, FBI, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

The July 4 ruling included a carve-out for posts involving criminal activity and threats to national security.

In Monday’s decision, Doughty clarified the definition of “protected free speech,” as applicable to his July 4 order, as “speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.”

He also rejected government claims that the injunction was overbroad:

“Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears, it only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do — contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”

The DOJ filed a notice of appeal on July 5, and an instant motion to stay the following day, asking the court to stay the July 4 injunction pending appeal or issue an administrative stay for seven days.

The Biden administration claimed it faced “irreparable harm” with each day the injunction remained in effect.

In response, Missouri and Louisiana, the two states leading the lawsuit, filed a memorandum in opposition to the government’s motion on Sunday, writing:

“Evidence in this case overwhelmingly shows that the way the Government supposedly ‘prevent[s] grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes’ is to pressure and induce social-media platforms to censor disfavored viewpoints on COVID-19, elections, and other core political speech. …

“In the end, their position is fundamentally defiant toward the Court’s judgment. It demonstrates that the Government will continue violating First Amendment rights by censoring core political speech on social media as soon as it can get away with it. The motion to stay should be denied.”

In Monday’s ruling, Doughty sided with the plaintiffs. CBS News reported that following the decision, the DOJ asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to pause this order pending appeal and requested relief by July 24, claiming:

“The district court issued a universal injunction with sweeping language that could be read to prohibit (among other things) virtually any government communication directed at social-media platforms regarding content moderation …

“The court’s belief that the injunction forbids only unconstitutional conduct, while protecting the government’s lawful prerogatives, rested on a fundamentally erroneous conception of the First Amendment, and the court’s effort to tailor the injunction through a series of carveouts cured neither the injunction’s overbreadth nor its vagueness.”

In a statement following the ruling, John Burns, an attorney representing The Gateway Pundit in the lawsuit, said:

“Judge Doughty’s brief explaining his reasoning for denying the government’s baseless motion to stay appears to also directly respond to the media’s attacks on his order preventing the government from censoring speech.

“For example, a common trope from dishonest left-wing media pundits and even law professor analysts, is that there was no evidence that the government censored speech.

“Judge Doughty’s order denying the government’s request to halt the injunction goes through several examples of airtight evidence showing the feds’ deliberate efforts to work with Big Tech to censor speech.”

Government Sought to ‘Get Around’ First Amendment Protections

One of the examples cited by Doughty was a Jan. 23, 2021, email to Twitter from Clarke Humphrey, the digital director for the White House COVID-19 response team, requesting the removal of a tweet by Kennedy questioning COVID-19 vaccines. “Twitter files” released in January revealed this effort by the White House to censor Kennedy.

Doughty also cited an April 14, 2021, demand from Rob Flaherty, the deputy assistant to the president and the White House’s director of digital strategy, for the removal of a video of Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren questioning COVID-19 vaccines.

Flaherty “demanded immediate answers from Facebook” regarding the video. A few days later, Facebook reduced the Fox hosts’ visibility by 50%.

Doughty also cited several meetings Murthy had with social media companies, during which he described purported health misinformation, including posts questioning COVID-19 vaccines, as “poison,” and called on social media companies to do more to limit the reach of such content.

And he cited an Oct. 8, 2020, email from Dr. Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health, to Dr. Anthony Fauci, saying the Great Barrington Declaration — an open letter expressing “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” — needed a “quick and devastating take-down.”

Fauci responded with information “debunking” the declaration, shortly before it was censored by social media platforms. The “Twitter files” previously revealed that signatories of the declaration, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya — a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit — also were censored by social media platforms.

Doughty also cited examples of federal agencies, such as the FBI and the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency, working closely and meeting with non-government actors such as the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project — the subject of recent “Twitter files” releases — targeting social media posts questioning the prevailing 2020 election narratives and COVID-19 vaccines.

According to Doughty:

“The Election Integrity Partnership was designed ‘to get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions’ that would arise if government agencies were to monitor and flag information for censorship on social media.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

More and more evidence show the absolute failure of the “Ukrainian counteroffensive”. According to a major Western media outlet, around 20% of Kiev’s [NATO-supplied] weapons were destroyed by the Russian armed forces during the first two weeks of the Ukrainian counterattack. Sources believe that this military disaster led the Ukrainian authorities to “pause” the operation, given the high casualty rate.

The information was published on July 15 by the New York Times. The article considers the beginning of the counteroffensive to be the first half of June, when the Ukrainian armed forces launched frontline raids from Kherson to Donetsk. Unnamed American and European officials told the NYT that in the first two weeks the moves resulted in the destruction of 20% of Ukrainian armored vehicles – including those sent by the West. Earlier, Moscow had already reported 26,000 casualties among Ukrainian soldiers and 3,000 vehicles destroyed in the so-called “counteroffensive”.

Some Ukrainian special units were hit even more seriously by Russian high-precision strikes. This was the case, for example, of Ukraine’s 47th Mechanized Brigade, a NATO-trained division, which lost, according to the NYT, more than 30% of its Bradley infantry vehicles in the first half of June. Something similar happened with the 3rd Mechanized Brigade, which lost 32 German Leopard tanks in just one week.

“They [Ukrainian Western-supplied weapons, armored vehicles] all burned (…) Everybody is hoping for a big breakthrough”, a Ukrainian solider identified as “Sgt. Igor” told journalists.

The Ukrainian weakness is mainly due to the absence of air support and the high presence of Russian minefields on the frontlines. Western tanks became easy targets for Russian artillery and air force, which led to many Ukrainian casualties, thwarting Kiev’s plans to launch a major counteroffensive in the spring-summer season. In this sense, the military disaster led the Ukrainians to stop the moves and “rethink” the tactics of war to be used against the Russian forces, according to the American newspaper.

“The startling rate of losses dropped to about 10 percent in the ensuing weeks (…), preserving more of the troops and machines needed for the major offensive push that the Ukrainians say is still to come. Some of the improvement came because Ukraine changed tactics, focusing more on wearing down the Russian forces with artillery and long-range missiles than charging into enemy minefields and fire. But that good news obscures some grim realities. The losses have also slowed because the counteroffensive itself has slowed – and even halted in places – as Ukrainian soldiers struggle against Russia’s formidable defenses”, the article reads.

Apparently, Kiev is now trying to implement on the battlefield a tactic similar to the one that Russia has been using throughout the entire special military operation: eliminating enemies through artillery fire, preserving the lives of soldiers. Until now, Kiev had relied heavily on ground combat, unnecessarily losing many soldiers and equipment without making any territorial gains. The Russians, on the other hand, have always prioritized artillery and military technology, avoiding losing troops. Ukraine seems to have understood that the Russian tactic is more efficient.

The problem is that it is now too late for Kiev to seek any change in its military strategy. The Ukrainian armed forces no longer seem able to carry out any kind of relevant counterattack, as their human losses will not be easily replaced. Even though the West continues to send weapons in large numbers, the Ukrainian troops are weak, since they lost most of their well-trained special forces, having now thousands of newly recruited, poorly trained, and unexperienced soldiers.

In the same sense, the Russians continue with their strategy of preserving lives, so, given the growth of Ukrainian artillery attacks, Moscow tends both to relocate its troops to avoid casualties and to increase the number of high-precision strikes against enemy artillery units and command centers. In addition, it is necessary to remember that the Russians are using only a small percentage of their real combat force, having enough power to mobilize and replace human and material losses – something that Ukraine does not have anymore.

In fact, the news only makes clear what unbiased analysts have been saying since last year: the victory of the Russian special military operation is inevitable, and the sending of Western weapons only serves to prolong the conflict and generate more Ukrainian human losses. The failure of the “counteroffensive” was a clear example of this. It is too late for Kiev to try to change tactics or plan a new counterattack. The best thing to do is to stop being a Western proxy and negotiate with Russia about peace terms.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

During last week’s NATO Summit in Vilnius, French President Emmanuel Macron announced Paris will be sending Kiev long-range missiles while Berlin in turn promised to ship air defense systems and armored vehicles. Washington, the week before, unprecedentedly, announced that it was sending (illegal) cluster munitions to Ukraine and is expected to announce additional support pretty soon. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is not happy however and his tweet has sparked some controversy. He wrote:

“Now, on the way to Vilnius, we received signals that certain wording is being discussed without Ukraine. And I would like to emphasize that this wording is about the invitation to become NATO member, not about Ukraine’s membership. It’s unprecedented and absurd when time frame is not set neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership. While at the same time vague wording about ‘conditions’ is added even for inviting Ukraine. It seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to NATO nor to make it a member of the Alliance. This means that a window of opportunity is being left to bargain Ukraine’s membership in NATO in negotiations with Russia.” He added that such “uncertainty” is “weakness” and that he would discuss it at the summit.

Michael Birnbaum, a national security reporter for The Washington Post, wrote that, according to his sources, the Ukrainian leader’s tweet almost backfired, to the point of US officials even considering “scaling back” their “invitation” – if could even describe it as that. Toluse Olorunnipa, Washington Post’s White House Bureau Chief, and journalists Emily Rauhala and Meryl Kornfield also wrote that American delegation members were “furious” with the tweet.

Zelensky did adopt a more conciliatory tone during the summit but even so his confrontational tweet exposed tensions and fissures within the alliance. Such fissures have been evident to anyone since at least October 2022: already in August 2022, Europe even seemed to be quietly “abandoning” Kiev – although it continued nonetheless to send billions in aid and weapons.

It has once again become clear in any case that US President Joe Biden does not consider Ukraine “ready” to join the Atlantic Alliance. In his interview to CNN, he stressed: “I don’t think there is unanimity in NATO about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the NATO family now, at this moment, in the middle of a war.” He added that “it’s premature to say, to call for a vote, you know, in now, because there’s other qualifications that need to be met, including democratization and some of those issues.” Biden knows that having Kiev join the Atlantic military bloc now would amount to entering in a direct war with Moscow – Washington prefers instead to continue to wage its proxy attrition war in the Eastern European country.

Surprisingly to some, Berlin and Washinton were in agreement with a more conservative approach and both powers backed a wording for the summit’s concluding statement that does not in any way endorse an invitation for Kiev to join NATO when the conflict is over (whenever that is) and does not even provide a “pathway” to Ukraine’s future accession.

Zelensky’s declarations have long been characterized by a demanding and confrontational tone: for instance, regarding his persistent demands that Israel provides his country with air defense systems, already in October 2022 he said in an interview with French TV5 Channel that “I don’t know what happened to Israel. I am in shock, because I don’t understand why they couldn’t give us air defenses.” Such an approach has not been very successful, to say the least.

It has become clear that Kiev will not get American Iron Dome batteries due to Israel blocking the transfer, as Russo-Israeli pragmatic relations remain intact despite all Western pressures. It is quite arguable, however, whether such Western air defense systems could do Ukraine much good. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it quite clear in his recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, that Israel will continue to block any transfer of aforementioned Iron Dome batteries to Kiev. From the Jewish state’s perspective, Moscow is a great regional power, with which Tel Aviv must engage in a number of issues in the Levant and beyond; Israel and Russia have a working relationship today in Syria, and there is no reason to damage bilateral relations for Tel Aviv now.

Things are not looking too good to Zelensky, as of lately. In May, it was reported that he was being pressured by Poland and regional states such as Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Czech Republic to come to a peace deal.

In August 2022 I wrote on how the “cult of Zelensky” was already wearing off by then, with an Amnesty International’s report exposing Ukrainian violations, and PR stunts backfiring. At the time, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote that the White House did trust the Ukrainian leader and things do not seem to have improved much in that regard.

15 years ago, in 2008, NATO offered a commitment that Kiev would one day join it. This, plus a number of other Western initiatives, was one of the main causes of the 2014 crisis, and from 2022 onwards it remains so today. In July 2022 I wrote that Ukraine’s accession was currently not even in Washington’s best interests anymore, and that, ironically, when everything is said and done, Ukraine could end up not joining the Alliance at all, for the costs would be too high and thus outweigh the benefits, from the  West’s perspective. This of course would not be the first time an overburdened US abandons or betrays an ally, and the latest developments show that such a scenario seems to be increasingly likely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Again, he was at it, that charming show on two legs, playful and coy.  Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been burning the charismatic fuel of late, making the necessary emissions in visiting friendly countries. Each time, he seems to be getting away with more and more, currying (pun intended) favour with his hosts and landing the necessary deals.

For all the excitement of going to a fellow cricket loving state such as Australia, no one was under any illusion about the prize. Easy gains there on matters of commerce, education and security: a pliant PM, a pliant Cabinet, a political and business class hungering for access to a country which recently passed China as the most populous on the planet. In all of this, Modi had the audacity to urge Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to do something about reported acts of vandalism against Hindu temples in Melbourne.

In scale, nothing was going to compare to courting the superpower that, for all its might, teeters. On his June visit to the United States, Modi was building on earlier efforts to show India as a viable partner in a number of areas.

The Modi visit exemplified the calculations of the moment. The US has been rather clumsy of late, engaging in a foreign policy described by former US Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers, as “a bit lonely”. US foreign policy makers have tended to miss a bit or two, not least understanding the value Indian officials place on their military relationship with Moscow. The Indian political establishment is also mindful about how useful New Delhi is seen in Washington, the traditional counter to Beijing. That counter, however, is seen as subordinate to maintaining US supremacy under the lecturing guise of the “rules-based order”.

Such poses are simply not acceptable in either the Modi worldview or those of Indian policy makers. As India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has opined with a tart frankness, Washington’s power can be described as “a transient moment of American unipolarity”. To assume, arrogantly, that history was at its end at the conclusion of the Cold War was a “Eurocentric analysis” jettisoned by nationalism. It is exactly such nationalism that Modi brims with.

The joint statement from the two countries made familiar, and predictable assumptions. Much of it was frothy. Both Biden and Modi “affirmed a vision of the United States and India as among the closest partners in the world – a partnership of democracies looking into the 21^st century with hope, ambition, and confidence.” Naturally, there is no mention of Modi’s nationalistic sectarianism, the Hindutva brand of policy that tolerates, or at least gives a rather generous nod, to communal violence, the repression of Muslim protesters, and an overall atmosphere of terror that has seen journalists murdered for rebuking the BJP government.

Cutthroat business remains business, and the parties see technology as the aphrodisiac to their newly bloomed relationship, manifested by the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET) announced in January 2023. “The leaders recommitted the United States and India to fostering an open, accessible, and secure technology ecosystem, based on mutual confidence and trust that reinforces our shared values and democratic institutions.”

In his second address to Congress, Modi spruiked the notion that New Delhi and Washington had forged “a defining partnership of this century”, glorifying in the advances made by the Indian economy and technology, including strivings in healthcare. “A lot has changed since I came here seven summers ago but a lot has remained the same – like our commitment to deepen the friendship between India and the United States.”

Various remarks followed, many sitting uncomfortably with the truth. “India’s democratic values (are such that) there’s absolutely no discrimination neither on the basis of caste, creed, age or any kind of geographic location.” The same theme is repeated regarding women. “India’s vision is not just the development which benefits women – it is of women-led development where women lead the journey of progress.”

