All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
The main focus of the incompetent Biden Regime is on demonizing white Americans who are not “Woke Democrats” and on raising tensions with Russia which are already more dangerous than during the Cuban missile crisis. The crazed warmonger, Victoria Nuland, who Biden appointed and the Senate confirmed Undersecretary of State, announced that Washington considers Russian installations in Crimea “legitimate targets” and the US government supports Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory.
Yesterday Putin announced that Russia is suspending participation in the last remaining nuclear arms agreement (START) as Washington insists on Russia’s compliance in the absence of its own.
The US Ambassador in Moscow was summoned to account for Washington’s participation in the Ukrainian conflict with Russia. The US Ambassador was told that the money, weapons, targeting information, support personnel all prove the falsity of Washington’s claim not to be a party to the conflict. The ambassador was told that the US is actively at war with Russia and actively engaged in hostile actions against Russia, and that this would haveconsequences.
Putin has put Russian nuclear missiles on Combat Alert status.
Ask yourself what kind of utterly stupid and irresponsible government in Washington would bring us to such a situation.
Ask yourself what kind of imbeciles lead NATO countries who put their own countries’ survival at risk in order to please Washington.
Ask yourself what kind of completely stupid leadership there is in Finland that can’t wait to jump into this dangerous situation by joining NATO.
And where is America’s idiot president while Russia puts nuclear missiles on Combat Alert? Is he on the telephone with Putin calming down the dangerous situation? No. The fool is in Ukraine and Poland pouring gasoline on the fire.
I have warned consistently that the West’s involvement in Ukraine is leading to nuclear war. The low grade morons who comprise the “Russian expert community” have ignored me, as has the “official-narrative-only media.” US policymakers are Russophobic people, such as Amb. Michael McFaul, who approach a dangerous situation emotionally and are incapable of reason or responsible behavior.
The Russians have seen all this. They see that there is no intelligence anywhere in the Western leadership, just intent to break Russia. Putin has been patient through all of this–too patient as I have argued–looking for a spark of intelligence in the West. Finding none, he seems to be giving up hope. If he gives up hope, war is on its way.
The uninvolved, unaware, uninformed American people have no idea of their present danger. Their understanding is limited to their indoctrination: “Russia Bad, Ukraine Good.”
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.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known simply as Lula, is Brazil’s 39th and current president. He represents the Workers Party. Lula held previously two presidential terms, from 2003 to 2010.
Lula has now been in office less than 2 months and has already opened his cards for everyone to see: totally submissive to and controlled by the World Economic Forum (WEF), by Washington, by the WHO and by Bill Gates, one of the key funders of WHO and creator of GAVI.
Just so you know – GAVI, also called the Vaccine Alliance, is the closest ally of WHO’s, a so-called public-private partnership registered in Geneva as a tax-free NGO with FULL diplomatic immunity. Yes, nobody could sue GAVI even for the most horrendous frauds and crimes they may commit, or may have already committed.
This is GAVI in corporate terms: Representatives of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) have one seat on the Gavi Board. The IFPMA represents more than 55 members of national industry associations, including Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of Sanofi-Aventis and Pfizer. See this for more on GAVI.
Just a few of days ago Lula declared that for families to remain eligible for the famous Bolsa Family Program (BFP), a social program for the poorest of the poor families, they must vaccinate their children – and he referred specifically to the covid vaxx – otherwise they lose their benefits.
BFP transfers have health and education conditionalities. Beneficiaries with children under age 7 must ensure that the children receive the eleven vaccines included in the Brazilian immunization schedule. The covid “vaccine” is explicitly included in the mandatory children’s vaccination program. Lula stressed in particular Covid vaxxes as a necessity to remain in the BFP.
In other words, either you inject your children with this toxic, potentially deadly mRNA concoction, or you may starve to death.
Lula, as a member of the Workers Party, run for President under the socialist ticket and he “won” as socialist. Whether he really won is highly questionable. Lula had 50.8% of votes compared with 49.2% for the incumbent Bolsonaro.
Such a paper-thin margin would normally more than justify a recount. But the “system”, those who have the last say on Brazil’s new presidency, Washington, the WEF, WHO, Gates – and all those invisible financial mega-powers directing those executing institutions, those who have a vital interest in Brazil and her extensive resources, including the wealth of Brazil’s rain forest – would not allow a recount. Lula is their “boy”.
Bolsonaro was “warned” about launching a coup. Though, a former high-ranking military – he had the support of the army.
The BFP was initiated during Lula’s first presidency (2002-2006), by merging existing social programs into the Bolsa Family Program. Lula is credited with lifting some 20 million Brazilians out of poverty with this and other social reform initiatives. Already under the first BFP, compulsory schooling of children and vaccination were BFP-eligibility criteria. However, at that time there was no toxic and potentially fatal mRNA “covid vaxx” on the market.
During his 2019 – 2022 presidency, Jair Bolsonaro improved the BFP and transformed it to become the “Auxilio Brazil” – Brazil Assistance Program. The new Auxilio Brazil included a permanent upward adjustment of 20%, as compared to the amount paid by Bolsa Família. It also abolished the vaxx conditionality.
“Auxilio Brazil” affected 56% of Brazil’s population (during the Covid Crisis) and became Latin America’s most effective poverty alleviation program, surpassing even the hitherto most lauded Mexican social benefits program, reaching some 25% of Mexican families.
With Lula’s arrival, his original Bolsa Family Program was back on the agenda. This time with even stronger conditionalities dictated by WHO – and of course, the Gates Foundation — strongly supported by the WEF and the Biden Administration. In fact, Lula’s first trip abroad as “new” old president was to Washington DC, where he could be seen in a number of Biden-hugging photo-ops. That alone speaks volumes.
Lula’s stern position on children’s covid vaxxing may also have to do with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declaration of 9 February 2023, officially adding the COVID-19 vaccinations to its recommended child and adolescent immunization schedules.
It is alarming that children may now be subject to these “recommendations” which could easily turn into school mandates around the world (see Brazil), despite serious safety concerns including myocarditis, heart attacks, blood clots, seizures and even sudden death in children.
And the bulldozer keeps rolling, despite the fact of Pfizer’s and other pharma’s recognition that the experimental vaxx does not prevent the “covid disease”, nor stop it from spreading and that it might have serious side effects.
No question on who calls the shots in Brazil.
Just as a byline, this will, no doubt, also be the case for Brazil’s economy – Wall Street, World Bank and the IMF will be in the driver’s seat.
Already during Lula’s first two presidencies, Wall Street made the major decisions affecting Brazil’s economy, to the point where the IMF lauded Lula as a “good learner”, who might become an excellent example for the rest of Latin America.
Today the situation is much more serious as children’s lives are seriously at stake. This newly, I call him “pseudo-elected” president, may have just become one of the most flagrant traitors of Brazil’s population, particularly Brazil’s children – the future generations – and maybe way beyond the Brazilian borders.
*
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.
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 (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.
***
Thousands of Syrians took to the streets on Monday, February 20, to protest against repeated Israeli aggression directed at the country. Protesters also chanted slogans against the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) imposed against Syria by the US and its allies, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported.
At least five Syrians were killed and 15 wounded when missiles fired by Israeli warplanes landed inside the densely populated Kafr Sousa neighborhood in capital Damascus on Sunday, February 19. According to SANA, all but one of those killed were civilians. The Syrian military claimed that its air defense had intercepted some of the Israeli missiles.
The attack—carried out in the middle of the night—caused a number of residential buildings, including a 10-story structure, to collapse.
Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad met foreign diplomats and ambassadors in Damascus and called the attacks “a crime against humanity,” especially at a time when the country was “racing against time to address the catastrophic consequences of the devastating earthquake.”
Nearly 47,000 people have been reported dead so far from the February 6 earthquake—41,000 in Turkey and more than 5,800 in Syria, with the latter struggling to keep up the pace of rescue operations due to war, sanctions, and a lack of adequate international support.
Mekdad called for global and “urgent condemnation of Israeli aggression to deter it from killing civilians and violating the sovereignty of states.”
He added that “the continuation of Israeli brutal attacks, and crimes against the Palestinian and Syrian people, constitutes an explicit threat to peace and security in the region and beyond.”
There has been no comment from Israel yet regarding the airstrike.
The attacks were condemned by Russia, Iran, Cuba, and several other countries.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
“Autocrats only understand one word: no, no, no. No you will not take my country, no you will not take my freedom, no you will not take my future… A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never be able to ease the people’s love of liberty. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free.”—President Biden
Oh, the hypocrisy.
To hear President Biden talk about the Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, you might imagine that Putin is the only dictator bent on expanding his military empire through the use of occupation, aggression and oppression.
Yet the United States is no better, having spent much of the past half-century policing the globe, occupying other countries, and waging endless wars.
What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military industrial complex that has its sights set on world domination.
War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.
Landing zone at Al-Tanf, Syria (Licensed under the Public Domain)
American troops are stationed in Somalia, Iraq and Syria. In Germany, South Korea and Japan. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman. In Niger, Chad and Mali. In Turkey, the Philippines, and northern Australia.
Incredibly, America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world.
After 20 years of propping up Afghanistan to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, the U.S. military may have finally been forced out, but those troops represent just a fraction of our military presence worldwide.
In an ongoing effort to police the globe, American military servicepeople continue to be deployed to far-flung places in the Middle East and elsewhere.
This is how the military industrial complex, aided and abetted by the likes of Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others, continues to get rich at taxpayer expense.
Yet while the rationale may keep changing for why American military forces are policing the globe, these wars abroad aren’t making America—or the rest of the world—any safer, are certainly not making America great again, and are undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.
War spending is bankrupting America.
Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.
The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.
Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.
Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.
Unfortunately, even if we were to put an end to all of the government’s military meddling and bring all of the troops home today, it would take decades to pay down the price of these wars and get the government’s creditors off our backs.
As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”
Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.
A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:
$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.
That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.
Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.
Americans have thus far allowed themselves to be spoon-fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.
That needs to change.
The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It’s making the world more dangerous. It is estimated that the U.S. military drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes. Since 9/11, the United States government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 human beings. Every one of those deaths was paid for with taxpayer funds.
The U.S. military’s ongoing drone strikes will, I fear, spur yet more blowback against the American people.
The war hawks’ militarization of America—bringing home the spoils of war (the military tanks, grenade launchers, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, gas masks, ammunition, battering rams, night vision binoculars, etc.) and handing them over to local police, thereby turning America into a battlefield—is also blowback.
James Madison was right: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” As Madison explained, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”
We are seeing this play out before our eyes.
The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.
Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhauling.
At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:
The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.
This is the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us more than 50 years ago not to let endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that emerged following the war—one that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.
As long as America’s politicians continue to involve us in wars that bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse, “we the people” will find ourselves in a perpetual state of tyranny.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Reports are circulating on Twitter with claims the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its guidelines on vinyl chloride days before the toxic release of chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio. But the reality is that the CDC was not the only agency involved, and the timing of the changes is in question.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and CDC worked together in a coordinated effort to alter vinyl chloride’s toxicity guidelines shortly before and after the train derailment in Ohio that released 1.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, soil and water to make the chemical look less harmful.
In addition, just three months ago, East Palestine adopted a pilot program to respond to emergency events where digital IDs were given to residents to track long-term health problems like “difficulty breathing.”
Timeline: (1) HHS and the CDC, in coordination with the EPA, publish an update to the vinyl chloride toxicity profile in January 2023 for the first time in 17 years. (2) Digital IDs on Jan. 26 are rolled out to East Palestine and a nearby township. (3) Train derails on Feb. 3 in East Palestine, Ohio, and a million pounds of highly toxic and potentially lethal vinyl chloride are released into the environment. (4) CDC alters its webpage on or around Feb. 6, 2023, on vinyl chloride, omitting key sections on toxicity. This webpage had not been reviewed for nine years. (5) Health and environmental officials deem the area safe. (6) Lawsuits are filed.
HHS, in January 2023, published a 293-page document called “Toxicological Profile of Vinyl Chloride,” which was prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the EPA.
The original guidelines on vinyl chloride were published in the Federal Register in August 1989 and were (prior to Jan. 2023) most recently updated in 2006. So for 17 years, the toxicological profile of vinyl chloride had not been altered.
According to HHS, the ATSDR peer-reviewed toxicological profile of vinyl chloride “succinctly characterizes” its toxicologic and adverse health effects—and identifies available toxicological information, epidemiologic evaluations and the level of exposure that presents a significant risk to human health.
ATSDR toxicological guidelines are published by the CDC under the auspices of HHS and drafted in coordination with the EPA.
The CDC’s FAQ webpage for vinyl chloride was recently modified as well. An archived version captured three days after the East Palestine train derailment shows a longer, more detailed FAQ section on vinyl chloride that included a section on the dangers of the chemical in children, recommendations made by the federal government to protect human health and a lower level of lethal exposure.