In all this foamy self-celebration, it was hard to forget that Modi was banned from travelling to the United States in 2005 while he was still Gujarat Chief Minister. The decision was based on Modi’s failure to prevent particularly vicious riots in his state in 2002, leading to over a thousand deaths. The US State Department’s reasoning for denying a visa lay in the International Religious Freedom Act, a 1998 law passed by Congress designed, in principle, to combat religious persecution.

On getting wind that the then Chief Minister was going to be visiting the US, a number of Indian-American groups, including the Indian American Muslim Council, began a lobbying campaign with some zeal and ultimate success. Katrina Lantos Swett, Vice Chairwoman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a body created by the 1998 statute, explained at the time that Modi would not be “granted the privilege of a US visa because of the very serious doubts that remain and hang over Modi relative to his role in the horrific events of 2002 in Gujarat.”

On this occasion, the opposition was present, though less effective. Democratic House Representatives Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush and Kweisi Mfume chose to boycott Modi’s address to Congress. A statement by Tlaib, Bush, Omar and Jamaal Bowman, in noting the Indian PM’s role in the bloody Gujarat riots, mentioned his government’s appetite for targeting “Muslims and other religious minorities”, enabling “Hindu nationalist violence”, undermining democracy, targeting journalists and dissidents, and suppressing criticism through using internet shutdowns and censorship.

In 2023, Modi had little reason to fear either rebuke from the Biden administration, or censure from Congress. India is now seen as more useful than ever, and its canny leader does not need lecturing about his own band of dangerous religious authoritarianism. Best, then, to drop the democratic values act, a show that is becoming increasingly absurd.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India walk along the Colonnade of the White House, Thursday, June 22, 2023, to the Oval Office following the State Arrival Ceremony on the South Lawn. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Both in domestic matters and in foreign affairs, there have been few U.S. Presidencies that have failed as thoroughly as Biden’s is failing.

His foreign policies have focused upon defeating simultaneously Russia and China, two countries on the opposite side of the planet from us and which for decades have sought good relations with us, but Biden has been trying to turn Ukraine into a U.S. colony armed against Russia on Russia’s border, and he has been trying to turn Taiwan into a U.S. colony armed against China on China’s border, and he will obviously fail at both objectives, or else cause World War Three trying not to fail.

All of this is actually U.S. aggression against both Russia and China, because neither country would pose any threat to U.S. national security if the U.S. weren’t arming to the teeth their opponents on and near their borders: Ukraine and Taiwan. The only Americans who benefit from these soaring military expenditures are the stockholders in what are euphemistically called ‘defense’ stocks: the stocks in the megacorporations that sell only or mainly to the Government: weapons-manufacturers.

The just-completed Vilnius NATO Summit was a disaster, because all of the things that Biden had been ordering Ukraine and European countries to do are failing, and even his Plan B against China — to get Japan and other U.S. colonies added to NATO so as for America to dominate over China in China’s own neighborhood — is running into what appear to be insurmountable barriers.

Meanwhile, due largely to those soaring military expenditures, the domestic U.S. economy is facing runaway escalating federal debt and shrinking non-defense federal spending, so that only America’s super-rich who own stocks such as in Lockheed Martin are benefitting from the increased military spending, while America’s middle and lower classes are, instead, increasingly struggling.

Here are just a few recent Reuters news headlines and opening lines about the U.S. economy, showing the results of this:

• “U.S. deficit grows to $262 billion in February”, 10 March 2023
  The U.S. government posted a $262 billion budget deficit in February, up 21% from a year earlier.

• “U.S. government posts $378 billion deficit in March”, 12 April 2023

  The U.S. government recorded a $378-billion budget deficit in March as outlays outpaced revenues, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday.

  That compared to a budget deficit of $193 billion in the same month last year, according to the Treasury’s monthly budget statement. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast a $302 billion deficit for the month.

• “US budget deficit mushrooms in May as revenue falls, Medicare outlays jump”, 12 June 2023

  The U.S. budget deficit swelled in May from a year earlier as revenue tumbled and Medicare spending surged, the Treasury Department said on Monday in its first monthly accounting of the government’s finances since a deal was reached to suspend the debt limit and avoid a first-ever federal default.

  The May deficit shot up to $240 billion from $66 billion a year earlier, more than offsetting the $176 billion surplus recorded in April.

• “U.S. Treasury posts sharply higher $228 billion June deficit”, 13 July 2023

  The U.S. government posted a $228 billion budget deficit for June, up 156% from a year earlier as revenues continued to weaken and July benefit payments were accelerated into June, the U.S. Treasury Department said on Thursday.

  The deficit compares to a June 2022 budget gap of $89 billion. June receipts fell $42 billion, or 9% from a year ago, to $418 billion, while June outlays rose $96 billion, or 18%, to $646 billion.

  But some $86 billion worth of July benefit payments were made in June because July 1 fell on a weekend, and without these and other calendar adjustments, the June deficit would have been $142 billion — a 66% increase over June 2022.

  For the first nine months of the 2023 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, receipts fell $423 billion, or 11%, from the year-ago period to $3.413 trillion. The decline was primarily driven by lower non-withheld individual income taxes due to lower capital gains in 2022 and lower year-end salary bonuses, as well as sharply higher individual tax refunds as the Internal Revenue Service cleared a backlog of unprocessed receipts.

  The Federal Reserve has earned $93 billion less this year because it is paying higher interest on bank reserves and no longer has positive net income – a situation that a Treasury official said was expected to continue.

  Year-to-date outlays rose $455 billion, or 10% from a year earlier to $4.805 trillion. Higher outlays for Social Security this year have been driven by cost-of-living adjustments, while the interest on the public debt so far this year has risen $131 billion, or 25%, to $652 billion due to higher interest rates.

  Also driving up outlays were $52 billion in Federal Deposit Insurance Corp costs to resolve failing banks, a Treasury official said.

And here’s from an analysis by the Establishment’s own Council on Foreign Relations:

“Debt and the Debt Ceiling”

Economists Benn Steil and Glenn Hubbard give their respective takes on the debt ceiling and the United States’ national debt.

12 July 2023 Blog Post by Benn Steil and Glenn Hubbard

The U.S. federal debt held by the public now amounts to nearly 100 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), up twenty percentage points since the end of 2019. The pandemic was clearly the dominant driver of the rise, yet the trajectory remains upward. Over the past year, with unemployment averaging a near-postwar low of 3.6 percent, the federal budget deficit has been running at an enormous 8 percent of GDP. Based on both fiscal logic and historical experience, unemployment this low should be accompanied by a balanced budget.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

According to media reports, French Intelligence have given information to Mohamed al-Jolani, the head of the Al Qaeda branch in Syria, formerly known as Jibhat al-Nusra, but now rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). 

The report said there are members and leaders of Jolani’s fighters who are working with, and giving information to the Russian and Syrian military about Idlib. Based on that information Jolani has arrested over 300 HTS fighters and leaders, as well as members of the Idlib administration. In the last few days, Jolani has hung tens of people, all without legal procedures.

Jolani is responding to recent Russian and Syrian targeted airstrikes on warehouses and positions of HTS causing a great deal of deaths among the terrorist group.

The last meeting in Astana has failed to find a solution for the political conflict in Syria. The battles have started again between the Syrian Arab Army and Russia, from one side, and the US supported Radical Islamic terrorists in northwest Syria on the other side.

Idlib

Idlib is an agricultural province in northwest Syria. When the US-NATO war on Syria started in 2011, many people in Idlib supported the US-Turkey backed “revolution”. It was one of the first cities in Syria to go completely under the control of Radical Islamic terrorist groups. In the beginning of the war, the main terrorist group that was in control was called Jabhat Al-Nusra. The international community put Jabhat Al-Nusra on the world terrorist list, and that was when they changed their name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, to keep getting aid from enormous NGOs like: USAID, UN, White Helmets, Doctors Without Borders, and others.

The leader of Jibhat al-Nusra is Abo Mohammed Al-Golan, who was originally a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and was imprisoned in Iraq, where he became good friends with Abu Baker Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. They made a deal that Baghdadi will be the leader of ISIS in Iraq and Golani in Syria, but when Golani got out of prison and got to Syria he did not go through with the deal. He made and became the leader of his own Radical Islamic group, Jabhat Al-Nusra, which was the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda. Jabhat Al-Nusra became the most vicious fighting group in Syria, and caused the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to disappear. 

The Russian Role in Syria  

The relationship between Syria and Russia goes back decades. During the war in Syria, the Russian support was seen only as a political force in the UN, but by September 2015, Jibhat al-Nusra has control over a vast area in Syria, and the government requested military help from Moscow. The Syrian and Russian military both in a very short period of time pushed back the Radical Islamic terrorists groups such as the FSA, Jabhat Al-Nusra, and ISIS and regained control of large areas of Syria. 

The latest update in the Battlefield:

On June 23, the Radical Islamic terrorists groups in Idlib carried out several drone attacks on the suburbs of Latakia and Hama, causing the deaths of several women and children.

On June 24, the Syrian Army and Russian Air Force targeted several positions of HTS, and killed several of the terrorists and destroyed missile launchers, weapon storages, and a drone factory. The Russian Air Force targeted positions of HTS in the suburbs of Latakia. The Syrian and Russian attack on the headquarters and positions of HTS in Idlib was in response to the drone attack.

The airstrikes included several training camps and headquarters for the Uyghur terrorists (TIP) that came from China to fight in Syria. The Uyghur ethnic group in China is Chinese citizens living in the far west of China. They are Muslims, and have formed a radical political party which seeks to change the government into an Islamic State. Turkish President Erdogan issued forged Turkish passports to the Ughurs and allowed about 5,000 of their members to travel by air to Turkey, where their passports were taken from them, and they were transported by Turkish official vehicles to Idlib. 

June 25

The Russian Air Force targeted positions for the radical Islamic terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the suburbs of Latakia and Idlib. 

According to special  sources  told Mideast Discourse that  there is tens of terrorist killed and injured some of the killed terrorist where Ughurs. 

Syrian military targets several weapon storages and headquarters for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Jabal Al-zawea, Al-ghab vailly, Srmeen and others. 

June 26 

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham used a public market to launch missiles on the Syrian Army. The Syrian and Russian Air Force respond to that attack and targeted drone factories, training camps, weapon storages, and headquarters for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and tens are between killed and injured. 

According to Media reports there were several leaders between the killed terrorist the are: 

• Abdul Kareem  Turkistani
• Saif Allah Turkistani
• Mustafa sheakh Alset
• Mohammed saied Nasoh 

With the recent complete reversal of Turkish foreign policy it remains a mystery as to what is the future of Idlib.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

Are Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) Destined to Fail?

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, July 17, 2023

Since Bitcoin (BTC) was introduced to the world as an alternative to the current central bank system with a dying US dollar that is backed by nothing as its reserve currency, but now there is a plan by several governments to move ahead with implementing their own central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which is a digital form of currency that is still backed by, you guessed it, nothing.

The Federal Debt Trap: Issues and Possible Solutions

By Ellen Brown, July 17, 2023

By 2029, just the interest on the debt is projected to exceed the national defense budget, which currently eats up over half of the federal discretionary budget. In 2029, net interest on the debt is projected to total $1.07 trillion, while defense spending is projected at $1.04 trillion. By 2033, says the CBO, interest payments will reach a sum equal to 3.6 percent of the nation’s economic output.

Loss of US Cultural Power. “The End of Hollywood as We Know It”

By Karsten Riise, July 17, 2023

Maybe we are seeing the End of Hollywood as we know it. ALL the Hollywood giants are running out of profit. Even Disney is down. Cinema tickets are declining. Television is dying. Streaming entertainment is declining too. And now Hollywood actors and screenwriters are on strike – demanding more out of a shrinking cake. The New York Times (NYT) reports on this.

Is Biden Preparing to Take the U.S. to War Against Russia?

By Larry Johnson, July 17, 2023

This is disturbing and alarming — Biden issued an order activating up to 3000 Ready Reserve and Select Reserve military personnel and sending them to Europe for potential combat with Russia. This is not a hoax.

Dying of Influenza: “2023 Will be Deadliest Flu Season.” Why COVID-19 Vaccinated Young Australians Are Dying of the Flu, and How Their Deaths Will be Used to Push New mRNA Influenza Vaccines

By Dr. William Makis, July 17, 2023

Australia is one of the most heavily COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated countries and it is currently experiencing an influenza outbreak that has killed two healthy young girls ages 11 and 15, as well as many healthy young adults, like 37 year old Mate Babic who was COVID-19 vaccinated with his wife (who was injured by Pfizer).

NATO Isn’t Defending Ukraine. It’s Stabbing It in the Back

By Jonathan Cook, July 17, 2023

The Nato summit in Lithuania this week served only to underscore the utter hypocrisy of western leaders in pursuing their proxy war in Ukraine to “weaken” Russia and oust its president, Vladimir Putin.

Free-Thinkers vs. No-Thinkers: The Ultimate Political Division

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, July 17, 2023

I never liked the facile distinctions of left and right, politically speaking, or liberal and conservative. I considered myself primarily an American ‘constitutionalist’, and the more I monitored the declarations of State the more deception I perceived. 

Video: Max Blumenthal Addresses UN Security Council on Ukraine Aid

By Max Blumenthal, July 17, 2023

Watch The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal address the UN Security Council on the role of US military aid to Ukraine in escalating the conflict with Russia and the real motives behind Washington’s support for Kiev’s proxy war.

Former Kiev Diplomat: Biden’s Corruption Led to Ukraine’s Destruction

By Andrii Telizhenko and Aaron Mate, July 17, 2023

Former Ukrainian government official and diplomat Andrii Telizhenko joins Aaron Maté to discuss how, in his view, powerful US figures including Joe Biden have used Ukraine for personal corruption and the geopolitical aim of bleeding Russia — all to the detriment of Ukrainians.

Political Theater in Nepal Is Driving Citizen Flight

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, July 17, 2023

With unwelcome regularity, every few months Kathmandu Valley experiences a nationally watched theatrical production. This month’s will surely be unrivalled. Yet, each new production seems to outdo the last in commercial evaluations and the celebrity of its leading actors.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Maybe we are seeing the End of Hollywood as we know it. ALL the Hollywood giants are running out of profit. Even Disney is down. Cinema tickets are declining. Television is dying. Streaming entertainment is declining too. And now Hollywood actors and screenwriters are on strike – demanding more out of a shrinking cake. The New York Times (NYT) reports on this.

But while pointing to these obvious problems, the NYT skips the deeper problems of Hollywood.

Big Hollywood productions are disappointing – not only profit-wise, but also in content. I have felt the irrelevance of Hollywood productions for a long time.

Who cares about another Superhero movie?

Who cares about another Disney movie which is a clone of the previous one?

Even 25 years ago, when I sometimes saw a Disney production, I already lost interest because there was no longer any originality left in Disney productions. The first couple of Terminator movies with Schwarzenegger were creative. But when I saw the last Terminator movie, it was clearly expensive to make, but endlessly boring. I really enjoyed all the Star Wars movies, all 6 of them. That is because George Lucas had an idea with Star Wars. It was fun, but George Lucas also had a story to tell – a story about persons, a story about empire, evil, deception, the magic of the world, fall, and redemption. But then note again, that George Lucas back then was able to make the first Star Wars movie even though it went against the prevailing stream in Hollywood at the time. That is probably no longer possible. No, I don’t want to see plastic movies on the Star Wars theme made by Disney. Just don’t care.