A current version of the same webpage omits this information, expands the level of human exposure (meaning you can suddenly be exposed to more of a highly toxic substance before you experience detrimental effects and includes a laughable new section on how to protect yourself and your family from vinyl chloride.
Here is a screenshot of the Feb. 6, 2023, archived version of the CDC’s FAQ webpage on vinyl chloride captured three days after the East Palestine train derailment. Notice on the right-hand side of the page it includes the sections “How can vinyl chloride affect children?” and “Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?”
When you select “How can vinyl chloride affect children?” you get the following now-deleted information:
Here is the CDC’s current webpage at the same URL, showing the sections on the hazardous effects of vinyl chloride in children and federal government recommendations have been deleted:
Here’s the archived webpage version of the now-deleted section, “Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?” Note this section states that the “Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of 1 part vinyl chloride per 1 million parts of air (1 ppm) in the workplace.”
Here is the current version of the same webpage where the section is entirely removed. Inserted instead are the CDC’s ridiculous recommendations for protecting yourself from toxic vinyl chloride, namely, avoiding tobacco smoke.
At the bottom of the archived Feb. 6, 2023, CDC webpage, it says the agency last reviewed this page on August 28, 2014. This is classic CDC behavior. For nine years, nobody touched this page. As soon as people started pointing out how toxic vinyl chloride is, began reporting health effects and the real media picked it up, the CDC snuck in to review the page to remove incriminating information. Sound familiar?
According to the National Cancer Institute, vinyl chloride is a gas used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) hard plastic resin in plastic products and is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The gas is highly toxic and even lethal if inhaled.
According to HHS, vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen. The EPA classifies vinyl chloride as a human carcinogen when inhaled, yet claimed the air in East Palestine was safe to breathe just days after the incident and water with visible chemical toxicity was safe.
As if this story didn’t have enough twists already, it was recently revealed that days before the incident, the Morning Journal reported the East Palestine Fire Department was “hosting a sign-up event” for a service called MyID targeting both East Palestine and a nearby township.
Robert Runnion, a councilman, said he hoped people in the community would take advantage of the new service.
“MyID is a program that helps first responders aid victims more effectively and efficiently,” Runnion said.
The MyID company claims to be a “comprehensive medical ID solution that provides an easy way to access, store and manage your health information” through bracelets, tags, stickers, and wallet cards with a QR code that can be scanned to access your online health information in a few seconds.
The MyID app displays your diagnosis, personal information, emergency contacts, allergies, medications and medical providers.
How ironic.
According to WKBN27 news, the MyID plan was months in the making. In October 2022, it ran an “advertorial” of the MyID rollout in East Palestine. Here is the introductory paragraph:
“East Palestine is known as ‘The Place to Be.’ It’s way ahead of the curve on a program to provide better treatment for anyone in the event of an emergency. We learned how it works and how it could help everyone in East Palestine.”
In a follow-up Jan. 26 article published by WKBN27, East Palestine fire chief Keith Drabick stated, “We’re not doing this to gain anybody’s information, to try and steal anybody’s information. We’re doing this to help the public in medical emergencies.”
Drabick continued, “Anybody that skeptical? Please come on down. Sit down, and talk to us. We’ll be happy to show you everything that goes on with it. We’ll be happy to show you how secure it is.”
Interesting how the fire department—which people typically have great trust in—was used to promote this invasive digital ID system.
Regardless of the timeline of events, the CDC’s manipulation of its webpage is highly suspicious. The agency either knew an event like this would happen or scrubbed its page after the fact to cover up a devastating environmental catastrophe and shield itself, HHS, the EPA and the train company from liability.
What is clear is that the CDC is again lying to the American people to downplay the harmful and potentially lethal effects of vinyl chloride. This sounds eerily familiar.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Vital Statistics – Hidden Data
Since the beginning of COVID, vital statistics as reported by governments around the world are hard to come by. Spotty availability hinders analysis and understanding.
For example, even today in the United States, Massachusetts and New York, Illinois and Washington are four of the states that, at this writing, have not updated births data since 2019 [1] and 2020. [2] [3] [4]
Nineteen European Countries
By August 2022, Raimond Hagemann, Ulf Lorré and Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer had compiled data on birth rate changes in 19 European countries and produced an extremely important paper. [5] In country after country, the inflection point of reduced births is consistently at the end of the year 2021. This was nine months after the spring zeitgeist to take the COVID vaccines. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia, as well as Iceland, Northern Ireland, Montenegro, Serbia, all show this pattern. Nine months after peak vaccine uptake, the births decline.
From Hagemann, et al. Danish data:
The corresponding graph for each of the 19 countries has a similar pattern: peak uptake of COVID vaccines in spring of 2021, followed by precipitous birthrate declines beginning nine months later.
All of the nineteen countries studied saw accelerating declines in births in 2022, beginning at nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Note the small p values in the following table, favoring temporal association of the two events. This in turn, supports the Bradford Hill temporality criterion regarding causation of infertility, rather than highly coincidental correlation between peak vaccination in spring of 2021 and sharply declining birth rates nine months later.
Sweden
Data analyst Gato Malo has noted, as have others, that too many countries are locking their vital statistics data away from public view, which pre-empts any valid analysis. Occasional glimpses are available.
Looking at Sweden, he found that if he overlaid month-to-month change in births, he found that the strong dip in births beginning at November – December 2021 lines up very tightly with the percentage of people who were unvaccinated 9 months earlier. [6] This was consistent with the Hagemann, et al findings. And births in Sweden have not yet shown signs of recovery from this decline.
UK
At a similar time as in the above countries, we see births decline in the UK. After December 2021, the number of women giving birth is no longer in the forty thousands, but now crosses down into the thirty thousands, and stays there. [7] See the column “Women giving birth.”
From Gov.UK:
Comparing year-over-year decline, we might write this mean decline from the first two quarters of 2021 to the first two quarters of 2022, where b is births, as (Σ b1, 2021…b6, 2021) – (Σ b1, 2022…b6, 2022) = 256,785 – 227,302 = 29,483. This is a deficit of 4,913 births per month in the UK. Similarly to Sweden, the inflection point of decline is at a 9-11 month point following the months of peak vaccine uptake in the UK. [8]
From Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data, peak vaccine uptake in the UK was in the first quarter of 2021:
Switzerland
Switzerland saw its largest drop in birth rates in 150 years, more than in each of the two World Wars, the Great Depression and even the introduction of widely used oral contraceptives. [9]
Why Is This Happening?
Naomi Wolf explored menstrual irregularities reported following COVID vaccination, and even following contact with COVID-vaccinated people. As the first to discuss these problems publicly, and to gather data online from women who were experiencing these menstrual changes, she was criticized and censored on social media. Her Daily Clout organization led a team of over 3,000 researchers, including Pierre Kory MD, to dissect the documents released by Pfizer / FDA under court order regarding clinical outcomes of the 44,000-person clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The Daily Clout team summarized their findings in their book on Kindle: Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports. [10]
They report Pfizer’s findings of overwhelming injuries in their experimental group. Of the 22,000 individuals who had received the Pfizer vaccine, “Pfizer could not determine the outcome in over 20,000 people reporting vaccine injuries.” [11]
The Daily Clout team explores in their book topics related to the COVID vaccines’ impacts on male and female fertility. As their team traced the data reported by Pfizer, it was found that 270 of the pregnant women in the Pfizer trial reported a vaccine injury. “ . . . but Pfizer only followed 32 of them and 28 of their babies died. This is a shocking 87.5% fetal death rate.” [12]
Pfizer logged over 158,000 separate adverse events during that clinical trial, under 1290 different types of adverse events, an enormous compendium of human suffering, as partially imaged below from the first part of the letter A. [13]
From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:
Wolf’s team notes that “If Pfizer had a TV commercial for its COVID vaccine listing the 158,893 adverse events reported in the first 12 weeks, the announcer would be reading them for more than 80 consecutive hours.” [14]
Even this exhaustive list could not be complete, because Pfizer could not account for outcomes of 22% of participants. Pfizer does list 11,361 of the patients as “not recovered” at the time of their report. [15] This is 51.6% of their experimental group “not recovered” from adverse events.
No liquid will ‘just stay in the shoulder / arm.’
We have known, and Pfizer has confessed to, the transmission of spike proteins from one person to another by skin contact and exhalation. I cite and discuss that in the context of one adult to another in a community setting. [16]
Adverse effects on vaccinated breastfeeding mothers and their babies included a range of vomiting, fever, rash, partial paralysis, blue-green discolored breast milk and other side effects.
Not surprisingly, the injected vaccine liquid passes from mother to nursing infant as well, in accordance with long established physics principles of dispersal and diffusion of liquid introduced into a semi-solid (55-60% water) body, as well as centuries of basic, undisputed physiology and circulation of blood and lymph: Liquids introduced into the body diffuse throughout the body, as always. This has also been known of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery of medication since its first development, that it, of course, enters the circulation. Those who alleged – and those who believed – that a liquid injection would “stay in the arm” had not even a junior high school student’s grasp of basic biology or physics.
But Pfizer knew. It advised male participants in the trial to avoid sexual contact with women of childbearing age or to use condoms.
Here is an overview of the impact of lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-delivered substances to human male and female reproductive organs. [17]
mRNA vaccine ingredients are observed to disperse throughout the body, collecting in the testes, among other organs. [18] An adverse event of note in Pfizer’s list of 1290 such events post-vaccination is “anti-sperm antibodies.”
From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:
An Israeli study later confirmed damage to sperm, both in total numbers and motility, from the Pfizer vaccine. [19]
The word “temporarily” in the title is misleading, because the researchers assumed sperm would recover after their three-months study period, although they ended their observation at that time. And they did not show any evidence that sperm did actually recover. So their word “temporarily” is so far unverified.
Pfizer did not test for male reproductive toxicity, [20] nor for the adverse effects that may be transmitted by vaccinated mens’ semen on their children’s development.
One might think that male reproductive effects would have been tested for in Pfizer’s trial on rats. However, only the female rats were vaccinated; the males ones were not. [21] When Pfizer pronounced the male rats’ reproductive organs free of toxicity, they neglected to emphasize the earlier fine print: male rats had not been vaccinated at all.
But Pfizer did instruct human male study participants to avoid intercourse or to use a condom.
Harm caused by lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to male reproductive organs and ability had already been established years earlier. As seen in this 2018 study, such organs were known to be vulnerable to toxic influences from LNPs. [22] Besides lowered sperm counts and motility, researchers have found “folded amorphous spermatozoa, cells lacking or showing a small hook, and cells with undulating or elongated heads were the most frequent abnormalities found.” [23]
Moreover, toxic chemicals, such as phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, [24]were already abundant in the environment prior to the COVID vaccines. These have likely contributed to declining sperm number and quality for a half-century, [25] in which sperm counts have been dropping by about 1% per year since 1972. [26]
However, the COVID vaccines are making spermatogenesis even more rare. The problem is that most of the male reproductive cells, including spermatogonia and spermatozoa, express ACE-2, which is what spike proteins use for entry into human cells. Just as happens in blood vessels throughout the body, the spike protein arrival at the ACE-2 receptors was found to damage not only sperm, but also the blood-testis barrier, and to contribute to orchitis. At day 150, sperm concentration was 15.9% below baseline, below even the 75 to 120 day period, and had not begun to recover by the end of the study.[27]
Female Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
The World Health Organization (WHO) had long taken an interest in “anti-fertility vaccines” and “fertility regulating vaccines,” as they wrote in 1992. “Chorionic gonadotropin is the one antigen that fulfils criteria for an ideal contraceptive vaccine.” [Emphasis mine.] [28]
Fetal death was so rampant among COVID-vaccinated pregnant women observed by the CDC in the V-Safe Surveillance System [29] that I compared the miscarriage rate to the ‘morning-after pill’ in abortive effect of those pregnancies for which outcomes were reported. [30] That is, between 80 to 90% abortive effect. This is comparable to what the Naomi Wolf / Daily Clout team found, 87.5%, as referenced above. However, that V-Safe data had been released too early for accurate tally of all pregnancy outcomes, simply because it included women still in their first two trimesters.
This paper examines the cohort of pregnant women in the second half (second 20 weeks) of their pregnancies. [31] However, it seems to be flawed by missing data. [32]
Miscarriages also show a dose-dependent response. The Pfizer vaccine is a 30 mcg dose and the Moderna vaccine is a 100 mcg dose. At an October 2022 CDC expert committee meeting (ACIP), the following data were presented:
12,751 women took the Pfizer vaccine, and 8,365 women took the Moderna vaccine. 422 Pfizer-vaccinated women, that is 3% of the Pfizer total, miscarried (lost their pregnancy by 20 weeks gestation), and 395 of the Moderna-vaccinated women, that is 4.7% of the Moderna total, miscarried. [33]
CDC. COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5 months.
So this means that 42% more of the Moderna group miscarried than the Pfizer group. This large percentage difference in such large cohorts (in the thousands of participants) supports a dose-response relationship of the COVID mRNA vaccine with miscarriage, worsened with the more potent dosing. This dose-response is another of the Bradford Hill criteria to establish cause and effect.
The documents that Pfizer sought to have concealed for 75 years, but instead was forced to release by court order, reveal the 1290 types of adverse events, and the more than 158,000 total adverse events, noted above.
Also revealed in the same documents was that Pfizer excluded 21 groups of people from their trials, including “women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.” [34] Although pregnant women were excluded from these clinical trials, the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) urged pregnant women to get vaccinated, even while acknowledging that “none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved under EUA have been tested in pregnant individuals.” [35] The vaccines had been tested on 44 pregnant rats over 6 weeks, as required by protocols of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) studies, but they had not been tested on pregnant women. Ill effects were not reported from the rat study. [36] However, nine of the ten study authors were employed by and held stock in Pfizer or BioNTech companies, as acknowledged in small print at the end of the article. Therefore, a highly-conflicted study of only 44 rats, studied over six weeks, was the sole research basis for the obstetric profession to urge pregnant women to be vaccinated.
Pfizer’s reporting of women in the trials who became pregnant following vaccination found 413 pregnant women, of whom 270 cases were considered to be serious and 146 to be non-serious. The serious cases included “spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5) premature firth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.” [37] A problem with the short 12 week trial is that nearly all of these new pregnancies were apparently in early gestation, first trimester, at trial end.
The Daily Clout research team determined after examining and comparing miscarriages following various vaccines over time, “If you are pregnant, you are more likely to lose your baby in a miscarriage if you receive a COVID-19 vaccine than if you receive measles, mumps, flu, tetanus, or any other vaccine.” [38] They found from the US government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that in VAERS’ 30-year history, through March 2022, a total of 4,693 had experienced miscarriage in all those years. 4,505 of those had received a single vaccine. 3,430 of those miscarriages were in women whose vaccinations included a COVID vaccine. Sixteen of those 3,430 had also received another vaccine near that time. So 3,430 – 16 = 3,414 miscarriages were after the COVID vaccine alone. Compare this number with 4,505 for all single vaccines over the 30-year history of VAERS. Therefore, 3,414 / 4,505 = 76% of all miscarriages ever reported to VAERS occurred after the COVID vaccines, during the short time that they have been in use, December 2020 through March 2022.
Since at least 2010, it has been known that nano-particles were hazardous to the ovaries and to fertility generally, and bioaccumulation has been known. [39] [40]
In the case of spike proteins, it comes as no surprise that the ACE-2 receptor is the port of entry for spike proteins to gain access to ovarian cells, both granulosa and cumulus cells. [41] These are the ovarian cells that support the development of oocytes.
Congenital malformations
The US Defense Medical Epidemiology Database System (DMED) [42] is the largest database of health statistics of the generally young, healthy and fit military population. That is until military service members were forced to take the COVID vaccines or to be dishonorably discharged, with loss of benefits. Few if any religious exemptions were permitted.
The DMED database reported, when comparing 2021 to 2020, a 419% increase in female infertility reports, a 320% increase in male infertility reports and an 87% increase in congenital malformations. The report shows a mean baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year, 2016 to 2020. Then part of 2021, not even the full year, showed 18,951 such cases. [43] This is a 74% increase over the 2016 to 2020 mean.
Prevention is massively easier than cure. Avoiding toxins such as LNPs, especially those that generate spike protein, such as the mRNA vaccines, is a necessary first step. Let’s hope that the coming years show the fertility crisis for both males and females to be reversible, as we learn how that may be accomplished.
*
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.
[9] K Beck. Analysis of a possible connection between the COVID =19 vaccination and the fall in the birth rate in Switzerland in 2022. Sep 22 2022. Univ of Lucerne. Quoted in R Chandler, Report 52: Nine months post-COVID mRNA “vaccine” rollout, substantial birth rate drops in 13 European countries, England/Wales, Australia and Taiwan. Jan 16 2023. Daily Clout. https://dailyclout.io/report-52-nine-months-post-covid-mrna-vaccine-rollout-substantial-birth-rate-drops/
[19] I Gat, A Kedem, et al. COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors. Jun 17 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
[24] R Sumner, M Tomlinson, et al. Independent and combined effects of diethylhexyl phthalate and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 on sperm quality in the human and dog. Mar 4 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9
[27] I Gat, A Kedem, et al. COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors. Jun 17 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
[36] C Bowman, M Bouressam, et al. Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Aug 2021. Reprod Toxicol. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
An investigation published Monday revealed that just weeks before a Norfolk Southern-owned train overloaded with hazardous materials derailed and caused a toxic chemical fire in East Palestine, Ohio, the rail giant donated $10,000—the maximum amount allowed—to help fund the inauguration of the state’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.
According to WSYX, the Columbus-based news outlet that conducted the investigation,
“This contribution, which is part of $29,000 the Virginia-based corporation has contributed to DeWine’s political funds since he first ran for governor in 2018, is merely one piece of an extensive, ongoing effort to influence statewide officials and Ohio lawmakers.”
“In all, the railway company has contributed about $98,000 during the past six years to Ohio statewide and legislative candidates, according to data from the secretary of state,” WSYX reported. “Virtually all went to Republicans, although Norfolk Southern hedged its support for DeWine in 2018 with a $3,000 check to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray.”
In addition to shelling out loads of campaign cash, Norfolk Southern has also extensively lobbied DeWine, statewide officials, and Ohio lawmakers.
Quarterly reports disclosing the company’s lobbying activities show that DeWine and other statewide officials were targeted 39 times over the past six years, while Ohio lawmakers were targeted 167 times during the same time period.
“Most of the disclosed attempts to influence Ohio leaders came on generic rail or transportation issues,” WSYX reported. “Some efforts, however, were devoted to defeating legislation that would have established tougher safety standards for rail yards and train operations.”
River Valley Organizing, a local progressive group, declared on social media that “this is what we’re up against.”
This is what we’re up against.
If they can pay for lobbyists and politicians, they can pay to clean up the mess they made in our community. https://t.co/yPQX3EE8sA
Norfolk Southern’s successful bid to thwart at least one Ohio bill aimed at improving railroad safety—explained in depth by the local news outlet—mirrors the company’s triumphant campaign to weaken federal regulations.
Before dozens of its train cars careened off the tracks and burst into flames in East Palestine on February 3—leading to the discharge of vinyl chloride and other carcinogenic chemicals—Norfolk Southern “helped kill a federal safety rule aimed at upgrading the rail industry’s Civil War-era braking systems,” The Lever reported earlier this month.
Norfolk Southern happily put profits over people – and now the folks of the East Palestine community are paying the price.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has been criticized by progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers for his lackluster response to the crisis in East Palestine, sent a letter to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw on Sunday stating that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the cause of the derailment and that the Federal Railroad Administration is examining whether safety violations occurred and intends to hold Norfolk Southern accountable if they did.
Buttigieg insisted that the company “demonstrate unequivocal support” for the poor rural town’s roughly 4,700 residents as well as the populations of surrounding areas potentially affected by air and groundwater contamination.
“Norfolk Southern must live up to its commitment to make residents whole—and must also live up to its obligation to do whatever it takes to stop putting communities such as East Palestine at risk,” the transportation secretary wrote. “This is the right time for Norfolk Southern to take a leadership position within the rail industry, shifting to a posture that focuses on supporting, not thwarting, efforts to raise the standard of U.S. rail safety regulation.”
Buttigieg also said that Norfolk Southern and other rail companies “spent millions of dollars in the courts and lobbying members of Congress to oppose commonsense safety regulations, stopping some entirely and reducing the scope of others.” He said the effort undermined rules on brake requirements and delayed the phase-in for more durable rail cars to transport hazardous material to 2029, instead of the “originally envisioned date of 2025.”
The transportation secretary said the results of the investigation are not yet known, but “we do know that these steps that Norfolk Southern and its peers lobbied against were intended to improve rail safety and to help keep Americans safe.”
Nevertheless, as The Lever reported earlier this month, Buttigieg is actively considering an industry-backed proposal to further erode federal oversight of train braking systems.
The outlet has published an open letter urging Buttigieg “to rectify the multiple regulatory failures that preceded this horrific situation,” including by exercising his authority to reinstate the rail safety rules rescinded by the Trump administration at the behest of industry lobbyists.
The full environmental and public health consequences of the ongoing East Palestine disaster are still coming into view, as residents question the validity of initial water testing paid for by Norfolk Southern.
Despite state officials’ claims that air and water in the area remain safe, thousands of fish have died in polluted local waterways and people in the vicinity of the derailment have reported headaches, eye irritation, and other symptoms.
Just days after his company skipped a town hall meeting, Shaw visited East Palestine on Saturday and said that “we are here and will stay here for as long as it takes to ensure your safety.”
Norfolk Southern, which reported record-breaking operating revenues of $12.7 billion in 2022, originally offered to donate just $25,000 to help affected residents—an amount equivalent to about $5 per person—but recently announced the creation of a $1 million charitable fund instead.
Lawmakers in Ohio “are now scrambling to make sure the railroad is held accountable,” WSYX reported. “The House Homeland Security Committee is scheduled to hear ‘informal testimony’ Wednesday from Karen Huey, assistant director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and John Esterly, chairman of the Ohio State Legislative Board with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.”
In Washington, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) on Friday requested information regarding the handling of hazardous materials from the CEOs of several large rail corporations, including Norfolk Southern.
“Over the past five years, the Class I railroads have cut their workforce by nearly one-third, shuttered railyards where railcars are traditionally inspected, and are running longer and heavier trains,” Cantwell wrote. “Thousands of trains carrying hazardous materials, like the one that derailed in Ohio, travel through communities throughout the nation each day.”
Notably, Norfolk Southern announced a $10 billion stock buyback program last March. The company has routinely raised its dividend, rewarding shareholders while refusing to invest in safety upgrades or basic benefits such as paid sick leave.
There's no secret conspiracy behind the Norfolk Southern derailments.
The company cut over 9,600 jobs since 2002, and in that same period they've given shareholders 4,500% more money to line their pockets.
Just days after he sent co-authored letters raising safety and health concerns to the NTSB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said during a Sunday appearance on CNN‘s “State of the Union” that Norfolk Southern is responsible for the East Palestine disaster, which he characterized as another chapter in “the same old story.”
“Corporations do stock buybacks, they do big dividend checks, they lay off workers,” said Brown. “Thousands of workers have been laid off from Norfolk Southern. Then they don’t invest in safety rules and safety regulation, and this kind of thing happens. That’s why people in East Palestine are so upset.”
“They know that corporate lobbyists have had far too much influence in our government and they see this as the result,” Brown continued. “These things are happening because these railroads are simply not investing the way they should in car safety and in the rail lines themselves.”
“Something’s wrong with corporate America and something’s wrong with Congress and administrations listening too much to corporate lobbyists,” he added. “And that’s got to change.”
Another Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials crashed last week near Detroit, Michigan. Like Brown, union leaders and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) have attributed the recent derailments to Wall Street-backed policies that prioritize profits over safety.
As David Sirota, Rebecca Burns, Julia Rock, and Matthew Cunningham-Cook of The Lever pointed out in a recent New York Times opinion piece, the U.S. is home to more than 1,000 train derailments per year and has seen a 36% increase in hazardous materials violations committed by rail carriers in the past five years.
The rail industry “tolerates too many preventable derailments and fights too many safety regulations,” the journalists wrote. “The federal government must move quickly to improve rail safety overall.”
An inter-union alliance of U.S. rail workers, meanwhile, has called on organized labor to back the nationalization of the country’s railroad system, arguing that “our nation can no longer afford private ownership of the railroads; the general welfare demands that they be brought under public ownership.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
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.
Kenny Stancil is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Featured image: A derailed freight train is seen in East Palestine, Ohio. (Photo: NTSB/Handout via Xinhua)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
President Bashar Al-Assad on Thursday gave a speech on Syria TV about the repercussions of the earthquake that struck the country;
Following is the full text of the speech.
*
Brothers and sisters,
A homeland is a home, and its protection is a duty, regardless of the type and magnitude of the challenge, and regardless of the capabilities. This was the case since the first moments of the earthquake. This deep and overwhelming sense towards the homeland, our home, Syria, was felt by the one family inhabiting it, individuals and institutions. And there was this massive surge on the part of everyone to protect, save and help their brothers and sisters affected by the earthquake in Aleppo, Lattakia and Hama. This national patriotic and humanitarian scene is not surprising for any of us; for we have felt it at different turns of the war on Syria. But now, it is clearer and more comprehensive. More importantly, it is more expressive, for it comes after twelve years of war and embargo, with the accompanying death, sabotage and lack of resources on the national level.