When did we last see something epic from Hollywood like Godfather or Apocalypse now?

Or the brutal humor of Pulp Fiction?

Movies which were daring, visually fascinating (beautiful or horrific), erotically intriguing, or emotional in their theme. Nobody knows anymore. But I am not typical. I have no television, and no streaming entertainment service. But just looking at the boring repetitiveness of the movie titles for more than a decade, it is clear that the quality and relevance of Hollywood has melted.

The profound loss of quality, originality, courage, and edge in Hollywood has developed simultaneously with Hollywood’s woke-ism. Hollywood and Disney both stood for woke-ism. Woke-ism is so much about “correctness” that nobody can do anything personal, something with an edge, or the slightest risk of irritation or provocation. No longer can Hollywood have a macho-male hero with a big gun who says “Make my day!”. But woke-ism outside of Hollywood is going down now, not only in the USA, but also among the majority or the World population living in the non-West. What about the billions of audience in China and India? Hollywood can forget about them too. Good. Other countries may start caring more about their own cultural productions.

And with actors and screenwriters fighting against AI, they will even block the creativity and cost-cutting opportunities which AI could infuse into Hollywood.

Will Apple and Amazon buy the Hollywood companies when they are sufficiently cheap, as NYT suggests? Perhaps. But that won’t save the Hollywood productions if they are irrelevant. Or even worse: If Hollywood itself has become irrelevant. Maybe other suppliers of cultural content (like for instance Apple and Amazon) will simply skip Hollywood and find other sources of cultural production where more interesting content is produced. Creating cheaper but more diversified content and distributing it (with AI!) to a much more diverse public, where each individual can get something much more appealing to personal preferences.

Interestingly, the US crisis in culture production is not only afflicting Hollywood. Other once-upon-a-time “eternal” icons of US culture are in deep trouble too.

Burger King rebranded their logo in efforts to stop the decline in their sales.

And McDonald’s is in trouble too. The US lost cultural attractiveness with the second Gulf War. Based on lies and ending with a humiliating retreat. No longer could Hollywood believably present a cosmetic image of the US as “purely a force for Good”.

And where the US defeat in Vietnam created an American cultural revival due to culture-producers in Hollywood who back then had courage and ability to reflect also morally critically on the role of the US in the World, this is not the state of the US or Hollywood today. Afghanistan was another blow for US cultural attractivity. China, India, Russia, Türkiye, the Middle East (incl. Saudi Arabian finance) are striving to build their own cultural productions featuring their own culture at center-point. Latin America has its own cultural productions too. US consumer brands are also falling out of favor in China. US hegemony is coming to an end – also culturally. Instead, we may see the multi-cultural World thrive.

And we haven’t yet even seen the fallout of Ukraine’s defeat on the attractivity of US culture. The US has promised to “stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes”. Well, it will only take a few more months, before we start seeing the end of Ukraine as it was created when the Soviet Union dissolved. The US’ failing ability to “stand with Ukraine” will certainly be a big crash for the believability of US culture and soft power too.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This is disturbing and alarming — Biden issued an order activating up to 3000 Ready Reserve and Select Reserve military personnel and sending them to Europe for potential combat with Russia. This is not a hoax. It is on the White House website:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 121 and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation Atlantic Resolve in and around the United States European Command’s area of responsibility.  In furtherance of this operation, under the stated authority, I hereby authorize the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, under their respective jurisdictions, to order to active duty any units, and any individual members not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of the Selected Reserve, or any member in the Individual Ready Reserve mobilization category and designated as essential under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, not to exceed 3,000 total members at any one time, of whom not more than 450 may be members of the Individual Ready Reserve, as they deem necessary, and to terminate the service of those units and members ordered to active duty.

Operation Atlantic Resolve is the name for the U.S. military response to Russia’s Special Military Operation. While the number of troops being activated and deployed is not large, is Biden making a direct threat to Russia that is likely to elicit a very unpleasant response from Putin.

In terms of bolstering U.S. military capabilities this is a nothing-burger. But it is the symbolism and the thinking behind this decision that is frightening. But this is not all.

According to one of my retired CIA buddies, at least two B-52s are on the ground at an U.S. Air Force in Alaska. This is highly unusual, according to another old friend who flew B-52s. Moving these planes forward to Alaska is stupid saber rattling. This is not going to assuage Russian concerns about Western intentions, it is going to move the Russians to hair-trigger status.

And do not forget about U.S. plans to send nuclear capable F-16s to Ukraine:

Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov wasted no time in warning the United States and NATO that if the F-16s arrive in theater, Russia will treat them as a potential nuclear threat:

Russian FM Lavrov: The US and its NATO satellites create the risk of a direct armed conflict with Russia, and this is fraught with catastrophic consequences.

Just one example of an extremely dangerous development is the US plans to transfer F-16 fighter jets to the Kyiv regime. We have informed the nuclear powers, the United States, Britain and France, that Russia cannot ignore the ability of these aircraft to carry nuclear weapons.

No assurances will help here. In the course of hostilities, our military will not sort out whether each specific aircraft of the specified type is equipped for the delivery of nuclear weapons or not. The very fact of the appearance of such systems in the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be considered by us as a threat from the West in the nuclear sphere. The aggressive steps of unfriendly states create an existential threat for Russia. There is no doubt about this. We will have to defend our right to free and sovereign development with all available means.

I think Lavrov makes it very clear that Russia will destroy those planes “with all available means.” If faced with a nuclear threat Russia will respond in kind. Biden ratcheting up tensions with Russia at the very moment that Ukraine’s failures on the battlefield are catastrophic. Instead of seeking to de-escalate the war and find an off-ramp, Biden and his team appear intent on provoking a nuclear war.

Here is an interview I did with Stephen Gardner. We did not know about what I have just presented. Might have been a very different podcast.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Larry C Johnson is a veteran of the CIA and the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He is the founder and managing partner of BERG Associates, which was established in 1998. Larry provided training to the US Military’s Special Operations community for 24 years. He has been vilified by the right and the left, which means he must be doing something right. You can also follow him on telegram (t.me/sonar https://t.me/sonar_21, Patreon and Substack  https://larrycjohnson.substack.com)

Featured image is from Geopolitical Economy Report

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

“Rather than collecting taxes from the wealthy,” wrote the New York Times Editorial Board in a July 7 opinion piece, “the government is paying the wealthy to borrow their money.” 

Titled “America Is Living on Borrowed Money,” the editorial observes that over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), annual federal budget deficits will average around $2 trillion per year. By 2029, just the interest on the debt is projected to exceed the national defense budget, which currently eats up over half of the federal discretionary budget. In 2029, net interest on the debt is projected to total $1.07 trillion, while defense spending is projected at $1.04 trillion. By 2033, says the CBO, interest payments will reach a sum equal to 3.6 percent of the nation’s economic output. 

The debt ceiling compromise did little to alleviate that situation. Before the deal, the CBO projected the federal debt would reach roughly $46.7 trillion in 2033. After the deal, it projected the total at $45.2 trillion, only slightly less – and still equal to 115% of the nation’s annual economic output, the highest level on record.

Acknowledging that the legislation achieved little, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said after the vote that he intended to form a bipartisan commission “so we can find the waste and we can make the real decisions to really take care of this debt.” The NYT Editorial Board concluded:

Any substantive deal will eventually require a combination of increased revenue and reduced spending …. Both parties will have to compromise: Republicans must accept the necessity of collecting what the government is owed and of imposing taxes on the wealthy. Democrats must recognize that changes to Social Security and Medicare, the major drivers of expected federal spending growth, should be on the table. Anything less will prove fiscally unsustainable. 

The Elephant in the Room

Omitted was any mention of trimming the defense budget, which currently accounts for more than half of the federal government’s discretionary spending and nearly two-thirds of its contract spending. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who cast the sole dissenting vote on the recent $886 billion defense budget in the House Armed Services Committee, has detailed some of the Pentagon’s excesses. For decades, he writes, legacy military contractors have charged the federal government exorbitant sums for everything from fighter jets to basic hardware. Lockheed Martin, for example, has used its monopoly on F-35 fighter jets to profit from maintenance that only they can provide, with the work needed to support and upgrade existing jets projected to cost taxpayers over $1.3 trillion. TransDigm, another contractor responsible for supplying spare parts for the military, was found to be charging the Pentagon more than four times the market price for their products. 

Rep. Khanna concludes, “Keeping America strong starts at home. It means ensuring access to quality, affordable healthcare and education, strengthening our economy with good-paying jobs, and giving Americans the tools they need to pursue the American Dream.… Bloated military spending is not the answer.… We can’t continue to sign a blank check to price-gouging defense contractors while Americans struggle here at home.”

In an address to the UN Security Council on Ukraine aid on June 29, 2023, Max Blumenthal added fuel to those allegations. He said:

Just June 28th, as emergency crews work to clean up yet another toxic train derailment in the United States, this time on the Montana River, further exposing our nation’s chronically underfunded infrastructure and its threats to our health, the Pentagon announced plans to send an additional $500 million worth of military aid to Ukraine…. 

This policy, … which sees Washington prioritize unrestrained funding for a proxy war with a nuclear power in a foreign land … while our domestic infrastructure falls apart before our eyes, exposes a disturbing dynamic at the heart of the Ukraine conflict – an international Ponzi scheme that enables Western elites to seize hard-earned wealth from the hands of average U.S citizens and funnel it into the coffers of a foreign government that even Transparency International ranks as consistently one of the most corrupt in Europe. 

The U.S. government has yet to conduct an official audit of its funding for Ukraine. The American public has no idea where their tax dollars are going. And that’s why this week we at the Grayzone published an independent audit of U.S. tax dollar allocations to Ukraine throughout the fiscal years 2022 and ’23.

Among other dubious payments they found were $4.5 million from the U.S. Social Security Administration to the Kiev government, and $4.5 billion from USAID to pay off Ukraine’s sovereign debt, “much of which is owned by the global investment firm BlackRock. That amounts to $30 taken from every U.S citizen at a time when 4 in 10 Americans cannot afford a $400 emergency.”

The Black Hole of the Pentagon Budget

The Pentagon failed its fifth budget audit in 2022 and was unable to account for more than half of its assets, or more than $3 trillion. According to a CBS News report, defense contractors overcharged the Defense Department by nearly 40-50%; and according to the Office of the Inspector General for the Defense Department, overcharging sometimes reached more than 4,000%. The $886 billion budget request for FY2024 is the highest ever sought.

Following repeated concerns about fraud, waste and abuse in the Pentagon, in June 2023 a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation to ensure the Defense Department passes a clean audit next year. The Audit the Pentagon Act of 2023 would require the Defense Department to pass a full, independent audit in fiscal 2024. Any agency within the Pentagon failing to pass a clean audit would be forced to return 1% of its budget for deficit reduction. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) observed that the Pentagon “and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades.… [W]e have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only agency in the federal government that has never passed an independent audit.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the Pentagon “should have to meet the same annual auditing standards as every other agency…. From buying $14,000 toilet seats to losing track of warehouses full of spare parts, the Department of Defense has been plagued by wasteful spending for decades. … Every dollar the Pentagon squanders is a dollar not used to support service members, bolster national security or strengthen military readiness.”

But defense audits have been promised before and have not been completed. In 2017, Michigan State University Prof. Mark Skidmore, working with graduate students and with Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, found $21 trillion in unauthorized spending in the departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development for the years 1998-2015. As reported in MSUToday, Skidmore got involved when he heard Fitts refer to a report indicating the Army had $6.5 trillion in unsupported adjustments (or spending) in fiscal 2015. Since the Army’s budget was then only $122 billion, that meant unsupported adjustments were 54 times the spending authorized by Congress. Thinking Fitts must have made a mistake, Skidmore investigated and found that unsupported adjustments were indeed $6.5 trillion. 

Four days after Skidmore discussed his team’s findings on a USAWatchdog podcast, the Department of Defense announced it would conduct its first-ever department-wide independent financial audit. But it evidently failed in that endeavor. As Bernie Sanders observes, the Pentagon has never passed an independent audit. It failed its fifth audit in 2022. Whether it will pass this sixth one, or whether the audit will lead to budget cuts, remains to be seen. The Pentagon budget seems to be untouchable. 

Tackling the Other Elephant: The Interest Monster

If the sacrosanct military budget cannot be trimmed, what about that other massive budget item, interest on the federal debt? Promising proposals for clipping both the interest and the debt itself were made in conjunction with earlier debt ceiling crises. In November 2010, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote:

There is no reason that the Fed can’t just buy this debt (as it is largely doing) and hold it indefinitely. If the Fed holds the debt, there is no interest burden for future taxpayers. The Fed refunds its interest earnings to the Treasury every year. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion in interest to the Treasury, nearly 40 percent of the country’s net interest burden. And the Fed has other tools to ensure that the expansion of the monetary base required to purchase the debt does not lead to inflation.

In 2011, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul proposed dealing with the debt ceiling by simply voiding out the $1.7 trillion in federal securities then held by the Fed. As Stephen Gandel explained Paul’s solution in Time Magazine, the Treasury pays interest on the securities to the Fed, which returns 90% of these payments to the Treasury. Despite this shell game of payments, the $1.7 trillion in US bonds owned by the Fed is still counted toward the debt ceiling. Paul’s plan:

Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It’s fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed.

Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, also endorsed this proposal.

Taxing the Bubble Economy

In a July 8, 2023 article on Naked Capitalism titled “The United States’ Financial Quandary: ZIRP’s Only Exit Path Is a Crash,” economist Michael Hudson points to the speculative bubbles blown by the Fed’s Zero Interest Rate Policy, dating back to the Great Recession of 2008-09. The result is a Ponzi scheme, says Hudson, and there is no way out but to write down the debt or let the economy crash. 

According to Fed insider Danielle DiMartino Booth, it is those speculative bubbles that Fed Chair Jerome Powell has attempted to pop with the drastic interest rate hikes of the last year, eliminating the “Fed Put,” the presumption that the Fed will always come to the rescue of the speculative market. That tack actually seems to be working; but the approach has resulted in serious collateral damage to mainstream businesses and the productive economic base. (See my earlier article here.)

Another way to trim the fat from the “financialized” economy is a small financial transactions tax. That solution was also discussed in an earlier article (here), drawing on a 2023 book titled A Tale of Two Economies: A New Financial Operating System for the American Economy by Wall Street veteran Scott Smith. He argues that we are taxing the wrong things – income and physical sales. We actually have two economies – the material economy in which goods and services are bought and sold, and the monetary economy involving the trading of financial assets (stocks, bonds, currencies, etc.) – basically “money making money” without producing new goods or services. 