However, despite the cruelty of all this, it has not changed the essence of our feeling and our thinking towards each other and towards the homeland, whether it is the land or the people inhabiting it, towards its concepts, customs and traditions.
If this war has exhausted and drained a lot of the national resources, and weakened the capabilities to face more crises, the war itself gave the Syrian society the expertise and the ability to act quickly and effectively in the early hours of the earthquake. The magnitude of the disaster and the tasks that we should all shoulder are much larger than the available capabilities. However, what our society, its individuals and institutions, was capable of doing was also much larger than the available capabilities. This was not only because of the war and the sanctions, but also because Syria has not been an earthquake area for about two and a half centuries. Neither the buildings nor the institutions nor the equipment were prepared for different types of natural disasters. This made it the first challenge of its kind, and the largest of its kind. Nothing compensated for those weaknesses except the quick and highly effective response of the government, civil-society organizations and individuals who volunteered in the rescue work, those who made in kind or financial donations, residents and expatriates. They have tried every possible way to break the embargo in order to provide every possible assistance to their disaster-affected brothers and sisters. This is in addition to the emergency aid sent by sisterly and friendly countries, which constituted a significant support for the national efforts to alleviate the impact of the earthquake and save many of the injured.
However, from the experiences of other countries in this area, earthquakes have immediate and long-term effects. What we shall face for months and years, in terms of economic, social and services challenges is no less important than what we faced during the first days. And it needs a lot of thinking, dialogue, solidarity and organization on the part of all national sectors. It is important not to look at the repercussions as a separate case related exclusively to the earthquake; for it is a cumulative case of war, terrorist sabotage, the embargo and its effects and of the earthquake recently. Added to this are faults that have accumulated in different sectors for decades before the war.
The scene might look complicated, and it might be difficult to categorize the reasons leading to each problem separately. But it might give us an opportunity to solve those accumulated problems in an interrelated manner. This means moving from addressing the negative aspects of the emergency conditions into the positive aspects of comprehensive treatment. And it means moving forward instead of standing fixed in facing crises. This cannot happen all at once, but in a prioritized manner depending on the available capabilities, and in stages. But what is important is having the vision based on a national consensus and a broad dialogue.
But even then, we need to continue dealing with the repercussions of the earthquake step by step. After completing the rescue stage, providing emergency shelters and the basic requirement in terms of food, clothes and medicine, which have been done so far. The relevant government institutions have started to provide temporary housing, until permanent housing is provided at a later stage.
Creating a fund for supporting the affected people is under study. The fund aims at supporting them until they become capable of restoring the different aspects of their life capabilities. This will happen after the damage is assessed, and criteria are drawn for the identification of those covered and the support provided. All this should be done in parallel with curbing economic decline which usually hits affected areas and impacts the national economy in general. The necessary legislation will be passed and measures taken in order to alleviate the economic burdens on their population and accelerate the economic cycle there. These have been started to be examined before being presented for discussion and taking the appropriate decisions in the next few days. There are also some other ideas which have been proposed recently and will be announced by the relevant institutions, after being properly examined, discussed and their feasibility ensured.
Brothers and sisters,
When societies suffer different kinds of earthquakes, geological, political, military, cultural, social or other kinds of violent tremors, they are bound to lose part of their stability, because their institutional and social controls are shaken. This includes laws, regulations, concepts, traditions and morals. This, in turn, gives rise to negative aspects already there, but have been latent or limited as a result of those controls.
Enthusiasm and vigor in treating these manifestations which appear on the surface are necessary in crises, provided they are based on wisdom and awareness, on facts not exaggeration and illusions. So, let’s look for the truth instead of promoting rumours which have eclipsed scenes of heroism, sacrifice, devotion, solidarity and the unlimited enthusiasm we have seen during the hours and days which followed the earthquake. For they will send messages of frustration to all those who have made that amazing and extraordinary patriotic scene, and promote instead an image at odds with the pure and honourable image we have drawn in the minds of others.
Is there an event, small or large, that can obscure the images of heroism projected by our national civil and military institutions, civil society, and individual volunteers involved in rescue work like a beehive, day and night? They are credited with all that has been achieved. They have born the homeland, with all its hopes and pain, in unlimited enthusiasm and forbearance and great sacrifice. They have embodied the homeland in all its beautiful meanings and noble values.
Was it this spontaneous popular surge to support the disaster-affected with a flood of good that suspended their poverty and need? It was a surge of activity and feeling which equaled the well-off, who gave without being asked, and the needy, who cut some of their limited resources and daily sustenance in order to help a disaster affected person. They have been a real and live model of morals in their noblest manifestations, patriotism in its deepest meanings and humanity in its most sublime attributes.
Can we ever forget those who have mobilized in order to defend the real image of our society in the different mass and social media, not allowing the distorted image that some people have been trying to market to affect our reputation as a society, and preventing that image from affecting its morals, solidarity and altruism, which is the highest value on the individual and collective levels?
There are many other stories and endless details, individuals, heroes, courageous and valiant persons who stand as role models for the present and guiding lights for the future.
For all those, residents and expatriates, who alleviated this painful tragedy with what they could, materially and morally, with something or with a word, we don’t say thank you, because loving one’s homeland, serving and defending it is a duty that does not require thanks, but we say to them: we are proud of you, and your homeland is proud of you.
In the midst of our pain and sadness for the victims, our pride in our compatriots, we should not omit to thank all the countries which have stood with us from the first hours of the disaster, our Arab brothers and our friends whose in kind and field assistance have made the greatest impact in strengthening our capabilities to face the difficult circumstances in those critical hours.
I would like to thank in particular the rescue teams from different countries which took active part in rescue operations and continued to work until the last moments of hope of finding a live person under the rubble. They conducted their work with the same enthusiasm and devotion as their Syrian colleagues. They were real brothers. So, on behalf of every Syrian, we thank them and are grateful to them.
Brothers and sisters,
All of us in this homeland, Muslims and Christians, believe in God; and believing in God means believing in God’s will. For us, God’s will is a destiny which brings us things we like and things we dislike. If we are not in a position to comprehend God’s wisdom in the calamities and graces which befall us, and their reasons, we are certainly in a position to learn the lessons from them. The first and most important thing which we should learn from this tough experience, now that we have been able, together, with all parts of our spectrum and sectors, to overcome our circumstances and limited capabilities, is to believe in our own tremendous capabilities, and to believe that our solidarity enables us to do it and that our fragmentation stifles it.
So, let’s believe in God, believe in our homeland, in the will capable of making miracles when we possess it, in order for Syria to remain proud of its people, strong in its history, rich in its dignity, capable in its will.
May God grant His mercy to our missed ones and healing to our wounded. May God protect Syria and its people from all harm.
Thank you…
*
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.
Mainstream newspapers, the television news, and the alternative news blogs that we are forced to rely on for information have decayed into unstable and shifting palimpsests on which scraps of science, ideology and rhetoric are projected so as to confuse and to mislead us.
When news first emerged over explosions endured by the Nord Stream pipelines, known collectively as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, an army of guessers was mobilised. The accusation that Russia had done it seemed counterintuitive, given that the Russian state company Gazprom is a majority shareholder of Nord Stream 1 and sole owner of Nord Stream 2.
With the Ukraine war now reaching its one-year mark on February 24, the Russians have not achieved a military victory but neither has the West achieved its goals on the economic front. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States and its European allies vowed to impose crippling sanctions that would bring Russia to its knees and force it to withdraw.
Several years prior to the formation of the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU) in 1934, a series of events in the state of Alabama would give rise to the formation of the Sharecroppers Union (SCU). This organization was founded with the assistance of African American leaders within the Communist Party in Alabama largely centered in the steel industry in Birmingham.
Last month, the Biden administration announced that on May 11, 2023, COVID-19 national and public health emergency declarations that were put in place under former President Donald Trump in early 2020 will end. Could the reason for this be that the lies and propaganda that permeate the COVID narrative have become so blatantly obvious?
Goodbye Disinformation Board, Hello Disinformation Index. Less than a year after many celebrated the disbanding of the Biden’s Administration Disinformation Board, it appears that the Administration has been funding a British group to rank sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites.
One would think that the United States military staging an unprovoked “plausibly deniable” covert attack on a nation with which it is not at war would be at least considered newsworthy. That the attack did grave damage to a country with which the US is closely allied would seem to make the aggression even more unthinkable.
As an Oncologist, I diagnosed 10,000s of Canadian cancer patients and treated 100s with Targeted Radionuclide Therapy. I have seen many horrific things during my career. But I have never seen a rapid progression like this.
The whole reason why the mainstream media and allied accounts on social media are overdosing on this cheap “copium” is because they know very well that tougher days are ahead for their side considering NATO’s military-industrial crisis, the sanctions’ failure, and Russia’s likely capture of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”.
Touting a supposed “new study,” mainstream media is unquestioningly advocating globalist prescriptions for climate change that would utilize existing public school lunch programs to compel children to eat unhealthy processed vegetarian alternatives to wholesome grass-fed meats or fresh local foods. The audacity and misinformation of these proposals reflect elitist disconnect from basic nutrition and soil health.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
When news first emerged over explosions endured by the Nord Stream pipelines, known collectively as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, an army of guessers was mobilised. The accusation that Russia had done it seemed counterintuitive, given that the Russian state company Gazprom is a majority shareholder of Nord Stream 1 and sole owner of Nord Stream 2. But this less than convenient fact did not discourage those from the Moscow-is-behind everything School of Thinking. “It’s pretty predictable and predictably stupid to express such versions,” snarled Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov.
The first reports noted three leaks in both the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipeline systems. A fourth was subsequently revealed. Then came news that the first explosion had taken place in a Russian built section of the pipeline. Der Spiegel summed up the various questions. Was Moscow behind it? Or the United States, which had always been implacably opposed to the project? And what of Ukraine or perhaps “rogue” agents? For those wishing for a more savoury sauce, there was babbling that Mossad might have been behind it.
Statements were issued in number, some more equivocal than others in attributing blame. The Council of the European Union, in promising a “robust and united response” to the incidents, declared that “all available information indicates those leaks are the result of a deliberate act.”
Gerhard Schindler, former chief of the German Federal Intelligence Service, insisted that the damage, inflicted at depths of 80 metres in the Baltic Sea, required “sophisticated technical and organisational capabilities that clearly point to a state actor.” Russia, he continued, was the only power that could be seriously considered “especially since it stands to gain most from this act of sabotage.”
In the black and white world of most Ukrainian officials, the damage had to have been inflicted by Moscow. An advisor to the Ukrainian president, Mykhailo Polodyak, called the incident “a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression towards [the EU].”
In this bluster and bombast, it was striking to note the absence of any alternatives. Over the course of last summer, Washington had issued a pointed warning to several of its European allies that the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines would be the subject of threat, even potential attack. The nature of such warnings, based on US intelligence assessments, was vague. The hostility of the Biden administration was not.
In the scheme of things, the outing of the US role in this affair by the establishment’s tolerated contrarian is unsurprising and far from stunning. According to Seymour Hersh, the culprits were well trained deep-water divers who had gone through the US Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center. Under the cover of a NATO exercise named BALTOPS 22, the divers planted devices that would be remotely triggered three months later.
The claims made in the article were cooly dismissed by various officials. White House spokesperson Adrienne Watson responded with a swat. “This is false and complete fiction.” Ditto the waspish spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, Tammy Thorp: “This claim is completely and utterly false.” For his part, Biden accused Russia for “pumping out disinformation and lies”.
But as Hersh writes, the decision to sabotage the pipelines had few opponents in Washington’s national security community. Weaning Europe off its dependence on Russian energy supplies has been a goal near and dear to US policy makers. The issue lay in how best to execute the action without clear attribution.
To keep the cloak of secrecy firmly fastened, resort was made to US Navy divers rather than units from the Special Operations Command. In the case of the latter, covert operations must be reported to Congress. The Gang of Eight, comprising the US Senate and House leadership, must also be briefed. No such protocols exist in the context of the Navy.
Even now the denials continue. On February 19, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby flatly rejected the suggestion that the United States was behind the explosions. “It’s a completely false story. There is no truth to it, Shannon,” he told the host Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday. “Not a shred of it. It is not true. The United States, and no proxies of the United States, had anything to do with that, nothing.”
When pressed by Bream on whether there was an obligation to inform Congress of such an operation, Kirby replied that “we keep Congress informed appropriately of things both classified and unclassified. But I can tell you now, regardless of the notification process, there was no US involvement in this.”
The European Commission’s Press Officer Andrea Masini has opted for the line that revelations from an investigative reporter are less trustworthy than official investigations.
“We do not comment on speculations about the perpetrators of sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines. The only basis for any possible response can be the outcome of an official investigation. Such investigations are the responsibility of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.”
Hersh’s revelations, drawn from a source with intimate knowledge of the sabotage operations, and the brimming hostility Washington has shown towards cheap Russian natural gas and its nexus with the European energy market, seem far from speculative. The plotters have been outed, and what an inglorious bunch they look.
*
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.
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]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
German media reported that Foreign Minister and Greens leader Annalena Baerbock would challenge Olaf Scholz from the Social Democrats for the Chancellorship since they lost voters because of the government’s handling of the war in Ukraine. This would mean the inevitable collapse of the ruling three-party coalition. Due to this risk, Scholz has hardened his position on the Ukraine conflict to preserve his political power, even if it means more damage to the struggling German economy.
The three-party coalition is led by Social Democratic Party (SPD) Chancellor Olaf Scholz. According to a poll released by Wahlen on February 19, the coalition would likely lose its majority if a Bundestag vote were to be conducted. French weekly Journal du Dimanche, citing a diplomatic source, reported that Baerbock would run as a candidate if the Bundestag was dissolved.
Scholz and Baerbock have major differences on how to approach the war in Ukraine – the most glaring being that Scholz dismissed the possibility of a direct armed confrontation between NATO and Russia while Baerbock said that Europe was already at war.
According to the Wahlen survey, if a general election were immediately held, the opposition conservatives would garner 30% of the vote, making them the strongest party. The survey found that the Greens would maintain 19% support, while the SPD would finish second with 20%. Liberal FDP, the coalition’s minority partner, would hold 5% of the vote.
Indicative of the failure of this three-way-coalition is the fact that German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius received the highest personal approval rating of only 1%. This was followed by Green Party Economy Minister Robert Habeck at 0.9%, Scholz at 0.7%, and Baerbock at 0.6%.
None-the-less, even if such a scenario does occur where Baerbock can present herself as a candidate, she has little chance of becoming the Chancellor. For this reason, there is scepticism, despite a lot of local media reports, that the Greens will break the current coalition to hold early elections as they would most likely lose more power.
Yet again, this would be the logical conclusion to make, something that Baerbock certainly is not. It is recalled that she expressed her belief that Russian President Vladimir Putin can turn around 360 degrees, without noticing the irony, “and make the whole world happy”.
“He [Putin] can decide that he changes his course by 360 degrees tomorrow. The whole world would be happy again,” she added, without realizing that to do a 360 means to end up in the same place that one started.
Given the fracturing of the German coalition, it is noticeable that Scholz has hardened his position against Russia. He said on February 17 that Western countries should deliver battle tanks to Ukraine, falsely claiming:
“We will continue to strike a balance between providing support for Ukraine and avoiding an unintended escalation.”
By providing weapons to Ukraine, Germany is already escalating the conflict. Rather, it is Moscow’s decision on if, when and how it chooses to respond to Germany’s unprovoked aggression.
Berlin’s decision to harden its stance against Russia comes as the Ukraine war is anticipated by the end of the year to cost the German economy, in lost value creation, around 160 billion euros, or some 4% of its gross domestic output.
Given this grim economic reality, Scholz boasted at the Munich Security Conference that:
“We can now say that Germany is the biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine in continental Europe, and we will continue to be that. It is wise to be prepared for a long war and it is wise to give Putin the message that we are ready to stay with Ukraine.”
In addition, Scholz also committed to increasing German defence spending towards the current NATO target of 2% GDP. For his part, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said that he was in favour of raising NATO’s military spending target.
Although it is estimated that the war in Ukraine will drain 160 billion euros from the German economy by the end of the year, according to Marcel Fratzscher, the head of the German Institute for Economic Research, “The Ukraine war and the exploded energy prices cost Germany around €100 billion ($106.8 billion) or 2.5 percent of the economic output in 2022.”
Yet, despite these harrowing figures, Germany plans to prolong the war in Ukraine by providing more weapons. This will mean that any economic recovery will be much slower and painful. Ultimately, this is a decision that Scholz is cynically willing to make to preserve his political power.
*
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.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
With the Ukraine war now reaching its one-year mark on February 24, the Russians have not achieved a military victory but neither has the West achieved its goals on the economic front. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States and its European allies vowed to impose crippling sanctions that would bring Russia to its knees and force it to withdraw.
Western sanctions would erect a new Iron Curtain, hundreds of miles to the east of the old one, separating an isolated, defeated, bankrupt Russia from a reunited, triumphant and prosperous West. Not only has Russia withstood the economic assault, but the sanctions have boomeranged–hitting the very countries that imposed them.
Western sanctions on Russia reduced the global supply of oil and natural gas, but also pushed up prices. So Russia profited from the higher prices, even as its export volume decreased. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that Russia’s economy only contracted by 2.2% in 2022, compared with the 8.5% contraction it had forecast, and it predicts that the Russian economy will actually grow by 0.3% in 2023.
On the other hand, Ukraine’s economy has shrunk by 35% or more, despite $46 billion in economic aid from generous U.S. taxpayers, on top of $67 billion in military aid.
European economies are also taking a hit. After growing by 3.5% in 2022, the Euro area economy is expected to stagnate and grow only 0.7% in 2023, while the British economy is projected to actually contract by 0.6%. Germany was more dependent on imported Russian energy than other large European countries so, after growing a meager 1.9% in 2022, it is predicted to have negligible 0.1% growth in 2023. German industry is set to pay about 40% more for energy in 2023 than it did in 2021.
The United States is less directly impacted than Europe, but its growth shrank from 5.9% in 2021 to 2% in 2022, and is projected to keep shrinking, to 1.4% in 2023 and 1% in 2024. Meanwhile India, which has remained neutral while buying oil from Russia at a discounted price, is projected to maintain its 2022 growth rate of over 6% per year all through 2023 and 2024. China has also benefited from buying discounted Russian oil and from an overall trade increase with Russia of 30% in 2022. China’s economy is expected to grow at 5% this year.
Other oil and gas producers reaped windfall profits from the effects of the sanctions. Saudi Arabia’s GDP grew by 8.7%, the fastest of all large economies, while Western oil companies laughed all the way to the bank to deposit $200 billion in profits: ExxonMobil made $56 billion, an all-time record for an oil company, while Shell made $40 billion and Chevron and Total gained $36 billion each. BP made “only” $28 billion, as it closed down its operations in Russia, but it still doubled its 2021 profits.
As for natural gas, U.S. LNG (liquefied natural gas) suppliers like Cheniere and companies like Total that distribute the gas in Europe are replacing Europe’s supply of Russian natural gas with fracked gas from the United States, at about four times the prices U.S. customers pay, and with the dreadful climate impacts of fracking. A mild winter in Europe and a whopping $850 billion in European government subsidies to households and companies brought retail energy prices back down to 2021 levels, but only after they spiked five times higher over the summer of 2022.
While the war restored Europe’s subservience to U.S. hegemony in the short term, these real-world impacts of the war could have quite different results in the long term. French President Emmanuel Macronremarked,
“In today’s geopolitical context, among countries that support Ukraine, there are two categories being created in the gas market: those who are paying dearly and those who are selling at very high prices… The United States is a producer of cheap gas that they are selling at a high price… I don’t think that’s friendly.”
An even more unfriendly act was the sabotage of the Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines that brought Russian gas to Germany. Seymour Hersh reported that the pipelines were blown up by the United States, with the help of Norway—the two countries that have displaced Russia as Europe’s two largest natural gas suppliers. Coupled with the high price of U.S. fracked gas, this has fueled anger among the European public. In the long term, European leaders may well conclude that the region’s future lies in political and economic independence from countries that launch military attacks on it, and that would include the United States as well as Russia.
The other big winners of the war in Ukraine will of course be the weapons makers, dominated globally by the U.S. “big five”: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. Most of the weapons so far sent to Ukraine have come from existing stockpiles in the United States and NATO countries. Authorization to build even bigger new stockpiles flew through Congress in December, but the resulting contracts have not yet shown up in the arms firms’ sales figures or profit statements.
The Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment to the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act authorized “wartime” multi-year, no-bid contracts to “replenish” stocks of weapons sent to Ukraine, but the quantities of weapons to be procured outstrip the amounts shipped to Ukraine by up to 500 to one. Former senior OMB official Marc Cancian commented, “This isn’t replacing what we’ve given [Ukraine]. It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war [with Russia] in the future.”
Since weapons have only just started rolling off production lines to build these stockpiles, the scale of war profits anticipated by the arms industry is best reflected, for now, in the 2022 increases in their stock prices: Lockheed Martin, up 37%; Northrop Grumman, up 41%; Raytheon, up 17%; and General Dynamics, up 19%.
While a few countries and companies have profited from the war, countries far from the scene of the conflict have been reeling from the economic fallout. Russia and Ukraine have been critical suppliers of wheat, corn, cooking oil and fertilizers to much of the world. The war and sanctions have caused shortages in all these commodities, as well as fuel to transport them, pushing global food prices to all-time highs.
So the other big losers in this war are people in the Global South who depend on imports of food and fertilizers from Russia and Ukraine simply to feed their families. Egypt and Turkey are the largest importers of Russian and Ukrainian wheat, while a dozen other highly vulnerable countries depend almost entirely on Russia and Ukraine for their wheat supply, from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Laos to Benin, Rwanda and Somalia. Fifteen African countries imported more than half their supply of wheat from Russia and Ukraine in 2020.
The Black Sea Grain Initiative brokered by the UN and Turkey has eased the food crisis for some countries, but the agreement remains precarious. It must be renewed by the UN Security Council before it expires on March 18, 2023, but Western sanctions are still blocking Russian fertilizer exports, which are supposed to be exempt from sanctions under the grain initiative. UN humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths told Agence France-Presse on February 15 that freeing up Russian fertilizer exports is “of the highest priority.”
After a year of slaughter and destruction in Ukraine, we can declare that the economic winners of this war are: Saudi Arabia; ExxonMobil and its fellow oil giants; Lockheed Martin; and Northrop Grumman.
The losers are, first and foremost, the sacrificed people of Ukraine, on both sides of the front lines, all the soldiers who have lost their lives and families who have lost their loved ones. But also in the losing column are working and poor people everywhere, especially in the countries in the Global South that are most dependent on imported food and energy. Last but not least is the Earth, its atmosphere and its climate—all sacrificed to the God of War.
That is why, as the war enters its second year, there is a mounting global outcry for the parties to the conflict to find solutions. The words of Brazil’s President Lula reflect that growing sentiment. When pressured by President Biden to send weapons to Ukraine, he said, “I don’t want to join this war, I want to end it.”
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Several years prior to the formation of the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU) in 1934, a series of events in the state of Alabama would give rise to the formation of the Sharecroppers Union (SCU).
This organization was founded with the assistance of African American leaders within the Communist Party in Alabama largely centered in the steel industry in Birmingham.
After the collapse on Wall Street in October 1929 and the inability of the United States government to enact effective programs to assist people living in rural areas, African American sharecroppers, tenant farmers and agricultural laborers were eager to seek assistance and redress for their burgeoning social problems. The SCU, also known as the Alabama Sharecroppers Union (ASU), arose during a period of efforts by the Communist Party (CP) to organize among the African American people in both the rural and urban areas.
As early as 1925, the CP had established the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC) utilizing a small cadre of African Americans from the U.S. and the Caribbean who had joined the organization during the post-World War I years. This attempt gained modest results during the mid-to-late 1920s.
Nonetheless, the Great Depression intensified the levels of exploitation and oppression directed against the African American people in the rural South. On March 25, 1931, nine African American youth jumped onto a freight train in Chattanooga, Tennessee headed for Alabama. They were later falsely accused of raping two white women and faced the death penalty in the state of Alabama.
These youth became known internationally as the Scottsboro Nine. They were Haywood Patterson, Olen Montgomery, Clarence Norris, Willie Roberson, Andy Wright, Ozzie Powell, Eugene Williams, Charley Weems, and Roy Wright. In a sham trial, eight of the nine were convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white jury. In response to national and worldwide protests, their case went to the Supreme Court where their convictions were overturned in Powell v. State of Alabama (1932).
The State of Alabama would retry the defendants resulting in additional convictions. Appeals and other legal actions continued through the late 1940s until the final defendant released and granted parole fled to the state of Michigan.
A year before the Scottsboro Nine travesty of justice, the CP organized the League of Struggle for Negro Rights (LSNR) in 1930 as its continuation of the ANLC project. The LSNR played an important role in building support for the International Labor Defense campaign to free the nine African American youth.
It was within this context that the SCU was established in the summer of 1931. Once the landowners, law-enforcement officers and white racist vigilantes discovered the SCU activities, the organization was met with severe repression resulting in the deaths of several African American farmers and agricultural workers and the framing of others on bogus criminal charges.