Drawing on data from the Bank for International Settlements and the Federal Reserve, Smith shows that the monetary economy is hundreds of times larger than the physical economy. The budget gap could be closed by imposing a tax of a mere 0.1% on financial transactions, while eliminating not just income taxes but every other tax we pay today. For a financial transactions tax (FTT) of 0.25%, we could fund benefits we cannot afford today that would stimulate growth in the real economy, including not just infrastructure and development but free college, a universal basic income, and free healthcare for all. Smith contends we could even pay off the national debt in ten years or less with a 0.25% FTT.  

Funding Infrastructure Through a National Infrastructure Bank

Another way to fund critical infrastructure without tapping the federal budget is through a 1930s-style work-around on the model of Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation. HR 4052, a proposal for a national infrastructure bank on that model, is currently before Congress and has widespread support. The proposed bank is designed to be a true depository bank, which can leverage its funds as all banks are allowed to do: with a 10% capital requirement, it can leverage $1 in capital into $10 in loans.

For capitalization, the bill proposes to follow the lead of Alexander Hamilton’s First U.S. Bank: shares in the bank will be swapped for existing U.S. bonds. The shares will earn a 2% dividend and are non-voting. Control of the bank and its operations will remain with the public, an independent board of directors, and a panel of carefully selected non-partisan experts, precluding manipulation for political ends. 

America achieved its greatest-ever infrastructure campaign in the midst of the Great Depression. We can do that again today, and we can do it with the same machinery: off-budget financing through a government-owned national financial institution.

Granted, these proposals are not likely to be implemented until we are actually facing another Great Depression, or at least a Great Recession; but Michael Hudson and other pundits are predicting that outcome in the not-too-distant future. It is good to have some viable alternatives on the table for consideration when, as in the 1930s, politicians are compelled to seek them out.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.  She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: WAR by Justin via Flickr

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

July 12, 2023 – Canberra, Australia – 37 year old father of three Mate Babic died suddenly from the flu 5 days after a slight cough. “It is crazy a six-foot-four, healthy man could pass away from influenza B, it is like we are living in the 18th century, it is like the plague” (click here).

July 6, 2023 – Noosa, Australia – 11 year old Emma Schwab died suddenly from “influenza B” one day after being released from the hospital. “Cases surge” (click here).

July 8, 2023 – East Gosford, Australia – A 15 year old High School student at St. Joseph’s Catholic College died of Influenza (name not released) (click here).

What Is Happening in Australia?

Australia is in the middle of winter and at the “peak of flu season”.

The Australian media are describing the 2023 flu season as the “deadliest” with over 1120 people seeking emergency visits in past week, 47% of them kids, with 16 children in the intensive care unit.

Australia is heavily COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated and these vaccines destroy the immune system and the gut microbiome, so Australia has an immunosuppressed population that is very susceptible to infections like Influenza.

That’s why healthy Australian young adults and children are dying from the flu right now. That’s why a healthy 6 foot 4” man like Mate Babic can drop dead 5 days after a “slight cough”.

This happened in Canada during last flu season Nov-Dec.2022 when a record number of COVID-19 vaccinated Canadian kids died from the flu (at least 13 kids died that we know of and some provinces, like Ontario and Quebec, refused to release any data on their child flu deaths).

Pushing COVID-19 and Influenza vaccines (click here).

The Australian authorities are using these Influenza deaths to push both COVID-19 boosters and flu vaccines.

Sky news video: “Australians are warned to seek flu vaccines and COVID booster shots.”

We know these flu vaccines are useless. But the big pharma push is on to get new Influenza mRNA vaccines on the market. Some recent news:

June 26, 2023 – “mRNA flu shot candidate compared against inactivated vaccine”

• The mRNA-1010 vaccine candidate elicited either higher or comparable immune responses to a standard-dose, influenza quadrivalent inactivated vaccine.
• Overall, these first-in-human safety and immunogenicity findings highlight, on June 19, 2023, the potential of the mRNA platform to improve the effectiveness of influenza vaccines.

May 15, 2023 – “Universal flu vaccine based on mRNA tech to be tested by NIH

• NIH is enrolling patients in an early stage clinical trial to test a universal flu vaccine based on mRNA technology.
• The technology is behind Moderna’s and Pfizer’s widely used Covid vaccines.

March 20, 2023 – “Vaccine makers prep bird flu shot (mRNA) for humans ‘just in case’

• Some of the world’s leading makers of flu vaccines say they could make hundreds of millions of bird flu shots for humans within months if a new strain of avian influenza ever jumps across the species divide.
• Moderna’s mRNA vaccine research actually began with pandemic flu, and was modified for COVID
• The company plans to launch a small human trial of an mRNA pandemic flu vaccine tailored to the new avian influenza subtype in the first half of 2023, he said, adding Moderna could respond “very quickly” in an outbreak scenario.

Triple vaccine for a Triple-demic:

This is what they pushed last flu season in North America:

Nov.12, 2022 – “Moderna is banking on a combined COVID, flu and RSV vaccine”

• Moderna is developing a three-in-one vaccine against COVID-19, flu and RSV.
• The vaccine manufacturer is actively promoting the shot and hoping for regulatory approval in the next year.

Dec.13, 2022 – Forbes: “Tripledemic update: RSV, Covid and Flu”

• With what’s now being called a tripledemic, which includes SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19), influenza (flu), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) already spreading rapidly, the winter ahead could be worse.
• One surprising twist has been that more adults have developed RSV, usually thought to only affect young children

Feb.2, 2023 – “Tripledemic Rouses Vaccine Developers and Variant Trackers”

• Three major respiratory viruses—respiratory syncytial virus, seasonal influenza, and COVID-19—are surging at once, prompting a determined scientific response
• The tripledemic pattern may be here to stay: “It is likely that this is going to be the new normal with each year seeing the co-circulation and seasonality of RSV, flu, and COVID-19.”

My Take…

Australia is one of the most heavily COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated countries and it is currently experiencing an influenza outbreak that has killed two healthy young girls ages 11 and 15, as well as many healthy young adults, like 37 year old Mate Babic who was COVID-19 vaccinated with his wife (who was injured by Pfizer).

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines damage the immune system and gut microbiome, and now healthy young adults and kids are dying from the flu.

Their deaths plastered all over the mainstream media is no accident. Big pharma is desperate to put out new Influenza mRNA vaccines on the market, and they need receptive customers.

The propaganda push is on. Last year’s flu season in North America we had the “tripledemic” which, we are told, is here to stay as the new normal. Each year.

“Moderna is banking on a combined COVID, flu and RSV vaccine” and that was last year. They want to make that a reality this year.

We will move into fall in a few weeks and I believe we will be hit with a tsunami of propaganda, as efforts will be made to “rehabilitate” mRNA technology, because no sane person wants COVID-19 vaccines at this time.

Canadian media is already pushing the propaganda that there will be new Omicron XBB COVID-19 vaccines in Canada in the fall and everyone should take them. (click here) The selling point? They’re monovalent again, no Wuhan spike present.

They’re testing us. In Australia, in Canada. They’re testing to see how they can introduce a new mRNA product into a market that doesn’t want it.

Expect North America’s 2023 fall “flu season” to be full of heavily publicized flu deaths, of young children and young adults. Followed by a huge push for COVID-19 and flu (mRNA) vaccines.

They’re banking on it.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

---

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Nato summit in Lithuania this week served only to underscore the utter hypocrisy of western leaders in pursuing their proxy war in Ukraine to “weaken” Russia and oust its president, Vladimir Putin.

Both the US and Germany had made clear before the summit that they would block Ukraine’s admission to Nato while it was in the midst of a war with Russia. That message was formally announced by Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky fumed that Nato had reached an “absurd” decision and was demonstrating “weakness”. British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace lost no time in rebuking him for a lack of “gratitude”. 

The concern is that, if Kyiv joins the military alliance at this stage, Nato members will be required to leap to Ukraine’s defence and fight Russia directly. Most western states balk at the notion of a face-to-face confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia – rather than the current proxy one, paid for exclusively in Ukrainian blood.  

But there is a more duplicitous subtext being obscured: the fact that Nato is responsible for sustaining the war it now cites as grounds for disqualifying Ukraine from joining the military alliance. Nato got Kyiv into its current, bloody mess – but isn’t ready to help it find a way out.

It was Nato, after all, that chose to flirt openly with Ukraine from 2008 onwards, promising it eventual membership – with the undisguised hope that one day, the alliance would be able to flex its military muscles menacingly on Russia’s doorstep.

It was the UK that intervened weeks after Russia’s invasion in February 2022, and presumably on Washington’s orders, to scupper negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow – talks that could have ended the war at an early stage, before Russia began seizing territories in eastern Ukraine.

A deal then would have been much simpler than one now. Most likely, it would have required Kyiv to commit to neutrality, rather than pursuing covert integration into Nato. Moscow would have demanded, too, an end to the Ukrainian government’s political, legal and military attacks on its Russian-speaking populations in the east. 

Now the chief sticking point to an agreement will be persuading the Kremlin to trust the West and reverse its annexation of eastern Ukraine, assuming Nato ever allows Kyiv to re-engage in talks with Russia. 

And finally, it is Nato members, especially the US, that have been shipping out vast quantities of military hardware to prolong the fighting in Ukraine – keeping the death toll mounting on both sides. 

Damp Squib

In short, Nato is now using the very war it has done everything to fuel as a pretext to stop Ukraine from joining the alliance. 

Seen another way, the message Nato has sent Moscow is that Russia made exactly the right decision to invade – if the goal, as Putin has always maintained, is to ensure Kyiv remains neutral. 

It is the war that has prevented Ukraine from being completely enfolded in the western military alliance. It is the war that has stopped Ukraine’s transformation into a Nato forward base, one where the West could station nuclear-tipped missiles minutes from Moscow. 

Had Russia not invaded, Kyiv would have been free to accelerate what it was already doing secretly: integrating into Nato. So what is Zelensky supposed to conclude from his exclusion from Nato, after he committed his country to an ongoing war rather than negotiations and neutrality?

So far, Ukraine’s much-vaunted “spring counter-offensive” has turned into a damp squib, despite western media spin about “slow progress”. Moscow is holding on to the Ukrainian territories it annexed. 

So long as Kyiv can’t “win the war” – and it seems it can’t, unless Nato is willing to fight Russia directly and risk a nuclear confrontation – it will be precluded from the military alliance. Catch-22. 

Do not expect this conundrum to be highlighted by a western establishment media that seems incapable of doing anything other than regurgitating Nato press releases and cheering on bigger profits for the West’s war industries. 

War Crimes

Another such conundrum is the Biden administration’s decision last week to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions – small bomblets that, when they fail to explode, lie concealed like mini-landmines, killing and maiming civilians for decades. In some cases, as many as a third are “duds”, detonating weeks, months or years later.

Washington’s move follows Britain recently supplying Ukraine with depleted uranium shells, which contaminate surrounding areas with a radioactive dust during and after fighting. Evidence from areas such as Iraq, where the US and Britain fired large numbers of these shells, suggests the fallout can include a decades-long spike in cancer and birth defects. 

The White House was all too ready to denounce the use of cluster bombs as a war crime last year – when it was Russia that stood accused of using them. Now it is Washington enabling Kyiv to commit those very same war crimes.

More than 110 states – not including the US, of course – have ratified a 2008 international convention outlawing cluster munitions. Many are in Nato.

Given the high “dud” rate of US cluster bombs, President Joe Biden appears to be breaking US law in shipping stocks to Ukraine. The White House can invoke an exemption only if exporting such weapons satisfies a “vital US national security interest”. Apparently, Biden believes “weakening” Russia – and turning parts of Ukraine into a death zone for civilians for decades to come – qualifies as just such a vital interest. 

Desperate Stop Gap

While the official story is that this latest escalatory move by the US will help Kyiv “win the war”, the truth is rather different. Biden has not shied away from admitting that Ukraine – and Nato – are running out of conventional arms to fight Russia. This is a desperate stop-gap measure. 

While most Nato members might be signatories to the convention on banning cluster munitions, they appear more than willing to turn a blind eye to Washington’s decision. Germany’s president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who signed the convention in his earlier role as foreign minister, said this week that Berlin should not block the US shipment because to do so “would be the end of Ukraine”. 

In other words, the resort to cluster munitions is an admission that it is Kyiv and its Nato partners – not Moscow – that have been weakened militarily by the war. 

Once again, a supposedly “humanitarian war” by the West – remember Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – is becoming the opposite. Like every previous weapon delivered to Ukraine, the cluster bombs are being supplied to postpone the inevitable: the need for Kyiv to engage in talks with Moscow to end the fighting. 

And every day such talks are delayed, Ukraine loses more of its fighting men, and potentially more of its territory.

Horrors of Cluster Bombs

It is not as though Washington or the rest of Nato are unaware of the effects of using cluster bombs. The US is estimated to have dropped 270 million of them on Laos during its “secret war” on that country more than half a century ago. Up to 80 million of them did not detonate.

Since the bombing ended in 1973, at least 25,000 people – 40 percent of them children – are reported to have been killed or injured by these small landmines littered across Laos’s territory. 

More recently, the US used cluster munitions in its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hun Sen, the prime minister of Cambodia, which was bombed alongside Laos by the US during the Vietnam War, reminded the world this week of the horrors in store. He noted that, half a century on, Cambodia had still not found a way to destroy all the explosives: “The real victims will be Ukrainians,” he said. 

But that warning is likely to fall on deaf ears in Ukraine. Zelensky, a leader who has been all but beatified by the western media, is no stranger to the use of cluster bombs. Though journalists prefer to mention their use by Russia only, human rights groups have documented Kyiv’s firing of cluster munitions on its own population in eastern Ukraine since 2014. 

The need to protect Russian-speaking communities in eastern Ukraine from their own government – and from Ukrainian ultra-nationalists in the Ukrainian military – was one of the main reasons given by Moscow for launching its invasion. The New York Times reported Kyiv using cluster bombs last year on a small Ukrainian village in the country’s east. 

According to an investigation by Human Rights Watch, Ukrainian forces also fired cluster munitions on the Ukrainian town of Izium last year, killing at least eight civilians and wounding 15 others. 

Given this history, Washington would be foolish to take at face value reassurances from the Zelensky government that US supplies of cluster bombs will be fired only on Russian troops. All the evidence indicates that they will likely be used on civilian areas in eastern Ukraine too.

Double Standard

Publicly, European leaders are trying to salve their consciences by implying that there are exceptional justifications for providing cluster munitions to Kyiv. The bomblets are supposedly essential if Ukraine is to defend its territory against Russian aggression and occupation.

But if that is really Nato’s yardstick, then there is another exceptional, oppressed state in no less need of such munitions: Palestine.

Like Ukraine, the Palestinians have had their territory seized by an implacable foe. And like Ukraine, the Palestinians face continuous military attacks by an occupying army. 

Source

Occupation forces always end up committing war crimes, as Russia’s have. The United Nations accuses the Russian army of rapes, killings and torture, and attacks on civilian infrastructure.

The commission of war crimes is inherent in the task of invading another people’s sovereign territory and subduing the local population, as the US and UK proved in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Undoubtedly, both Israel and Russia’s actions are causing untold suffering. But where there are differences, they reflect worse on Israel than Russia. 