Sharecroppers Union and the Right to Self-Determination
After the 1928 Sixth Congress of the Communist International in Moscow, major shifts were carried out in the overall general line and strategy of its affiliates in the U.S. Seeking to combat white chauvinism and taking the lead from African American communists such as Harry Haywood, the party accepted the notion that the Black masses in the South were an oppressed people with the right to self-determination. This position can also be traced back to the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920 where Lenin acknowledged the plight of the African American people in the U.S. See this.
“By 1932, the ASU had attracted nearly 600 members. One such member was Ned Cobb of Tallapoosa County. A successful cotton farmer, he gained greater renown late in his life when his recollections of sharecropping and union activism on behalf of Black farmers were retold in All God’s Dangers: The Life of Nate Shaw, which was published in 1974. Two native Tallapoosa sharecroppers, brothers Ralph and Tommy Gray, were the first to attract a sizable following. They initially arranged for Coad and other organizers to hold a meeting at a local church in Tallapoosa County, but they met heavy resistance from local authorities. On July 15, in a clash between the local sheriff and a number of ASU members, Ralph Gray was killed. The following day, ASU members were arrested and four were lynched for their involvement in the meeting.”
The SCU (or ASU) continued to gain ground in Alabama and some other states in the South. By 1935, the organization claimed 10,000 members which were overwhelmingly African American.
Nonetheless, the degree of violent repression and racism throughout Alabama and other areas where the SCU had opened branches, had forced the organizing efforts underground since 1931 when several organizers were lynched. Despite its successful membership drives and underground activities, the CP after 1934-35 moved towards its “Popular Front” strategy seeking to coalesce its organizational efforts with non-communist groupings such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the all-Black Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and Maids headed by African American socialist, journalist and trade unionist, A. Phillip Randolph, among others.
In 1935, a decision was made to convene a National Negro Congress (NNC) which met in February 1936 in Chicago with 800 delegates. A. Phillip Randolph was elected as president along with journalist John P. Davis as vice-president.
These developments resulted in the withdrawal of support for the SCU after 1936 by the Communist Party leadership. The fact that the SCU had operated on a clandestine basis with semi-autonomous branches throughout Alabama and other areas, they were able to continue as independent units well into the 1940s.
New Deal Agricultural Policy and the New Farmers of America
Independent organizing on the part of African Americans outside the influence of the Republican and Democratic Parties was by no means contingent upon the efforts of the CP and its mass groupings. The existence of numerous organizations such as the National Colored Farmers Alliance of the late 19th century and the Progressive Farmers and Household Union in Arkansas after World War I, was reflective of the self-organizing traditions which emerged during the period of enslavement and Reconstruction in the U.S.
The Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU) formed in 1934 composed of a majority African American base existing among farmers and agricultural workers, did enjoy the administrative support of some leading figures within the Socialist Party. However, if there had not been the mass enthusiasm on the part of the African American people in the South, particularly within the churches, the efforts of the STFU would not have gained significant political traction.
Image: New Farmers of America was an all-African American youth organization during the 1930s to the 1960s
The New Farmers of America (NFA) is one such example among African Americans which emerged during the late 1920s and early 1930s. By the time of the second administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, farm policy had shifted after the Supreme Court decision which declared the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) as unconstitutional in 1936. (See this)
By 1937, resettlement and assistance programs for impoverished, exploited and dislocated farmers and agricultural workers were established. The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act was passed and provided the legal authority of the federal government to acquire damaged and unproductive land for rehabilitation and redistribution to destitute sharecroppers.
Although the NFA was more associated with the Department of Education and operated through the segregated school systems in the South, a source on the organization reported that:
“The NFA started as a localized movement in Virginia around 1927. H.O. Sargent, Federal Agent for Agricultural Education for Negroes, and G.W. Owens, Teacher-Trainer at Virginia State College, were two of the earliest proponents of an organization for African American farm youth. While Owens wrote the constitution for the New Farmers of Virginia and helped lay the foundation for what would become a national organization, Sargent lobbied within the Department of Education to officially create an organization in segregated schools. As the idea grew in popularity, chapters formed sporadically throughout the southern states and region. In reaction to the emergence of chapters, the states organized into state and sectional associations based on proximity. These sections held conferences and contests unifying the state associations until a national organization was officially created on August 4, 1935.”
The NFA provided educational resources to improve production and efficiency among African American farmers. The organization continued from 1935 to 1965, when in response to the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 1965, merged with the white-dominated Future Farmers of America (FFA).
Black Land Loss and the Great Migration
During World War II and its aftermath, there were additional incentives for African Americans and whites to leave the rural South. Racial terror continued after 1945 when over one million African American men and women soldiers returned to their communities with a renewed determination to end Jim Crow and its economic underpinnings.
Several high-profile lynchings and the advent of the Cold War during 1946-1949, stiffened the ruling class resistance to the demands for civil rights and universal suffrage. Land accumulated by African Americans after the Civil War and Reconstruction rapidly declined as the system of segregation and economic exploitation forced millions more off their farms.
Nonetheless, the struggle would continue with the emergence of the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56, the founding of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in 1960 and the growing militancy of African Americans in the South. In future articles we will examine the nexus between organizing in the rural areas and the advent of the mass Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and 1960s.
*
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.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Scottsboro case demonstration in Washington, D.C. during 1933 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
.
Excerpt from the Preface
“Hell is empty, and all the demons are here.” — William Shakespeare, Tempest, 1610
***
The COVID-19 crisis is destroying people’s lives. My responsibility as an author is to reveal the truth, break the tide of media disinformation and reach out worldwide to as many people as possible.
We are dealing with an exceedingly complex process. In the course of the last two and a half years, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the COVID-19 crisis.
From the very outset in January 2020, people worldwide were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic. Media disinformation was instrumental in sustaining the COVID-19 narrative.
At the time of writing, protest movements have erupted in numerous countries. The entire planet is in state of economic and social chaos. A worldwide crisis in food and agriculture is unfolding with famines erupting in all major regions of the world (see Chapter IV).
From the very outset in January 2020, scientific lies and falsehoods have been used to sustain the legitimacy of the COVID-19 policy mandates including lockdowns, the imposition of the face mask, social distancing and the suppression of fundamental human rights.
Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
For the past almost three years, I have written several comprehensive scientific articles demonstrating that wearing face masks won’t prevent viral diseases. In spite of the obvious facts presented by myself and other journalists, as well as numerous doctors and scientists, government officials and corporate media pundits continued to drone on about how great masks are.
Last month, the Biden administration announced that on May 11, 2023, COVID-19 national and public health emergency declarations that were put in place under former President Donald Trump in early 2020 will end. Could the reason for this be that the lies and propaganda that permeate the COVID narrative have become so blatantly obvious? It would seem so because former die-hard supporters of COVID restrictions like masks and so-called COVID vaccines have started to change their tune. They are starting to question what’s really going on. And the mainstream press is reporting it.
Example: Washington Post columnist Leana Wen MD, who is also a medical news analyst for CNN and a graduate of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders programme, was a staunch advocate of mandating masks. In February 2022, National Review reported that Wen advocated that people wear triple-ply masks even when outdoors. And that kids in school wear them. She then did a 180 and now advocates that wearing masks should be up to the individual. She also stated that “masking has harmed our son’s language development” as reported in this video and in this article.
Example: Last January, Fox News reported that in her Washington Post column, Wen “admitted…that the medical community is overcounting the amount of COVID deaths and hospitalizations.” Actually, that’s an understatement: the deaths are grossly inflated. Since 2020, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has reported on its website (see comorbidities and other conditions) that only over 5% of all COVID-19 deaths were due to it alone. The other 95% of COVID deaths had multiple comorbidities. In other words, they died of something else. COVID apologists try to explain away this fact by claiming that critics are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the data. But at a press conference in 2020, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois’ Department of Public Health succinctly states:
“I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of people dying of COVID: technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death. Everyone who is listed as a COVID death, doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.”
Example: On his show, Jimmy Dore presented a compilation of newscasters and government officials on TV and, in their own words, falsely claiming that the COVID shots would prevent people from getting COVID-19 and infecting others, but that Biden, Fauci and other notables all got COVID anyway. Former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Donald Trump, Deborah Birx MD, best known for wearing a variety of brightly colored scarves, also admitted this when she testified before Congress back in December 2020 and in a 2022 Fox News interview said, “I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines.”
And they overplayed the masks. Reason Magazine and the New York Post, along with other mainstream publications, reported on an exhaustive January 2023 review (not to be confused with a systematic review) published by the Cochrane Library, which “found essentially no relationship between mask wearing and disease rates.” The articles, which can be read here, and here, stated in their title that “the CDC Grossly Exaggerated” the effectiveness of “mask mandates.” Both articles went on to say that the CDC “cannot be trusted as a source of public health information.”
The Cochrane review is difficult to read, but it’s not always the fault of the authors. In a February 2023 interview, lead author Dr. Tom Jefferson, MD, explained that in his original 2020 mask review (the 2023 review is an update), his research team was “forced” to “insert unnecessary text phrases in the review” in order to get published. This and other kinds of censorship have become a common problem in scientific journals as explained in this 2020 article in Scientific American.
Dr. Jefferson also explained that Cochrane published an editorial to accompany his original 2020 review, in his view, “to undermine our work.” He described the editorial as a call to action,“you’ve got to do something, you can’t wait for good evidence,” which is “a complete subversion of the precautionary principle,” (the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous). Dr Jefferson went on to say:
“…when academics and politicians started jumping up and down about masks. We call them ‘strident campaigners.” They are activists, not scientists.” Nevertheless, “…the evidence really didn’t change from 2020 to 2023. There is still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic.”
Levels of evidence
As explained in my previous articles, there are three kinds of scientific research: observational, experimental, and modeling (usually computational, “using computers to study something”). Observational studies, in the case of masks, are mainly epidemiological or statistical. Experimental research determines the effectiveness of masks via controlled experiments. Computer modeling is used to predict the effect that masks will have on case numbers and deaths based on their filtering capacity combined with mandates. However, only observational and experimental research count as scientific evidence. Computer modeling is highly inaccurate and does not count as scientific evidence, as illustrated by this hierarchy of scientific evidence.
As shown in the above image, the gold standard in medical science is randomized controlled trials with verified outcomes (RCTs) combined with meta-analysis and systematic reviews, because they eliminate bias and speculation. All observational/epidemiological studies do is establish a correlation between mask wearing and COVID-19 case numbers and deaths as shown in this study. But as stated in this 2021 Harvard University article, “Observational studies can’t prove causation.”
This 2020 article in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) warns that relying on weak observational studies “will hinder the goal of finding effective treatments for COVID-19—and a great many other diseases.” This is why the only studies that matter are RCTs, because they test the masks directly to see if they actually work. And every properly conducted RCT done over the past 80 years shows that masks, regardless of what kind, don’t prevent viral diseases.
Example: Canadian Family Physician. July 2020 study. 11 systematic reviews, 18 RCTs. 26,444 participants. Synthesis: “Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness or any clinical respiratory infection.”
Example:Emerging Infectious Diseases, peer reviewed journal published by the CDC. May 2020 study. Systematic review of 10 RCTs on the effectiveness of face masks from 1946-2018 (see Face Masks): “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”
Example: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 study conducted in Denmark. First RCT to determine if masks are effective against SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus. JAMA, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine wouldn’t publish it. The RCT involved over 6,000 Danes and found what all other RCTs found:
Discussion: “Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect.”
Another problem with masks is that they can severely damage the physical and mental health of adults and children. A massive comprehensive review of the many studies conducted on the health and well-being of people wearing masks was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in April 2021. It clearly demonstrates that mask wearing is in no way shape or form a small thing to ask of people.
Obstructing the nose and mouth with a mask causes oxygen deprivation, which increases CO2 levels in the blood, causing hypoxia, hypercapnia, headaches, confusion, physical and mental exhaustion, which the authors call MIES (Mask-induced Exhaustion Syndrome), cancer due to lower oxygen levels along with toxic substances in the masks, facial lesions, damage to teeth and gums, heart attacks, strokes, and psychological deterioration. Masks are also a breeding ground for all sorts of pathogenic microbes that “can cause clinically relevant fungal, bacterial or viral infections.” The authors emphatically state that “…mask-induced adverse changes are relatively minor at first glance, but repeated exposure over longer periods…have measurably harmful effects not only on healthy people, but also on sick people…”
A fly in the ointment?
In 2021, the peer-reviewed journal Science published a huge mask study conducted in Bangladesh that supposedly involved some 340,000 people. This randomized trial only evaluated cloth and surgical masks. N95 masks, also known as respirators, were not included. The study found no benefit in wearing cloth masks, but found an 11% decrease in symptoms associated with COVID-19 in the groups that wore surgical masks. However, the study was deeply flawed as pointed out in a 2021 paper by Dr. Denis Rancourt, PhD, a 2022 review published in ResearchGate, and in the Cochran Review led by Dr. Tom Jefferson mentioned previously.
Most importantly, the Bangladesh study was not an RCT of 340,000 people as hyped in the media. It was a “cluster randomized trial” of 300 treatment villages where there was a mask wearing intervention campaign and of 300 villages where there wasn’t. 340,000 is the total population of all the villages combined, not of how many people individually participated in the study or of how properly and consistently anyone wore masks, which there would be no way to know. Also, cluster randomized trials are “more prone to biases,” which individual RCTs are designed to eliminate, and can give a different result than individual RCTs. For example, a 2005 Cochrane review of hip protectors. “The cluster trials showed large positive effect whereas individually ran
Flawed logic
In July 2020, Professor Denis Rancourt, who has written scientific papers demonstrating that masks are ineffective against viral pathogens, debated Professor David Kyle Johnson who wrote scathing critiques of Rancourt’s work. While both are PhDs, Rancourt’s is in physics. He’s an actual scientist who has been published numerous times in the scientific literature. Johnson’s PhD is in philosophy. He specializes in and teaches logic and supposedly specializes in debunking pseudoscience. But judging from the debate, Johnson certainly doesn’t practice logic as far as I’m concerned. He acted like an angry, petulant, spoiled child and even threw a temper tantrum.
Johnson labeled Rancourt a conspiracy theorist and a pseudoscientist, which is the ad hominem fallacy, invalidating what is being said by attacking someone’s character or reputation. Johnson also misrepresented Rancourt’s position on COVID-19 and accused him of saying things that he didn’t say, an example of the straw man fallacy, creating “a dishonest, distorted, or otherwise inaccurate version of a person’s original argument.”
Johnson’s whole schtick was that masks can reduce the amount of infectious viral particles contained in droplets and aerosols in the air, which will reduce COVID-19 infection. He compared the filtration efficiency of masks with traffic laws against speeding, reducing accidents. This is a false equivalence fallacy, claiming two entirely different things are the same because they share similar characteristics.
Johnson’s arguments were based on inferior observational studies, computer modeling, which isn’t scientific evidence, and on mechanistic studies, which determine filtration efficiency. As explained in this EPA report and demonstrated in this 2008 HSA study in the U.K., these, and all other filtration efficiency studies show that huge amounts of infectious viral particles will always go around and through any kind of mask.
Johnson acknowledges that forcing people to wear masks won’t eliminate all infectious particles that are in the air and that they can go through masks. That’s why his arguments are fallacious. The scientific literature clearly shows that most respiratory infections are caused by “small particle aerosols,” rather than large droplets and can remain in the air indefinitely as reported in the Lancet. And as estimated by Cambridge University press, 100 COVID-19 virus particles would be enough to make a human sick. But as reported in Science Daily, even “One Virus Particle Is Enough To Cause Infectious Disease.” In reality, you will be breathing in thousands of infectious virus particles in buildings regardless of what you have on your face.
Johnson also incorrectly asserted that most large droplets existing in the mouth of an infected person wearing a mask won’t have a chance to evaporate or aerosolize into smaller microscopic particles that could possibly escape from the mask. But as reported in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health review cited earlier, mask wearers exhale more fine microscopic aerosol particles than non-mask wearers, which increases the risk of infection for everyone.
Bottom line: it doesn’t matter how many droplets and aerosol particles masks filter out because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter what kind of mask you’re wearing because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter whether or not you wear your mask properly because MASKS DON’T WORK. It doesn’t matter how many comply or don’t comply with mask rules because MASKS DON’T WORK. None of these things matter because MASKS DON’T WORK.
Closing thoughts
People who buy into the mask lie think they are following the science when they are really following authoritarian orders. A consensus is defined as: “An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.” But before we trust a scientific consensus on something like COVID-19, we need to ask the following: Is it an informed consensus? Or is it an ignorant, captured, corrupt consensus? Massive corruption in medical science is a reality as explained here and here. So, if a majority of doctors, scientists, and politicians have not studied a topic like masks, or if they have sold their souls to the highest bidder in exchange for wealth, power, and status instead of valuing truth and making the world a better place, we need not listen to them.
Everything comes with a price tag. There is no free lunch. There are positives and negatives, pros and cons, to whatever path we choose to follow. In a free society, that price will be a small class of criminals who operate outside the law. But it’s far lower than the price we are paying for a criminal government that operates within the law. So, don’t blindly believe what corrupt corporate stooges in medicine, government, and the media are telling you. Don’t allow yourselves to be bossed around by a bunch of idiots who don’t know their butt hole from a gopher hole. Doubt and question everything. A mind is a terrible thing to waste and freedom is too precious a gift to throw away.
*
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
“It is obvious that American business can become the locomotive that will once again push forward global economic growth,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a late January address to the Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce, boasting that BlackRock, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs, and others “have already become part of our Ukrainian way.”
Zelensky did not elaborate on what the “Ukrainian way” is. Maybe the “Ukrainian way” is one of rampant corruption—two of the presidents before Zelensky have either been charged with or convicted of high treason and numerous government officials have been fired or forced to resign for improper use of wartime funds. Whatever it may be, JP Morgan wants more of it.
On Monday, news broke that JP Morgan and Zelensky had signed a memorandum of understanding stipulating that JP Morgan would assist Ukraine in its reconstruction. A release of the meeting posted on the President of Ukraine’s website said,
“The parties discussed the creation of a platform for attracting private capital to rebuild Ukraine and promising directions of large investment projects in Ukraine, in particular in the sectors of green energy, IT, and agricultural technologies.”
JP Morgan executives spent a few days in Ukraine last week. They met with Zelensky and other government ministers and officials in Ukraine, and visited a number of Ukrainian cities to assess the damage sustained by the Ukrainian economy. After making some initial assessments, JP Morgan executives discussed at a meeting with Zelensky the creation of a fund endowed with between $20 billion to $30 billion of private capital to help fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, according to Fox Business. Other ideas reportedly floated in the meeting was establishing a bank run by Wall Street giants to make investments in various kinds of vital infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and oil refineries.
During the meeting, Zelensky told the JP Morgan executives,
“I understand very well that doing business and investing cannot be beneficial to only one party. We want you to invest in Ukraine and earn money.”
To which JP Morgan Chase’s chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, replied,
“We are proud of our long-standing support of Ukraine and committed to doing our part to lift up the country and its people. The full resources of JPMorgan Chase are available to Ukraine as it charts its post-conflict path to growth.”
Towards the end of the JP Morgan executives’ time in Ukraine, they gifted Zelensky with a New England Patriots jersey with the number 91 on it for the year Ukraine gained its independence from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Dimon has called the current war in Ukraine “an inflection point for the Western world for a hundred years.”
“Do we get our act together to help win this war, help the Ukrainians, help rebuild Ukraine?” Dimon said previously.
While JP Morgan may see itself as one of Ukraine’s chief financial advisors alongside other U.S.-based companies such as BlackRock, which has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Ukrainian government on marshaling reconstruction funding, JP Morgan also has current market positions that suggest the finance giant is set to profit off of the war’s continuation. For example, JPMorgan Investment Management held more than $2.5 billion in Raytheon stock, and over $1.3 billion worth of both Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics stock as of February 15.
This doesn’t mean that JP Morgan is necessarily doing anything illegal by working with the Ukrainian government while having large holdings in U.S. defense contractors. Rather, it serves as an indictment of the incentive structures at play in our over-financialized economy. JP Morgan, BlackRock, and other financial giants can profit from prolonging the war via continued transfer of weapons and equipment to Ukraine by taking out large positions in defense contractors. At the very same time, these same corporations are free to swoop in and compound their profits by investing in the reconstruction of Ukraine, a project that only seems to become larger and potentially more profitable thanks to the conflict’s protraction.
As Saint Thomas Aquinas reminds us, the goal of political life is peace. But why would Ukraine ever be open to negotiating a peace with Russia when the Biden administration—though its doctrinaire support of Ukraine for “as long as it takes”—and powerful Wall Street players are so heavily invested in a Ukrainian victory that they pretend it is a fait accompli?
JP Morgan may consider itself Ukraine’s angel investor. Maybe it’s the angel of death.
*
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.
Bradley Devlin is a Staff Reporter for The American Conservative. Previously, he was an Analysis Reporter for the Daily Caller, and has been published in the Daily Wire and the Daily Signal, among other publications that don’t include the word “Daily.” He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in Political Economy. You can follow Bradley on Twitter @bradleydevlin.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Goodbye Disinformation Board, Hello Disinformation Index. Less than a year after many celebrated the disbanding of the Biden’s Administration Disinformation Board, it appears that the Administration has been funding a British group to rank sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites.
The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) has released its index and every one of the high-risk sites turn out to be . . . wait for it . . . conservative or libertarian sites. HuffPost or Mother Jones (which were also analyzed), but HuffPost made the top list of most trustworthy for potential advertisers. It turns out that the “riskiest online news outlets” just happen to be some of the most popular sites for conservatives, libertarians, and independents.
The GDI is designed to steer advertisers and subscribers away from certain sites, potentially draining sites of revenue needed to operate. The organization issues the index to “advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them avoid financially supporting disinformation online.” The State Department is partially funding the effort. The Biden Administration gave $330 million to The National Endowment for Democracy, which partially supports the GDI’s budget.
GDI warned advertisers that these sites could damage their reputations and brands: New York Post, Reason, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, One America News Network, The Federalist, Newsmax, The American Spectator, and The American Conservative.
The inclusion of the New York Post is particularly notable. It is ranked in the top ten newspapers in the country and the top ten digital news sites. (For full disclosure, I have written for the newspaper as well as many of those on the trusted side of the GDI ledger). The New York Post was suspended by social media companies over the Hunter Biden story before the 2020 election by companies relying on false stories appearing in many of the most trustworthy sites listed by GDI.
The allegedly dangerous sites also included Reason, a website associated with UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who was clearly gobsmacked by the warning. Reason regularly posts insightful and substantive analysis from conservative and libertarian scholars. With the diminishing number of such academics on faculties, the site is a relative rarity in offering a different take on cases and legal issues. The inclusion of Reason in the listing is absurd and shows an utter lack of objective and reliable criteria. For example, GDI says that the site offers “no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section.” That is obviously untrue as any cursory review of the site would confirm. The Reason articles contain clear indications of authorship.
Moreover, there is a reason why Reason does not have policies posted on the removal of disinformation: it opposes content moderation policies of groups like GDI on free speech grounds. Reason like my own blog Res Ipsa (www.jonathanturley.org) opposes disinformation “processes” used to limit free speech. As Volokh noted, “Reason does not specifically police disinformation in the comments section; that is perhaps an area where Reason‘s philosophy—free minds and free markets—clashes with GDI’s.”
The GDI reviewed sites on the far left like Mother Jones that routinely run unsupported attacks on the right and debunked theories on Russian collusion or other claims. For example, many of the sites ranked as most reliable only recently admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation. For two years, these sites spread this false story with little or no opposing viewpoints despite early refutation by American intelligence.
Even in 2021, NPR still claimed that “The laptop story was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations.” After a chorus of objections to the clearly false story, it corrected the story but still stated falsely that “numerous news organizations cast doubt on the credibility of the laptop story.” It never explained the continuing “doubt”? Media organizations that effectively imposed a blackout on the story had already confirmed that the laptop was authentic.
Likewise, sites like NPR continued to make the false claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr cleared Lafayette Park for a photo op long after the claim was proven to be categorically untrue. The government-supported news outlet also has been routinely challenged for making biased or false claims about conservatives, including Supreme Court justices.
None of that means that I would put NPR or Mother Jones or HuffPost on a do-not-advertise disinformation list. These are sites with a well-known liberal bent just as other sites have a conservative bent. I am not here to denounce those sites any more than I am here to defend the other sites for their content. Rather the concern is that GDI is applying skewed measures to target disfavored sites. It is concerning that the sites at either extreme of GDI’s spectrum of disinformation largely reflect the political spectrum. (One exception is the Wall Street Journal, which is in the most trustworthy grouping).
GDI accuses sites like Reason of lacking transparency on issues like authorship but the group is fairly opaque on its own conclusions and standards. The explanations for tagging these sites are riddled with subjective and ambiguous terms. For example, GDI includes RealClearPolitics due to what GDI considers “biased and sensational language.” Did the reviewers actually visit the sites of Mother Jones and HuffPost in evaluating comparative levels of bias? Were those sites paragons of neutrality and circumspection?
GDI further says that RealClearPolitics “lacked clear and diverse sources.” Many of the sites ranked as most reliable (and thus worthy of advertising revenue) are routinely criticized for excluding conservative or libertarian perspectives. HuffPost and Mother Jones have a range of diversity that runs from the left to the far left.
The New York Times has led efforts to exclude opposing voices from the right. In 2020, the the Times issued a cringing apology for running a column by Sen. Tom Cotton. The Times forced out editor James Bennet and apologized for publishing Cotton’s column calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. (Bennet recently denounced his former newspaper for abandoning journalistic standards of balance).