Israel’s occupation has lasted many decades longer than Russia’s, and it has throughout those years continued to commit war crimes, including creating hundreds of illegal, armed settlements exclusively for Jews on Palestinian land.

Further, there was an existing civil war in Ukraine that had killed more than 14,000 Ukrainians before Russia invaded. At least a proportion of Ukrainians – largely its ethnic Russian population in the east – welcomed Moscow’s intervention, at least initially. It would be hard to find a Palestinian who wants Israel or its settlers occupying their land. 

Is anyone in Nato considering supplying cluster munitions to the Palestinians to defend themselves? Would Nato endorse Palestinians firing cluster bombs at Israeli military bases or at militarised settlements in the occupied West Bank? 

And would Nato accept Palestinian reassurances that such munitions would not be fired into Israel, just as it has accepted Ukrainian assurances that they won’t be fired into Russia? 

These questions answer themselves. In the case of the Palestinians, western states don’t just apply a double standard. They even echo Israel in condemning Palestinian conventional attacks on Israeli forces. 

Dangerous Delusions

But the hypocrisies do not end there. Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s hawkish foreign minister, wrote in the Guardian last week that her country had made a mistake in pursuing a policy of what she called “chequebook diplomacy”. 

Berlin, she added, had naively believed that political and economic interaction with the West would “sway the Russian regime toward democracy”. Instead, she concluded that “Putin’s Russia will remain a threat to peace and security on our continent and that we have to organise our security against Putin’s Russia, not with it.” 

Europe’s path forward, Baerbock suggests, is limited to either a forever war against Russia or imposing regime change on the Kremlin. All of this is dangerous nonsense. The fact that self-serving, delusional analysis of this kind is echoed so uncritically by western media should be a stain on its reputation. 

Baerbock implies that it was Moscow that rebuffed “our efforts to construct a European security architecture with Russia”. But Russia was never offered a meaningful place within Europe’s security umbrella after the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

That contrasts strongly with West Germany’s treatment after the Second World War. With the Nazi regime barely gone, Germany received massive US aid via the Marshall Plan to rebuild its economy and infrastructure, and it was soon embraced by Nato as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was handled very differently. It was not viewed as an opportunity to bring Russia into the fold. 

Instead, the US and its western allies denied Russia both a proper aid plan and the cancellation of Soviet-era debts. The West preferred to prop up a weak president, Boris Yeltsin, insisting he commit to “shock therapy” privatisation that left the Russian economy open to asset-stripping by a new class of oligarchs.

Nefarious Ambitions

While Russia was being hollowed out economically, Washington hurried to isolate its historic rival militarily and bring former Soviet states into the US “sphere of influence” via Nato. Successive US administrations developed and zealously pursued a hubristic foreign policy known as “full-spectrum global dominance” against its main great-power rivals, Russia and China.

Putin’s popularity among Russians grew the more he posed – often only rhetorically – as the strongman who would stop Nato’s expansion to Russia’s borders. 

Contrary to Baerbock’s suggestions, Moscow wasn’t wooed by a Nato “chequebook”. It was gradually and systematically cornered. It was turned, bit by bit, into a pariah. 

This isn’t the assessment simply of “Putin apologists”. Nato’s strategy was understood and warned against in real time by some of the biggest figures in US foreign policy-making – from George Kennan, the father of US Cold War policy, to William Burns, the current CIA director.

In 2007, as US ambassador to Moscow, Burns wrote a diplomatic cable – later revealed by Wikileaks – arguing that “Nato enlargement and U.S. missile defense deployments in Europe play to the classic Russian fear of encirclement”. Months later, Burns warned that offering Ukraine Nato membership would place Moscow in an “unthinkable” predicament. 

Washington simply ignored these endless warnings from its own officials, because maintaining peace and stability in Europe was not its goal. Permanently isolating and “weakening” Russia was. 

The Biden administration understands it is playing with fire. Last year, in a remark most likely unscripted, the president himself invoked the danger of Russia, faced with a defeat in Ukraine it viewed in existential terms, unleashing a nuclear “Armageddon”.

Tragically, Nato’s malevolence, deceit and betrayal means that the only alternative to Armageddon may be Ukraine’s downfall – and with it, the crushing of Washington’s nefarious ambitions to advance full-spectrum global dominance.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

My political awakening came rather late in life, sometime in my mid-twenties. Before then I eschewed politics and regarded it as something sleazy, mundane and rather vicious, at every level. I preferred the world of art and letters and scholarship, though I eventually came to realize that politics played as much as part in that world as in our general practical one.

I recall, for example, participating in a symposium about Freud and his famous analysis of Dora. It was the case that marked Freud’s discovery of a phenomenon called ‘transference’ – discovery Freud made in retrospect. At the time he was conducting the analysis he was in the dark, and only upon review years later did he realize why the treatment had run amiss. The major presenter, a well-known and highly regarded scholar, gave his address and astonishingly enough accused Freud of malfeasance because he had neglected to understand what had not yet been known.

When it came my turn to offer remarks I noted that Freud could hardly be faulted for missing something that had yet to be discovered. By revisiting his work and questioning its problems he happened upon an insight that would have profound consequences for any psychotherapeutic treatment, and should have rightly been applauded.

The presenter well knew this, as I myself knew from his previous scholarly publications, yet he chose to play to a university audience that wanted to hear about Freudian misogyny rather than Freudian revelation. I had been invited to publish my remarks in the proceedings of the symposium, only to find that, shortly afterwards, having clearly cited the facts about the matter, I was informed that the invitation had been withdrawn.

It was politics, albeit politics at a level that held little consequence for the general well-being of people – nobody would starve or die as a result of these obscure political decisions – though I dare say the academic luster of the presenter might have been at stake had he decided to speak truth instead of pandering to what was fashionable.  I didn’t know it then but it was ‘wokeness’ rearing its incipient head way back in the late 1990s. I must say that it was a very hard pill to swallow for someone who believed in the ideals of factual scholarship in psychoanalysis.

When I came into a greater political awareness that comprised the machinations of State and the complex electoral system that regulated daily life and the general direction of the country, I was firmly in the camp of what was called the ‘left’: all for free speech, free expression, equal opportunity, equal playing fields, equal justice regardless of privilege, and peace.  I was most definitely against bellicose American adventurism and exploitation in Vietnam and the Middle East and one of the reasons I decided to emigrate to New Zealand during the Bush II years was the incomprehensibly savage invasion of Iraq, a country that had been deemed culpable for 9/11 by propaganda and that had been declared to possess the infamous ‘weapons of mass destruction’ it never had.

I never liked the facile distinctions of left and right, politically speaking, or liberal and conservative. I considered myself primarily an American ‘constitutionalist’, and the more I monitored the declarations of State the more deception I perceived.  I wondered why, for example, President Bush was not a forthcoming testifier for the 9/11 Commission, among other things, and why wildly unconstitutional measures via the felicitously named ‘Patriot Act’ had been adopted without a peep to restrict our rights to privacy and protections against search and seizure.  When I returned to the States for a visit in 2009 I was appalled by the loudspeaker announcements at Penn Station in New York, where I had spent many an hour awaiting the familiar Amtrak train to Philadelphia, advising people to be alert to unaccompanied baggage and to report any suspicious behavior to the authorities – notices blared every five minutes in what I imagined had been commonplace in Soviet Russia.

In our covid era, however, the dualistic political distinctions have turned out to be both confusing and irrelevant as new fault lines are created, fault lines that are themselves of dubious utility save for simplification and division. What I mean is that so many people – friends and family – who shared my political positions in the past – environmentalists, pacifists, anti-authoritarianists and, dare I say, even ‘conspiracy theorists’ – are now on another side, the side of mandates, ‘the science’, war-mongering and centralized control.

When the Canadian truckers had their bank accounts frozen they applauded. When yet another booster was recommended they lined up. When social media channels were disabled or otherwise censored for opinions that went against the mainstream narratives, they didn’t spring to protest. When those of us lost our jobs because we refused to sacrifice bodily sovereignty, they kept silent. And as the evidence about the danger and uselessness of the Jabs mounts, they turn their heads. Most important, in the face of State lawlessness that seeks to curtail basic rights, they keep their heads down.

As the tide goes out the detritus left in the wake of the covid tsunami delineates, roughly, two factions: those in support of globalized central control, and those who struggle for some semblance of individual and local autonomy.

The hard part is figuring out how the freedom-and-peace-loving ‘left’ has been transformed into a fascistic force that is all about control – a control that reaches down into our very molecules and into our thoughts, it seems.

Was it there all along?

I think perhaps it shows that those convenient political labels are superficial emblems that tell us nothing about the essence of the very people they purport to describe, an essence that has now been sublimated into a far more accurate descriptive division between free-thinking and no-thinking.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mercola

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Former Ukrainian government official and diplomat Andrii Telizhenko joins Aaron Maté to discuss how, in his view, powerful US figures including Joe Biden have used Ukraine for personal corruption and the geopolitical aim of bleeding Russia — all to the detriment of Ukrainians.

Telizhenko worked for the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office in Kyiv before moving to Ukraine’s US Embassy in 2015. He went on to work for Blue Star Strategies, a Democrat-run lobbying firm that represented Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that appointed Biden’s son Hunter to a lucrative board seat.

Telizhenko, who cooperated with Rudy Giuliani’s effort to dig up information about the Bidens’ alleged corruption in Ukraine, has been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for “having directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign influence in a United States election.”

Guest: Andrii Telizhenko. Political consultant who was previously a Ukrainian government official and diplomat.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

With unwelcome regularity, every few months Kathmandu Valley experiences a nationally watched theatrical production. This month’s will surely be unrivalled. Yet, each new production seems to outdo the last in commercial evaluations and the celebrity of its leading actors.

At the same time however, apart from eager journalists, the public does not attend. In fact, the Nepali public is largely focused beyond the valley, further than Everest, further than Darjeeling and Assam in N.W. India, the former go-to-destination for fleeing disenchanted youths and dreamers 3-4 generations ago. (Today, as we will see, they prefer to watch this drama from much further afield.)

Today’s dramas – offering commercial successes (for some), rich fodder for investigative journalists, and political accolades or disrepute for others – are an unending series of scandals. All have a similar theme – riches through corruption.

For the past decade, increasing as the national treasury of this new democracy swells, corruption and greed have grown at a rapid rate. It seeps into every corner of the nation, along newly-bulldozed roadways to once-remote nomad camps, into district headquarters in far flung provinces, and through engorged urban centers. It embraces a visa-and-passport racket; it spills over the gilded surfaces of the country’s holiest Hindu site; it entraps politicians of all political persuasions; it captures former ministers, members of parliament and their staff, a myriad of government agencies along with Nepal’s richest, most prominent merchants.

To review only the three most recent dramas: there’s the Bhutanese passport scandal. Almost 20 years ago, 100,000 ethnic Nepalese who’d been expelled from Bhutan where they’d been settled for generations, were sequestered in refugee camps within Nepal. Following international appeals, they were granted refugee status and could apply for asylum abroad. (The U.S. accepted more than 85,000.) But what about ordinary Nepalis? (Hadn’t thousands managed foreign visas from their fraudulent claims of lost homes in the 2015 earthquake?) It seemed unfair to the tens of thousands who wait more than two years even for a tourist visa to America, for example. Some aspiring-emigres who decided to claim Bhutanese refugee status won the sympathy of officials in relevant ministries who would furnish the necessary papers for 1-2 million rupees ($US 10,000- 18,000) each. When the racket was exposed, numerous culprits were identified and charged with treason, fraud and forgery; they included ministerial level officials, a police chief and a deputy prime minister along with lower-level clerks. (How any of the foreign embassies who might stamp these false papers responded to the exposé is unrecorded.) Nepal’s media had a field day publicizing the details, naming names; officials who had pursued the criminals were applauded. But how many of the named and accused were exempted, how many convicted, and how many of all of them are actually in jail today seem to be uncertain, or forgotten.

The obscurity that follows these exposés may be because, hardly a month later, a new political theater eclipses the last drama. Journalists excitedly pursue new celebrities. (Nepal’s press, a throng of papers, TV stations and online outlets, arose following the arrival of free speech – starting in 1990 and swelling after the blossoming of democracy in 2008. With so much corruption, between inter-and-intra-party scandals, press attention has increasingly turned in this direction, even as questions about the integrity of the nation’s young free press are raised.)

That Bhutanese ID drama follows a much discussed ‘gift’ of gold by Nepal’s former prime minister K.P. Oli and former president Mrs. B.D. Bhandari. Together, perhaps in search of spiritual merit after retirement, the pair committed government funds to purchase a massive quantity of gold (Jalahari) to adorn Nepal’s most sacred site Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu. An initial revelation that the funds were not their own, but from the State Treasury, reportedly resulted in the plates being exhumed and the engraved names of their esteemed benefactors removed. (As far as is known the Treasury still honored the cost of the gift.) The final act of that drama highlighted a supposed discrepancy (approximately 10 kilograms of gold) between the 100 kg weight of the reported gift and what was eventually recorded.

Sometime after or between these hot affairs was another equally serious production, a spectacular property deal. Called the Lalita Niwas land scandal. It too involved ministers and other officials, businessmen, and huge sums of money. Lalita Nawas is a tract of government property (about 15 hectares) in Baluwatar, one of the capital’s most elite suburbs.) Corruption charges were filed against 175 individuals upon discovery that plots there had been illegally transferred in the name of individuals through collusion with officials, among then land revenue personnel and the election commissioner. The sums involved are staggering. Investigations are ongoing (as jails fill, or trials are delayed).

The effect of this on the public is profound, and long-lasting. After less than two decades of democratic liberties most Nepalis are losing confidence in their modern republic. (Maoists who fought to end the dictatorship are among the most corrupt, it is believed.)

A deeper, more troubling consequence of the corruption is found among school graduates and in applications for foreign visas. “Education is now a means to escape the country”, observes secondary school director Bhagwan Shrestha. From his many years in the field, he sadly concludes that education for the sake of learning is of low priority: “We are producing educated Nepalis for outside”. Few want to stay. He also notes the difficulties simple families endure to pay increasingly high school fees, hoping this would open a path abroad for their children. “Their dream is for their children to escape”, Shrestha adds. “Education is simply a ticket out.” He also suggests that this condition lowers the appeal of teaching as a profession.

Youths who leave after the compulsory 10^th class have aspirations to find work as laborers in Malaysia and Gulf Cooperation Council states. Those able to complete university do so with their eyes on Australia, Europe and the U.S. and Canada, with the U.S. most preferred. One thirty-year-old who intends to stay in Nepal notes: “From my graduating class of 131 students, almost 90 are outside – working abroad”.