The GDI disinformation index shows the very favoritism that it attributes to others. For example, in discouraging advertisers from supporting the New York Post, the group declares that “content sampled from the Post frequently displayed bias, sensationalism and clickbait, which carries the risk of misleading the site’s reader.” The line reflects the utter lack of self-awareness of self-appointed monitors of disinformation. There is no effort to explain what constitutes “clickbait” or “sensationalism” in comparison to more favored sites like HuffPost.
The fact that GDI reflects such bias is not particularly surprising. Disinformation efforts have long displayed pronounced political influences and agendas. Indeed, we have seen recent disclosures of how members of Congress like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) secretly sought to use disinformation claims to ban critics, including a columnist, from social media.
What is more troubling is the funding of the United States government for a group seeking to target conservative sites and deter advertisers from supporting them. I recently testified on the disclosures of the Twitter Files and the confirmation of coordination by the FBI and other federal agencies with social media companies in censoring citizens. I noted that the Administration played the public for chumps. After yielding to an outcry over the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, the Administration disbanded it. It never mentioned that a far larger censorship effort was being carried out with an estimated 80 federal employees in targeting citizens and others. While the GDI effort is smaller in comparison and effect, it is an additional facet of this effort. It is not known if the Administration has other programs of this kind and the Democrats continue to vehemently oppose any investigation into these free speech concerns.
In other words, the Board was just a shiny object that distracted from a far more comprehensive effort to censor and control speech on social media. I still would not call it disinformation but one might call it deceitful.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network and the U.S. government have agreed to the release of a censored report on the toxicity of fluoride, the latest development in the ongoing Fluoride lawsuit.
After numerous delays, and intervention by Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine, the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s review of Fluoride’s toxicity will soon be released to the public. The move is the latest development in the nearly decade-long legal battle between the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), parent agency for the National Toxicology Program, have agreed to the release of the long-delayed NTP review on fluoride’s toxicity. The release of the documents will play a major role in the next phase of the ongoing lawsuit against the EPA.
The decision to release the documents was made at a February 3rd meeting between counsel for the Fluoride Action Network and the NIEHS following a subpoena requesting comments from the agency, the NTP’s responses, and additional documents relevant to the decision not published in the NTP’s completed fluoride monograph in May 2022.
The NIEHS agreed to publicly post the NTP monograph to the NTP website, as well as comments provided by a little known bureaucracy known as the Board of Scientific Counselors, and the NTP’s subsequent responses. In addition to the NTP monograph they will also publish a related meta-analysis that has been a subject of debate in recent hearings.
In a hearing on January 10th, Michael Connett, representing the Fluoride Action Network and other plaintiffs, expressed interest in obtaining comments from officials within the Department of Health and Human Services. In a declaration to the court, Dr. Richard Woychik, Director of the NIEHS, claimed it is these comments from unknown officials at the HHS which lead to the monograph being put on hold.
The EPA told Judge Edward Chen these comments should be privileged and not allowed as evidence in court or made public. Ultimately, Judge Chen ordered the two parties to meet and come to an agreement about which documents would be made public.
The NIEHS agreed to post the documents on or before March 15th, before the next scheduled court hearing on April 11th.
Judge Chen has previously said he is likely to set a new trial date at the April hearing. The release of the NTP monograph, a related meta-analysis and interagency comments are likely to play a major role in the second trial phase of the nearly decade-long legal battle.
The Fluoride Emails Reveal Corruption of Science
The discussion around the comments related to the NTP’s unreleased monograph stem from revelations contained within internal CDC emails which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by Connett. The emailsindicate the NTP report was not made public due to interference from Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine and National Institute of Health Director Lawrence A. Tabak. One email from the CDC dated June 3, 2022, specifically stated, “ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”
Connett outlined the findings of the emails in several exhibits submitted to Judge Chen.
“These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report,” Connett writes. “They also confirm that the CDC was opposed to the NTP releasing the report, and that leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.”
As Connett notes, on April 28, 2022, Dr. Mary Wolfe, the Director of NTP’s Office of Policy, Review and Outreach, emailed Casey Hannan, the Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, and stated that the NTP’s “analysis and conclusions are set”. Dr. Wolfe also let Hannan know that the NTP had reviewed the CDC’s submitted comments, but still planned to release the review “mid/late May” 2022.
In a May 11, 2022 email, Wolfe again notifies Hannan and the CDC that the NTP has “set May 18, 2022 for publication of the monograph. The monograph will be posted to the NTP website, and we will email a notice of the posting to NTP listserv subscribers.”
However, later that day and the following day, Dr. Karen Hacker, the Director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), tells Dr. Wolfe that there is concern within the CDC about publishing the NTP review without an additional review by “NIH leadership”. Hacker also asked about the potential of a “interagency review” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Dr. Wolfe subsequently told the CDC that “we (the NTP) believe the current findings, as stated in the monograph, reflect the scope of our evaluation and the available scientific literature and no revision is needed”.
Meanwhile, another study on the toxicity of fluoride has been published by scientists from Toronto’s York University in the journal Science of the Total Environment. The study, Fluoride Exposure And Hypothyroidism In A Canadian Pregnancy Cohort, linked fluoride exposure with an increased risk of hypothyroidism in pregnant women.
“The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children,” stated Christine Till, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and one of the study’s authors.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
One would think that the United States military staging an unprovoked “plausibly deniable” covert attack on a nation with which it is not at war would be at least considered newsworthy. That the attack did grave damage to a country with which the US is closely allied would seem to make the aggression even more unthinkable. And, perhaps worst of all, that the attack was set up by the nation’s chief executive using a political bypass that avoided congressional oversight and adherence to the war powers act which might be most reprehensible of all as it cuts to the heart of the nation’s constitutional balance of powers. It is clearly an impeachable offense. And “Yes,” for those who are still wondering, Joe Biden and his team of terrorist emulators have done all that and more, and have capped their performance with a series of flat out lies and evasions to make it appear that they had done nothing wrong.
And the mainstream America media, in its worst performance since the invasion of Iraq, has served as an echo chamber for everything the White House chooses to leak to it. Given all of that, it was perhaps completely predictable that the government-subservient press and TV news would almost completely ignore the devastating report released by top investigative journalist Seymour Hersh on February 8th. Hersh’s article was entitled “How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline” with a secondary headline reading “The New York Times called it a ‘mystery,’ but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now.”
The article, which Hersh self-published on the internet, describes in considerable detail the preparations and execution by the US Navy Diving and Salvage Center and Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Maritime Branch, coordinated and directed by the White House, to sabotage and destroy Russia’s four Baltic Sea Nord Stream gas pipelines, a war crime and terroristic action that moves the United States much closer to direct armed conflict with Russia.
Given its potential political blowback, the Hersh story might very well be the most important expose to appear since fighting began in Ukraine over a year ago, but it is being ignored by the White House, which is denying the report, with a spokesman only commenting that “This is false and complete fiction.”
The CIA’s spokesman Tammy Thorp likewise replied to Hersh that “This claim is completely and utterly false.”
The US Navy was also asked for comments but did not respond. The media, clearly evident by its inaction, has religiously adhered to that government line, possibly due to some mistaken notion that our national security forces have to be supported when they are going “toe to toe with the Russkies” over Ukraine. On the contrary, it is precisely when the government is behaving recklessly not to mention criminally to bring about an unnecessary war that the press should be in hot pursuit of the story and what it means. That is particularly so as the Ukraine conflict is now escalating and threatening to go nuclear as both sides dig in to incompatible positions.
I have known Sy Hersh for a number of years and spent time together with him and other former CIA colleagues helping to confirm details of some of his earlier exposes on US government abuses and outright lies in its somewhat not completely credible role as “guardian” of national security. Hersh is a meticulous investigator who never, in my experience, accepted uncorroborated claims in support of his narratives.
I have some understanding of who his sources in the intelligence agencies and Department of Defense might be in this case and it should be accepted that what he has written is completely verifiable and derived from individuals who were actual participants in the activities described. That is not to say that there will not be failures to recall accurately certainly details including aspects of the possible Norwegian involvement, something critics are already pointing to, but the main thrust of “whodunit” and “how” is pretty definitively demonstrated.
The report is long and includes a great deal of information on both the planning and the political decision-making that went into the willingness to destroy the pipeline, which I will briefly describe.
Sy claims the following: It has not exactly been a secret that many in the United States government have long regarded the Nord Stream pipelines to be a security threat as the supply of relatively cheap natural gas to Germany as a gateway into Europe by Russia would enable Moscow to create a dependency on it for energy which could be manipulated to produce political and strategic advantage.
As the crisis over Ukraine deepened in 2021, the Biden White House set up a secret task force that worked on possible scenarios that focused on using military and intelligence resources to physically destroy the pipelines with some measure of plausible denial of the US hand in the process in order to avoid political blowback from America’s European allies or escalation of the conflict. The secrecy was needed to protect Biden from charges of hypocrisy since he had repeatedly pledged that the US would not be directly involved in any armed conflict with Russia over Ukraine.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan headed the interagency task force, which convened throughout late 2021 and included key players from the Agency’s Maritime Branch and the Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center, both located in Panama City Florida, as well as the State Department, Treasury and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The operation was originally treated as a covert action that would have required congressional oversight, but that fig leaf was abandoned and it became a “highly classified intelligence operation” when Biden and others in the administration stated publicly and clearly their intentions to stop the pipeline, making what eventually took place an openly declared policy, perhaps intended to send a warning to the Russians. A number of options to destroy the pipelines were discussed. According to Hersh, the participants in the meeting, many of whom were hawks who had cut their teeth under the Obama Administration, clearly understood that they were proposing an “act of war” that was being considered in spite of potential blowback because the president had ordered it.
There was plenty of warning of what might be coming.
In early February 2022, shortly before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Biden publicly pledged during a joint news conference accompanied by a silent and frowning German chancellor Olaf Scholz that “If Russia invades … there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2” and, when pressed on how he would carry that out, he responded, “We will — I promise you — we will be able to do it.”
Later, after the destruction of the pipeline, Secretary of State Blinken stated that) the sabotage offered a “tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy… That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.”
Not that any more confirmation was needed, but on January 22nd 2023 Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland gloated while testifying to a US Senate committee that “the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now … a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
The Biden Administration, in its arrogance has more-or-less been admitting that it was behind the sabotage, which it certainly had the motive and means to carry out, though it was carefully avoiding leaving any actual evidence behind that it had carried out the destruction. As observed above, it has also been deliberately avoiding any congressional involvement, presumably to avoid any discussion of war powers or even due to concerns over possible media leaks.
The mechanics of the placing explosives followed by the actual destruction of the pipelines was reportedly as follows:
Under cover of a NATO Baltic Sea exercise called BALTOPS-22 in June 2022 US Navy and possibly also CIA Special Activities and Norwegian deep sea divers descended 260 feet to a spot off the Danish Island of Bornholm, which was considered to be a location where the pipelines converged in relatively shallow tide-free water and were particularly vulnerable. They attached C-4 explosives both to Nord Stream 1, which was operational, and Nord Stream 2, which was completed but was waiting for German safety and security regulators’ approval to become active. The explosives were designed to be remotely detonatable.
The explosives were on a timer that created an escape window for those initiating the detonation and were reported to be activated by a secure signal sent by a sonar buoy that was dropped onto the prepared site by a Norwegian navy helicopter. The Norwegians were essential in that role due to their own military presence close to the targeted part of the Baltic as well as their considerable experience in deep-sea cold-water operations. A Norwegian Navy helicopter in the area would presumably arouse no particular concern, even from the ever-watchful Russians.
Under orders to “Go!” from Washington, on September 26, 2022 the Norwegians dropped the sonar buoy and a few hours later the C-4 explosives were detonated, immediately knocking out three of the four pipelines. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, the US and its allies in the media made every effort to blame the Russians who were repeatedly cited as a likely culprit. Leaks from the White House and from the British government never established a clear explanation of why Moscow would be into self-sabotage of a lucrative business arrangement.
A few months later, when it was revealed that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the Nord Streams, in the neighborhood of $10 billion, the New York Times seemingly cluelessly described the development as “complicating theories about who was behind” the sabotage.
Indeed, it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own valuable pipeline which was intended to be a major income source for many years to come, a proposition that former British diplomat Craig Murray describes as “deranged.” But a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken. Asked at a press conference in September about the consequences of the worsening global energy crisis, most felt in Western Europe, a delusional Blinken described the development in positive terms, enthusing how the destruction would “take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs.”
The tale told by Sy Hersh is yet another great betrayal by the country’s so-called leadership, an egregious example of the United States government aided by its lap-dog media again lying to its own citizens and the world to cover-up a criminal act that in no way made Americans safer or more prosperous. In the US, the gadfly Tucker