One need only glance at the lines of aspirants at the gates of foreign embassies. From the airport, flights leave night and day ferrying mainly young men abroad. (800,000 are expected to be issued labor permits this year). They and their families consider themselves fortunate, despite tales of difficult conditions abroad. Their hardships, often exaggerated, may be sympathetically recorded in international papers. But however severe the stresses and risks abroad, Nepali youths view those as preferable to dim prospects at home where corruption is so invasive. With their overseas earnings they can leverage possibilities for themselves in their homeland. In fact, most return with sufficient savings to open a modest business, pay off mortgaged land, and afford school fees for their children to obtain a better education (and perhaps win a visa to a first-class destination!). Their remittances back to Nepal are not insubstantial. If Nepal’s government were really responsible, instead of the outflow generated by corruption and the lack of opportunities for citizens, it could foster local industry and agricultural innovation. What enterprise one finds in Nepal is in the private sector; this in a nation which, during its 15 years of democracy, has largely been led by socialist parties (Maoist, Marxist and Communist) with access to billions of rupees to offer fraudsters.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon. 

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

---

“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.

Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.

This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.

After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.

Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Watch The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal address the UN Security Council on the role of US military aid to Ukraine in escalating the conflict with Russia and the real motives behind Washington’s support for Kiev’s proxy war.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The US-led West is not interested in peace or in any kind of compromise to put an end to the current conflict in Ukraine. According to University of Chicago political science professor John Mearsheimer, “Western leaders have additional goals, which include regime change in Moscow, putting Putin on trial as a war criminal, and possibly breaking up Russia into smaller states.” Journalist Anchal Vohra, writing for Foreign Policy, tells us that “Western analysts and Russian dissidents” have been publicly calling for the “decolonization of Russia itself.”

Take, for example, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (an independent US. government agency): already in 2022, Vohra reminds us, it published a report called “Decolonizing Russia”, which declared that such decolonizing should be “a moral and strategic objective.”

This extreme stance is not a “reaction” to the escalation of the ongoing conflict (but rather one of its external causes); in fact, such views are nothing new at all. Take, for instance, the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, the influential diplomat and foreign policy expert who served as a national advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter: he openly called for the further fragmentation of Russia (after the collapse of the Soviet state). In his 1997 Foreign Affairs piece, he called for a “loosely confederated Russia – composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic and a Far Eastern Republic.” Brzezinski advocated all this while also speaking about  “America’s global primacy” – extending all the way over to the Eurasiatic landmass too, of course. According to him, the US should “perpetuate the prevailing geopolitical pluralism on the map of Eurasia”, so as to prevent even “the remote possibility of any one state” seeking to “challenge America’s primacy”. To put it simply, for the American establishment, Russian simply cannot be.

This attitude, distorted as it is, makes some sense, from a certain American perspective, focused on global supremacy and the pursuit and maintenance of unipolarity. This has been shaped by the geopolitical thinking of Sir Halford John Mackinder and his concept of the struggle for the Heartland, and also by US Navy captain Alfred Thayer Mahan (and his 1890 The Atlantic article “The United States Looking Outward”). One must also add American exceptionalism to geopolitical thinking – that in turn can be traced back to the Puritan’s biblical metaphor about the “city upon a hill”.

We are talking about a nation that, according to retired Navy captain Jerry Hendrix (formerly an adviser to Pentagon senior officials), engages in land wars, while also seeking naval hegemony. Furthermore, it is actively pursuing a dual containment policy against both Russia and China, simultaneously. When it comes to Great Powers, for the United States, there can only be one.

Under this framework, Washington has consistently refused to acknowledge Moscow’s global role as the Great Power it is. American rhetoric up to early 2022 routinely described Russia as a “paper tiger” and a “declining power”. NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated on December 16, 2021 that “Russia is a power in decline, meaning the economic importance of Russia, the GDP is not keeping track with many other countries in the world”, albeit, at the same time, adding that “even an economy in decline and a power in economic decline can be a threat and a challenge.” This contradictory view could be seen mirrored in US President Joe Biden’s July 2022 dismissing remarks about Moscow “sitting on top of an economy that has nuclear weapons and oil wells and nothing else.” This denial attitude goes so far as to deny Russia’s role as a regional power even.

Many post-Soviet states have sought to maintain their ties with Moscow, which is exemplified by their ongoing adhesion over the last years to economic and security alliances such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and, more recently, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).  This reflects geoeconomic and geopolitical convergent interests which are a function of both geography and history: Russian civilization has a common history and has for centuries kept economic, political, and religious relations with a number of Slavic and Turkic peoples as well as many other ethnic groups.

In denial of all such basic facts and data, from an American perspective, Moscow is not to have even a “zone of influence” of its own. Moreover, for many influential US policy makers, political scientists, and thinkers (as we’ve seen) Russia should in fact cease to exist altogether as a polity.

Earlier attempts to “cancel” Russia into irrelevance or into virtual “non-existence” should thus be seen as examples of this peculiar mindset. The refusal to realistically and properly assess Moscow’s role and status in the global arena is not merely Western wishful thinking: the American Establishment seems to be unable to think of its own country outside of the context of a unipolar world. The very existence of a Russian state is thus perceived as a threat.

Rather than prolonging a proxy attrition war (which the Europeans themselves are tired of) “to the last Ukrainian”, responsible leaders should engage in good diplomacy and lots of table talks, which are needed more than ever, so as to minimize the risk of a global thermonuclear war (a scenario no one can afford). However, any such dialogue is hampered, among other things, by American exceptionalism.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Importance of Truth

Is not my intention to unsettle those persons unwilling to disturb their cerebral repose by confronting uncomfortable facts, thus I forewarn this article may cause cognitive dissonance, which results from the mind’s inability to hold two conflicting beliefs simultaneously. However, truth is vitally important and such topics must be addressed.

Modern society has been subjected to a network of lies and false narratives so pervasive it has become the accepted ‘norm’. However, the lies are certainly not accepted by all people. We have all been subjected to fake science and related ideologies that we were ‘born into’, and ‘educated’ to accept, and have thus been living in a ‘systematized delusion’.

A ‘systemized delusion’ being defined as one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.”, see Endnote [i]. Truth is important for without it we are lost, adrift, and rudderless in a sea of lies. If left to condition you, such fake narratives are going to send you sailing in the wrong direction. The importance of truth should not be discounted. All things rest upon truth, and only by truth can the world be sustained.

“No face which we can give to a matter will stead us so well at last as the truth. This alone wears well… Say what you have to say, not what you ought. Any truth is better than make-believe.” –Henry David Thoreau

“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, and obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board. “ – Henry David Thoreau

“As if there were safety in stupidity alone.” – Henry David Thoreau

“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the sea shore… finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell… whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”- Sir Isaac Newton, Famous scientist

Fake Science 

The book Godless Fake Science demonstrates that much of the scientific narrative we have been taught from our school days onwards, is based on falsehood, and that the institution of ‘science’ itself has in many ways been hijacked by financial interests seeking to advance their own narrative and agenda. Modern science, like economics, banking, and corporate-owned mass media, has become part of a paradigm borne by deceit, and corporate greed; and which paints God out of the picture.

The manipulation and fraudulent distortion of scientific and economic data has long been used by the ‘new world order crowd’ to promote false and deceptive agendas. These agendas stem from the top echelons of the international political, mega-corporate and financial system, and those few so-called financial elites who control it. These agendas also include bogus science posing as fact, which is then utilised to promote an ulterior agenda. The financialists that have a controlling interest in the world banking and corporate system have been able to do so as they have owned and controlled the money creation process itself for the past century.  By fully controlling the source of money creation and distribution the money-masters have been able to fund any agenda they wish and, similarly, defund anything they wish.

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.” – Mayer Amschel Rothschild (banker)

The money creation process was hijacked by this same line of corporate mechanics in the Federal Reserve coup of 1913, and has been under private control ever since. See the book Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers for more details. There is ‘nothing new under the sun’, certain narcissistic folks are always seeking power and control.  The unpalatable reality is that both economic and scientific tricks are used by this new world order Davos group, and their cohorts at the UN, WEF, and WHO, etc., to increase their own economic power/control over world society. Communist control ideology; monopoly capitalism; along with corporate, banking, political, and media control, are the everyday tools of this group. Thus, society has become inundated with godless fake science and subversive ideologies that serve an ulterior agenda.

Fake Climate Science

An example of a false scientific narrative is that CO2, or methane emissions from livestock, such as cows, causes climate change – this is detailed in this previous article. The cult of ‘manmade climate change’ is a media and UN politically-promoted ‘ideology’, that is used for a wider agenda of control. Manmade climate change from CO2 emissions or methane from livestock, is not based in fact and has hijacked real environmentalism. A chapter in the book Godless Fake Science is dedicated to this subject, and see also the books Transcending the Climate Change Deception and CO2 Climate Hoax. In addition, note the video presentations by renowned scientists on the Irish Climate Science Forum website:

“in the long history of the earth there has been almost no correlation between climate and co2… the paloeclimate record shows unambiguously that Co2 is not a control knob… the narrative is absurd…  it gives governments the power to control the energy sector… for about 33 years, many of us have been battling against the climate hysteria… There were more important leading people who were objecting to it, they were unfortunately older and by now most of them dead…

Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert their authority. They believe they are entitled to view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement. Movements need goals, and these goals are generally embedded in legislation. The effect of legislation long outlasts the alleged science. As long as scientists are rewarded for doing so they are unlikely to oppose the exploitation of science.” – Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT

Via decades of climate propaganda, the financialists behind all the CO2 Hoax have misdirected the ‘educuated’ (indoctrinated) masses into a doomsday frenzy. For example, a neighbor, a nice woman, will now not even burn wood logs in her stove to heat her house, for fear of climate change, and criticizes others who do so; and a local grocery store manager, a man in his 50s, confided to me he was in severe anxiety about the climate disaster. It is hardly surprising that a ‘climate activist’ posted a review here of the book on Amazon last week, with the hysterical accusation of “denial, denial, denial”. Labelling someone as a “denier” is what some people resort to when they have no scientific argument or sound evidential basis. It obvious from the three-sentence review, that the reviewer had not actually read the book. If they had they would see their statements dismantled and worries fade away. The listing also shows they had not purchased the book. How can we communicate with such a brainwashed person? I do not deny the climate is changing for it appears to have always gradually changed naturally in its own cycle, however, the reality is carbon emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the cause. Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT summarises the battle against the climate hysteria as follows:

“The ‘educated’ class is most vulnerable to the absurd narrative… when we talk about science we are to talking to people who have no idea even of the vocabulary… the educated masses are aware of their scientific ignorance and this leaves them very insecure… they need simple narratives it allows them to believe that they actually do understand the science, and as we see today with climate it allows them to become ignorantly proud of their alleged accomplishment… the situation is compounded when it comes to climate where… most scientists are also ignorant, but where their support for the narrative comforts the non-scientists.  I suspect… this elite (educated class) feels they need to show they too have met challenges even if the challenges are purely imaginary, this seems particularly true of young people… most ordinary people don’t have these problems.

Our task is to show the relevant people the people who make decisions for us, the political people, the overall stupidity of this issue rather than punching away at the details… it is likely that we have to capitalise on the insecurity of the educated elite and make them look silly instead of superior and virtuous. We must remember that they are impervious to real science unless it is reduced to their level… Whether we are capable of doing is an open question.” – Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT

Victims of the climate catastrophe narrative believe that “on the ground, more and more people are dying from heat wave flooding, wildfires and communities are being wiped out by rising seas.”  Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a former Committee Chairman at the original UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and former head of the Paleo Geo-physics and Geo-dynamics department in Stockholm, has exposed this narrative as false.  Dr Mörner resigned in protest of the lies and fake science contained in the UN IPPC documents. Yet none of this information is provided to students in the universities of the world today, not to mention on television. He states:

“I was the chairman of the only international committee on sea levels changes and as such a person I was elected to be the expert reviewer on the (UN IPPC) sea levels chapter. It was written by 38 persons and not a single one was a sea level specialist… I was shocked by the low quality it was like a student paper… I went through it and showed them that it was wrong and wrong and wrong – in one case I said look at your own diagram it shows that what you are writing is wrong, and what did they do? They took off their diagram and left the writing!…

The scientific truth is on the side of the sceptics… When you come to the idea of ‘97% of scientists agree’ – this is just a lobbying trick 97%. I have thousands of high ranked scientists all over the world who agree that NO, CO2 is not the driving mechanism and that everything is exaggerated. There is no way that sea levels can rise by two meters by the beginning of the next century… this is against physics…

In the field of physics 80 to 90% of physicists know that the Co2 hypothesis is wrong – amongst geologists and astronomers 80% know the hypothesis… is wrong. Of course, metrologists they believe in this because that is their own profession – they live on it… I suspect that behind-the-scenes promoters… have an ulterior motive… It’s a wonderful way of controlling taxation controlling people.” – Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a former Committee Chairman at the UN IPPC.

Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama, has provided detailed analysis of climate data, and has also shattered the narrative that “on the ground, more and more people are dying”, see Endnote [ii]. I summarise the main points from his analysis below:

“temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today… the number of major tornadoes between 1954 and 1986 averaged 56/year, but between 1987 and 2020 the average was only 34/year; between 1895 and 2015 on average there has been no change in the number of very wet days per month, and no change in the number of very dry days per month, and the 20 driest months were before 1988. Between 1950 and 2019 the percentage of land area experiencing droughts has not increased globally – the trend is flat; the incidence of wildfires in North America between 1600 and 2000 has decreased substantially… Antarctic sea ice coverage has increased up to 2014, then dropped for 3 years, and has been increasing significantly again since 2017; there is much more sea ice today than there was 2,000 years ago, coverage has been dropping in recent years in the artic…

Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it rising only 2.5 cm per decade… worrying about 30 cm rise in sea level in a decade is ridiculous, in a hurricane the east coast of the U.S. gets a 20 foot rise in 6 hours, so a 30 cm rise will be easily handled!… climate related deaths have plummeted; hundreds of thousands of people used to die from hurricanes now it’s just dozens.” – Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama

Fake Pandemic

Chapter 2 of Godless Fake Science provides evidence of the fake Covid-19 pandemic; and details research indicating that a so-called Covid-19 virus does not actually exist (there was no virus leak from a lab in Wuhan), and that the entire discipline of virology took a wrong turn (to put it kindly) in 1950s. Countless millions of viruses exist in nature that have no detrimental effect to us. The research of Dr Stefan Lanka, amongst other scientists and doctors, indicates pathogenic viruses that cause disease simply do not exist. Virus pandemics are a mega-corporate scam. Toxins are a cause of disease in the body – is it not time that modern-day vaccine adjuvants containing substances, such as the toxin aluminium, came under closer scrutiny? Additional significant aspects are detailed in the article No Worries No Virus and also in the book No Worries No Virus.  

Fake Science in the Biopharmaceutical Sector

Another area rife with fake science is the Bio-pharma and vaccine industry. Are you aware that Big pharma has paid more than $35 billion in criminal penalties for falsifying science? An area where the bio-pharmaceutical companies can be sued is for falsifying science. For example, Glaxo, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck, these companies have paid $35 billion in criminal penalties for lying to doctors, for defrauding and falsifying science, and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, due detrimental aspects and side effects of their drugs and health products.

Furthermore, whistleblowers have informed us that the pharmaceutical industry routinely modifies trial results to secure official approval for a new drug. In such instances, the motivation is profit. In 2015, Dr Richard Horton, then editor-in-chief of the Lancet, the prestigious medical journal, made the following observation:

”A lot of what is published is incorrect”… this symposium – on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research… touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today… much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”… The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming… scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data…” – Dr Richard Horton

An area of note is in relation to cholesterol, and statin drugs, the so-called miracle drugs widely prescribed to lower blood cholesterol levels. Statins are perhaps the most profitable drug in the history of medicine. According to Dr. Malcolm Kendrick:

“… the protection provided by statins is so small as to be not worth bothering about for most men and all women. Statins have many more side effects than has been admitted and their advocates should be treated with scepticism due to their links with the drugs’ manufacturers.” – Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

Neo-Darwinian Evolution – Falsehood Posing as Fact

Another prime example of godless scientific falsehood posing as fact is the atheistic theory of neo-Darwinian evolution that has been incessantly promoted since the 1850s. In 2008, over 700 scientists, all with doctorate degrees, see Endnote [iii], made a joint declaration titled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, stating:

“We are sceptical of claims for the ability of natural selection and random mutation to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”

Chapter 3 of Godless Fake Science provides comprehensive evidence and testimony that Darwin’s theory has no evidential basis; and details the research of scientists and biologists that have exposed these flaws. Yet, the theory is being taught by government education systems worldwide to billions of children, and students, in schools and universities; and to the rest of us via nature documentaries, movies, etc., on TV. The reality is our ancestors were not monkeys. If want to believe your ancestors were monkeys you have every right to do so, but it just isn’t true. You have been brainwashed over decades by the education (indoctrination) and media system. You can unlock yourself from that mental zoo at any time.  The groups behind the historical promotion and dissemination of this fake scientific doctrine are steeped in atheistic ideology.

“scientists did accept the theory before it was rigorously tested…. Evolutionary science became the search for confirming evidence, and the explaining away of negative evidence” – Phillip Johnson, Berkely law professor, Author

“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion. Almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it. To my mind the theory does not stand up at all.” – Lipson HS, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, vol.31 (May 1980), p.138.

“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried this question on geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.” – Dr. Colin Patterson, Evolution and Creationism, Speech at the American Museum of Natural History, New York (November 5, 1981), pp.1,2.

The Fossil Record Proves Darwin’s’ Theory Is Completely Incorrect

The fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of evolution, or the mainstream theoretical evolutionary timeline that we were taught in school. Billions of organisms have been fossilized providing a record of life over millions of years yet instead of demonstrating gradual transition from one species to another, the fossil record clearly indicates a pattern in which species suddenly emerge fully formed, then exist virtually unchanged until they disappear from the fossil layers upon extinction. Darwin himself wrote:

“the number of intermediate [transitional] species… must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links? Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection against the Theory [of Evolution].” – Charles Darwin

And while there may be rare instances of species that seem part ape, part human, there is no evidence the one came from the other. To overcome this problem, Darwin argued, with no proof whatsoever, that the fossil record is extremely inaccurate and littered with gaps. He argued that future generations of paleontologists would fill these gaps via their research. (Paleontologists study the history and process of evolution by examining fossils). After 150 years has the diligent research of modern paleontologists fulfilled Darwin’s prediction?

The Search for Speciation – There Are No Intermediate Fossils

As the following scientific extracts demonstrate, the answer to the above question is a resounding “NO”. Over the past 150 years hundreds of thousands of fossils of extinct species have been found, but the entire fossil record shows no example of a transition from one species to another species anywhere.

“One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. … The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.” – Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p.45-46.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” – Woodroof, D.S., Science, vol.208, 1980, pg.716.

“The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.” – Hitching, Francis, Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, pg, 19.

“the fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional species cannot be explained as due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.” – Professor Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Lund University, Sweden, 1954

Darwin himself even admits the absence of intermediate species “presses hard” on his theory. See the screenshot below from his Origin of Species book, pg 354:

“The number of intermediate species, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological record and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. “ – quote from ‘Origin of the Species’ (pg 308) by Charles Darwin

“But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.” – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, pg 354

Thus, there is no satisfactory mechanism to account for how new species appeared. Furthermore, speciation (the forming of new species) has never been observed. Variations within a species were observed in Darwin’s day as they are now. However, ‘evolution’ beyond variations within one species to create an entirely new different species remains completely hypothetical, and lacks an evidential confirmation to this day. This conclusion is supported by quotations from evolutionary biologists listed below.

“… throughout 150 years of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another… since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” – Alan H. Linton,  Bacteriologist

“… speciation [the forming of a new species] whether in the remote galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosopers, or in the crowded sediments of the palaeontologists, still has never been traced.” – Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Evolutionary biologists

The book Godless Fake Science contains two comprehensive chapters examining the flaws in Darwin’s theory of evolution, with reference to the research work of scientists and authors, such as Lief A. Jensen, who have exposed these flaws over the past decades. These chapters also detail the following topics:

• The Cambrian explosion shows species emerged suddenly and fully formed
• Nature exhibits irreducible complexity that refutes Darwin’s theory
• The first cells could not have been created by random chance as evolutionists claim
• Additional comprehensive evidence that the theory of evolution is incorrect
• No evidence that breeding or natural selection creates a new species
• Fake embryo drawings in college textbooks
• Miller Urey experiment – textbooks present false proof on the origin of life
• The Piltdown man forgery and false claims of evolution
• Fossils that indicate advanced humans existed in the distant ancient past, thereby, refuting the neo-Darwinian evolutionary timeline
• Neanderthals were not the ancestors of humans
• The emergence of Darwinism and the atheistic groups that promoted it
• Diving deeper into the atheistic communist ideology behind Darwinism

The Limitation of Mechanistic Science

“… the fundamental and indispensable postulates of every genuinely productive science are not based on pure logic but rather on the metaphysical hypothesis – which no rules of logic can refute…  It is only through the immediate dictate of our consciousness that we know that this world exists.” – Max Planck, Scientist

Modern science is mechanistic in its approach and is based on the premise that everything can be explained via observation and measurement of physical substances. The problem is that attempting to describe everything in a quantitative mathematical way has its limits. As soon as you try to explain in numbers, in mathematics, something like consciousness, conscience, instinct, inspiration, spiritual experiences, or life itself you run into problems.

Modern mechanistic science is therefore fairly limited as it is based on the effects of processes, but does not grasp their fundamental root causes. It assumes that we can describe the world independently of the existence of God. The direction of science over the past two centuries has been to see how far this approach can take us – to what extent can we explain nature, the world, the universe and everything whilst completely ignoring any reference to God, the soul and spiritual origins of everything.

This mechanistic approach has produced a system of industrial globalisation that has exploited and polluted nature for the sole purpose of maximising GDP and corporate profits – globalisation has been sawing off the branch upon which humanity sits. Most day jobs of the ‘system’ are embedded within in a globalised corporate matrix in which material greed is the operating principle. In this system those relatively few people who own and control the mega-corporations and mega-banks, by design, become richer and richer.

A long list of curious scientists and philosophers throughout human history have endeavoured to explain the fundamental truths of life, such as consciousness, inspiration, the origin or life, and what it all means. Most have concluded that material science is unable to explain or solve these conundrums. Material science cannot validly explain consciousness, inspiration, love, or where these realities come from.  The missing element in the mechanistic approach of modern-day science can be described as the spiritual element.

So, modern science describes quantity very well, but it fails in the area of quality, cause, and meaning of life. Such qualities cannot be defined or described in a ‘paint by numbers’ approach. Modern mechanistic science has responded to such questions with the animalistic “survival of the fittest”. However, the reality is that humans are not animals. As spiritual beings we should not assume that our lives are meaningless or insignificant. However, that is the bleak room that mechanistic science leaves us in. We have the potential for behaviours that are beyond animalistic, and, even, beyond humanistic. As sparks of our Creator, we have the potential for inspired creativity, and divine accomplishments.

Attempts to describe everything by mathematics and mechanistic science are becoming more and more ludicrous. Scientist, Marcus Schmieke, summed this up saying:

 “the approach seems to be that most current theories require an invented, and as yet, neither proven nor unproven component, a new particle or a previously unheard-of constant, in order to appear conclusive.”

This is exemplified by gaping holes in the theory of modern physics and the search for the media-hyped inventions, such as the Higgs boson particle. Theoretical physicists attempted for decades to present a purely mathematical description of the world and, thus, became entangled in ever more complex models. The “God particle” or “Higgs boson”, became famous for a time, but its existence was never proved, despite all the money that was thrown at it.

In 1931 Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel actually proved that humankind will never be able to describe the universe by a final mechanistic theory – Gödel’s proof is outlined in the above book. At the last hurdle science always needs God. Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate, once said “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”. In modern times, this final gulp of reality is unthinkable for the atheistic scientists.

“For nearly 100 years, Western natural science has tried to keep their struggle for the absolute truth open, using all kinds of trickery; it simply appeared unthinkable for them to ever lose that fight. The tricks employed mostly consisted of inventing new elements, new particles and new rules, the exact definition of which one could safely postpone.” – Marcus Schmieke, Scientist and Inventor

“For believers God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations” – Max Planck, Physicist

“We ought to value the privilege of knowing God’s truth far beyond anything we can have in this world.” – Michael Faraday, Scientist 

The Church of Godless Scientism

The church of godless scientism is a religion in which the church goers do not realize, or even admit, they are members of a church, or that there even is a church. No, they claim to be proponents of ‘science’, but they are simply regurgitating a rigid belief mostly based on faith, i.e., faith in scientism – the scientism they are indoctrinated into by television, government funded schools, corporate media, and media-induced popular opinion, without a shred of ‘real’ evidence.

This denial of God can be traced back to a hijacking of science in the 1800s by the atheistic promoters of Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory which implies that God does not exist. Prior to this pivotal agenda most scientists believed in the existence of the Creator. After the well-funded popularization of Darwin’s theory, spirituality was expelled from science and, thus, modern science became a shackled servant of materialistic minds, and profit-making agendas.

Charles Darwin, who proposed the theory of evolution in the 1800s had strong links with the Royal Society science institution. It has been asserted by various authors that the members of this institution were almost all atheistic freemasons. It appears that, driven by the network mechanisms of such influential groups, the completely unproven theory of evolution has been force fed to the world population for the past 150 years, and is the ideological basis by which ‘modern science’ excludes the existence of God. Darwin’s theory provided the intellectual justification for removing God as the Creator. Darwinian evolution was then promoted not because of its scientific basis, but because of its ideological implications. Since then, origins involving God have been rejected by the scientific orthodoxy.

Hence, the cold reality is that in 2023, by teaching and promoting Darwin’s theory, scientific and academic institutions worldwide imply that God does not exist. Unfortunately, in 2023, even Christian universities are rigorously teaching the ideology of neo-Darwinian evolution. Numerous scientists that have challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, or hinted at the possibility of ‘intelligent design’ and the existence of an intelligent designer, have been ostracised by the academic orthodoxy. This is evidenced in the documentary film Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed.  In this documentary, a number of senior scientists and university Professors describe that their funding was cut, or that they lost their jobs, when their research indicated intelligent design in nature and biology. If intelligent design of nature, human biology, and the universe was admitted by modern science, the obvious scientific question becomes “who was the intelligent designer?”.

The Knowledge Filter – Scientific Ideologies and Lies Accepted as Fact

Dr. Richard L. Thompson (1947 – 2008), was one of the world’s foremost scientists in areas including probability theory, statistical mechanics, quantum physics and mathematical biology. He also comprehensively refuted the big bang theory, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Thompson and his team produced video presentations on how modern educational institutions, especially in the field of science, were operating what he called a ‘knowledge filter’. Any information that did not fit with the dominant ideologies, such as the theory of evolution, simply was not presented to the students. This was not necessarily a conscious decision; it was often done unconsciously. Recognizing the existence of this knowledge filter, Thompson decided to analyze the professional archeological literature that pre-dated the general acceptance of the theory of evolution, to find out if there were any evidences that contradicted the theory. He found so much evidence refuting the theory of evolution he collated it into a 900-page book titled Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race.

It has become increasingly clear that in the realm of modern science, whether it be climate science, virology, particle physics, evolutionary theory, paleontology, anthropology, archeology, etc., that which is presented to the public as established fact, is nothing more than a consensus fabricated by powerful groups of people. Over the past century in particular, the consensus of the institutional scientific community worldwide has been inevitably shaped according to which projects are funded and which are not. Therefore, it is those financialists that control and own the money creation and distribution system that have been controlling the scientific stories and narratives that are presented to us as ‘modern science’.

God Is the Greatest Scientist – Atheistic Scientists Are Like Thieves

Atheistic scientists are like thieves – they take matter that God created, manipulate it, and then claim that they have created something wonderful. At least if they would admit that they have taken the matter from Gods creation, that would be good. Instead, they say that ‘science’ is the creator, and that everything comes from ‘science’. Can any scientist create a flower in the laboratory from nothing? No scientist can replicate what a cow does – turn grass into milk. No scientist can replicate what a hen does – make an egg. A small seed can turn into a huge tree, but no scientist can create even the smallest seed. No scientist can produce a single living being in a laboratory. In vitro fertilization, is merely a manipulation of sources of ‘raw materials’ that God created. They cannot even create even a few grains of sand. God created everything. Scientists cannot manufacture even a small mosquito. Science and engineering can manufacture a 747 aeroplane, but a mosquito is actually far more advanced than a 747, a mosquito does not crash.

Scientists have taken from nature, but they are thieves because they have taken from God’s creation. If we do not acknowledge that things have been taken from God’s creation, and instead claim them as our own wonderful creation, then surely we are thieves. The perfection of science is to scientifically explain that God is the original source. Then your knowledge is perfect. The following are quotes from just few of the many scientists that have realized the existence of God:

“Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us. The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into word” – Lord Kelvin, the scientific father of thermodynamics

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly people” – Physics Noble laurate Max Born

“There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Science proves that God exists. “ – Chemistry Noble Laurate Derek Barton

“When I examine the orderliness, understandability, and beauty of the universe, I am led to the conclusion that a higher intelligence designed what I see. My scientific appreciation of the coherence, the delightful simplicity, of physics strengthens my belief in God… a God who is both the creator of the universe and is ultimately concerned with the welfare of the creatures of that universe…. I believe that scientific research is a deeply religious calling” – William D. Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics, University of Maryland

“An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God.” – Ramanujan, Famous mathematics genius

“The universe has been brought for us by a supremely good and orderly creator” – Nicholas Copernicus

“For a person whose spiritual orientation is in the framework of a supreme benevolent entity, the world is the handiwork of that entity. The study of the intricacies and beauty of the world is an act of devotion. Pursuing science becomes an act of worship… Contemporary science looks at the world in terms of utility (technology and standard of life)… But never does it aim to see uninterrupted happiness as the aim of all disciplines… “ – E.C. G Sudarshan, Particle Physicist, University of Texas

“I saw in it (the atom) the key to the deepest secret of nature, and it revealed to me the greatness of the creation and the Creator.” – Max Born, one of the pioneers of quantum physics

“Although 2,000 years of Aristotelian worldview maintained that insects are devoid of any internal organs, Swammerdam showed that they are as complex as the large mammals. For him the source of this artistic design, complexity and natural order could only be divine, and his only response was rapture.” – Dr T. D. Singh PhD referring to the work of Dutch anatomist and pioneer microscopist Jan Swammerdam (1637-80)

“I find that existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than from the essence of a rectilinear triangle can be separated the equality of its three angles to two right angles, or, indeed, if you please, from the idea of a mountain the idea of a valley” – Descartes

“I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife” – Kurt Gödel, Famous mathematician

“I think only an idiot can be an atheist” – Christan B. Anfinsen, Noble Laureate chemist

“Little science takes you away from God but more of it takes you to him” – Louis Pasteur, Founder of Microbiology

“All things are indeed contrived and ordered with singular providence, divine wisdom, and most admirable and incomprehensible skill. And to none can these attributes be referred save to the Almighty.” – Sir William Harvey, Founder of Modern Medicine

“For me the idea of a creation is inconceivable without God. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a divine intent behind it all.” – Wemher Von Braun, Founder of Astronautics

“We feed our bodies; our Souls are also to be fed: The Food of the Soul is Knowledge, especially Knowledge in the Things of God,” – John Ray, Founder of Modern Biology

“When I reflect on so many profoundly marvelous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent” – Galileo Galilei, Founder of Experimental Physics

“There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our failing into error, the first, the volume of Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creatures, which express His power.” – Sir Francis Bacon, Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method

Realisation that God is the supreme intelligence, the greatest scientist of all, and a loving father to us all, is the path to improving your life, and that of the society we live in. The Sanskrit word Tattvajijnasa, refers to inquiry into the Absolute Truth or the Ultimate Reality, tattva meaning truth and jijnasa meaning inquiry. Individuals can turn toward God, and original (not altered) scriptures, for guidance, or be continually entangled by the atheistic and demonic illusions. The essence of all genuine scripture is the same – love of God our Father and Creator, regardless of the time period or geographic location the scripture originates from.

Synthesis of Scientific Enquiry and Spirituality for Human Wellbeing

The Christian Bible says do not take any false gods before me, yet some people have made the choice of taking modern science, the government system, the UN, etc., to be their godly authority or worshipable master. Thus, they are subject to the dictates of much fake science, or of government policy based on fake science.

 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” – King James Bible. Deuteronomy 5:7.

It appears to me that modern science is constrained within an atheistic box because it is ultimately funded via a debt-money and corporate system that is owned and controlled by people who have no interest in promoting a God-conscious society and instead wish to promote an atheistic society. A paradigm shift is now needed, in which material science is re-united with the science of spirituality. In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn describes the important role paradigms play in all scientific work. Kuhn pointed out:

“… scientists working within a paradigm no longer adequate are nevertheless still comfortable with it. Either they don’t see the anomalies as anomalous, or they don’t consider them a problem for the paradigm because they are convinced that with further research the paradigm will be able to account for them. Typically, its scientist from other fields – or even interested lay scientists – who notice the inadequacy of a paradigm and propose a new one. “ – Thomas Kuhn, Author

The ancient Vedic scriptures pre-date Christianity, and principles of the Vedic Vedanta also appear to be echoed in the Christian Bible. The Christian verse Matthew 7:7: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” is pointing toward a universal spiritual truth. I also note the following verses from the Christian texts, are consistent with the descending knowledge process described in the ancient Vedic Vedanta:

“James 1:5. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

“Proverbs 1:7. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

In contrast to what Wikipedia tells us, my research indicates that Vedic culture is the world’s oldest culture, and Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas, is the world’s oldest language. I note that the ancient Vedic Vedanta details this synthesis of material and spiritual science. In modern times this approach to knowledge appears to be confined to Vedic colleges and organisations, for an example see Endnote [iv]. Vedic culture is today most associated with India, where the last, sometimes distorted, remnants remain. Yet my research indicates it was, thousands of years ago, a worldwide monotheistic culture from which various religious traditions emanated (for example, Vedic symbols exist in ancient traditions and on ancient architecture worldwide).

Science Has for Decades Bypassed the Pre-cautionary/Safety Principle

Another topic of importance is that modern science has, for over a century, bypassed the pre-cautionary principle. A principle informing us we should not adopt technologies and processes for which we do not know the long term potentially harmful effects upon human health and nature. We see this for example, in recent decades with the advent of nanotechnology; GMOs; microwave-based mobile phone and WIFI technology; thousands of new manmade chemical compounds; the emissions of thousands of types of pollutants via modern industrial processes; the use of substances and additives that are toxic to humans in processed foods, pharmaceuticals and everyday products, for example, the use of aspartame in foods; and the controversial use of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines, etc.

In relation to aluminium, I note the work of Professor Christopher Exley of Keele University, a world-renowned expert on the subject of aluminium who has published dozens of peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject. Professor Exley and his research team had conducted research on the harmful health effects of aluminum on humans, and established a connection between aluminum in vaccines and Alzheimer’s disease. He also has become known for research claiming to link aluminium adjuvants in vaccines with autism. This work has led to him losing research funding. In 2022 his research was suddenly defunded, and his projects were shut down by the university. Why would the professor’s work be defunded and his research projects be shut down when the research relates to human health? Could this be another example of godless scientism at work? Vaccine companies make trillions of dollars in revenue and many governments are tied into contracts that are extremely lucrative for the vaccine companies.  Was Professor Exley’s work a threat to this money-making machine?

GMO and the Pre-cautionary Principle

With modern biotechnology, researchers can now take a single gene from a plant or animal cell and insert it in another plant or animal cell to give it a desired characteristic. For example, they can insert genes from a cold-water fish into a tomato to create a frost-resistant plant, or use bacterial genes to make herbicide-tolerant corn. The results are known as living modified organisms (LMOs) or, more popularly, GMOs. For many people, however, this rapidly advancing science raises a tangle of ethical, environmental, social and human health issues. Much about the interaction of LMOs with various ecosystems, and the human body, is not yet known. Many of the concerns about the technology involve potential adverse effects and potential risks to human health.

Because biotechnology is such a revolutionary science, and has spawned such a powerful industry, it has great potential to alter the world around us. It is already changing agriculture and what many of us eat. Critics argue that modern biotechnology transcends that which humans should be doing; and that there is currently little evidence to support the claims of increased agricultural yields from GMOs. Critics also assert that from a health point of view, there is currently insufficient information regarding toxicity and allergenicity of food products derived from GMOs. Furthermore, the socio-economic consequences are potentially severe, for example, through displacement of cash crops or traditional crops, and disruption of small-scale farming systems that are prevalent in developing countries. The patenting of living organisms, genes and/or genetic resources is also unacceptable to many farmers. As has been the case for thousands of years, it is important that farmers are able to keep seed from one season to the next, however, with GMO farmers must buy these expensive seeds each year or else be liable for patent infringement.

There exists a global biosafety clearinghouse of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in service to an international treaty, the Cartagena Global Protocol on Biosafety (CPB). GMOs are subject to regulation under the CPB. The CPB is supposed to be based on the precautionary approach, whereby the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to postpone action when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage. The worldwide utilisation of new so-called gene-therapy Covid-19 vaccines has been in full swing since the fake pandemic occurred. These vaccines were rolled out without long-term health and safety studies, and this could be viewed as a violation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However, it appears that LMOs that are pharmaceuticals for humans are excluded from the scope of the Protocol if they are covered by other international agreements or arrangements. What good is the CPB if it does not safeguard human health from a worldwide utilisation of experimental GMO-based vaccines?

My conclusion, is that the process of industrial globalization, by manipulating the substances of nature, has produced many thousands of new man-made substances, including GMOs, that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle.

Additional Fake Science

Additional fake science has been exposed by numerous scientists and authors in the areas of psychiatry, Freudian psychoanalysis, the big bang theory, particle physics, and cosmology. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an independent agency of the U.S. federal government, has also been accused of fakery. These additional topics are also detailed in the book Godless Fake Science.

The ancient text, the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB), was written in Sanskrit. The translation of SB 1.1.2, see Endnote [v],  states: “The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all”. These words are as true today as when they were written in ancient times.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Mark Keenan is a former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

He is author of the following books available on Amazon:

• Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability
• CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement
  
• No Worries No Virus
  
• Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers
  
• Godless Fake Science
• Godless Fake Science and the Vedic Path of Truth

 

Notes

[i] Source: McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)). I thank a correspondent from Canada for kindly sending me this definition.

[ii] Source: Irish Climate Science Forum lecture titled Testing Climate Claims 2021 Update available at www.icsf.ie

[iii] The list of scientists and their qualifications is available at www.dissentfromdarwin.com

[iv] For example, the Vedanta and Science Educational Research Foundation. Website:  http://vserf.org/

[v] I am referring to the 1972 translation into English by renowned Vedic scholar and spiritual leader, Srila Prabhupada.

Featured image is from 123RF

---

Godless Fake Science

By Mark Keenan

ASIN:‎ B0C9SC6XWQ

Publisher:‎ Independently published (July 2, 2023)

ISBN-13:‎ 979-8850715342

The author, a former science advisor at the UK government and at the United Nations, evidences the matrix of fake science that has polluted modern society for decades. Including in the areas of manmade climate change, Covid-19, virology, psychiatry, pharmaceuticals, evolution, the big bang, paleontology, particle physics, and cosmology. By excluding the existence of God in the scientific world, the atheistic manipulators have left themselves in a cul-de-sac unable to explain the scientific puzzle of creation, consciousness, and existence. Civilisation has been misdirected by large-scale lies that advance corporate greed and a godless agenda. The author is also a student of the Christian and Vedic scriptures, and calls for a re-establishment of truth and God-consciousness.

Click here to purchase.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

See the video of the Press Conference in Annex to the article. See also The White House Transcript .

There was nothing “Secret”.  The public statements made regarding Nord Stream by President Biden and Chancellor Scholz are abundantly clear:

Andrea (Reuters) Q    Thank you, Mr.  President.  And thank you, Chancellor Scholz.  Mr.  President, I have wanted to ask you about this Nord Stream project that you’ve long opposed.  You didn’t mention it just now by name, nor did Chancellor Scholz.  Did you receive assurances from Chancellor Scholz today that Germany will, in fact, pull the plug on this project if Russia invades Ukraine?  And did you discuss what the definition of “invasion” could be?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  The first question first.  If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2.  We will bring an end to it. 

Q    But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.  (White House Press Conference emphasis added)

“The Project is within Germany’s Control”

Chancellor Olaf Scholz responds to Reuter’s journalist pertaining to Biden’s decision to “pull the plug” on Nord Stream 2:

Andreas (Reuters) Q  [to Chancellor Scholz]  And will you commit today — will you commit today to turning off and pulling the plug on Nord Stream 2?  You didn’t mention it, and you haven’t mentioned it.

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ:  As I’ve already said, we are acting together, we are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps.  We will do the same steps, and they will be very, very hard to Russia, and they should understand.  (emphasis added)

***

America is at War with Europe

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 12, 2023

“Throughout “all of this scheming,” the source said, “some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, ‘Don’t do this. It’s stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out.’”

 “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.” 

(How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline, By Seymour M. Hersh, February 08, 2023, emphasis added)

Unfolding “Political Nightmare”

At a Press Conference (February 2022)  “Biden Spilled the Beans”:

“We will, I promise you, we will be able to do that”, said Joe Biden

Joe Biden: “There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2”

 

 

scroll down for details

 

If you wish to make a comment, click rumble on the right hand lower corner of the screen

---

Related Articles

How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline

By Seymour M. Hersh, February 09, 2023

 

“Fake News” according to the Media.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that the alliance had prepared Ukraine for war with Russia since 2014. At the same time, French Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced on July 12 that the French military has already trained 5,200 Ukrainian troops and plans to train a total of 7,000 troops by year’s end.

“France’s support for Ukraine is not weakening. […] Almost 5,200 Ukrainian soldiers have already been trained by France, including 1,600 in Poland. There will be almost 7,000 by the end of the year,” Lecornu tweeted.

According to Lecornu, Ukrainian troops are learning how to operate French military equipment transferred to them and practice modern combat tactics, such as forming battalions that can manoeuvre as a coherent tactical unit.

Meanwhile, the British government announced that more than 19,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been trained in the country over the past six months and that Ukraine can expect more material support.

“In the past six months, the UK has also expanded its military training programme for Ukrainian recruits. This programme has trained more than 19,000 soldiers to date and training for Ukrainian pilots in the UK will begin this summer,” the British government said in a statement.

The UK, through NATO, also plans to establish a medical rehabilitation centre “to support the recovery and return of soldiers to Ukraine’s lines of defence after being injured in combat.”

“[The British PM announced a] major new tranche of support for Ukraine, including thousands of additional rounds of Challenger 2 ammunition, more than 70 combat and logistics vehicles and a £50m support package for equipment repair,” the statement added.

Although these announcements are recent revelations, NATO training of the Ukrainian military is not new. Stoltenberg said that the Alliance began supporting the Ukrainian military long before the start of the war. 

“I welcome the military support that Allies have provided now for months, actually starting back in 2014,” Jens Stoltenberg told a press conference after the first day of the Alliance summit.

The NATO chief had previously confessed that Western military preparations began nine years ago. 

“Since 2014 […] NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence in a generation. With, for the first time in our history, combat ready troops in the eastern part of the Alliance, with higher readiness, with more exercises, and also with more defence spending,” he said on May 24. “So when President Putin launched his full-fledged invasion last year, we were prepared.”

In a joint statement after the first day of the summit in Vilnius, NATO leaders declared that the deepening partnership between China and Russia is contrary to the values ​​and interests of the alliance.

For his part, Russian President Dmitry Peskov said, before referencing NATO as an alliance that is “aggressive in nature,” that Moscow-Beijing relations “have never been aimed against third countries or alliances in any way.”

“It is not an alliance that was conceived, created, and built with the goal of ensuring stability and security. It is an offensive alliance. It is an alliance that breeds instability and aggression,” Peskov said of NATO.

During the NATO summit’s first day, member countries agreed to bring Ukraine closer to the alliance. However, the concrete provisions proposed to achieve this disappointed Ukraine. It was not lost on major outlets, such as the New York Times, that Zelensky criticised NATO’s attitude. 

Zelensky regretted in a tweet the “uncertainty” and “weakness” of NATO before the summit even started. “It seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to NATO nor to make it a member of the Alliance,” the tweet added.

Considering the humiliation Zelensky has experienced for being photographed isolated and alone at the NATO summit while member leaders talked amongst themselves, the Kiev regime should have realised that they are being used as nothing more than pawns in a now failed attempt to weaken and contain Russia.

It is evident that NATO is doing all it can to support Ukraine, short of using member states’ conventional militaries, and will continue with such a policy until at least the end of 2023, as the French and British announcements demonstrate.

Nonetheless, despite this support from France and Britain, Zelensky chastised NATO’s wider admission policy as “absurd,” prompting even UK Secretary of Defence Ben Wallace to highlight that Kiev does not express enough “gratitude” for the support it receives. Yet, this constant humiliation and the complete destruction of its military and economy has not been enough for the Kiev regime to realise that it is nothing more than an expendable proxy for NATO.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics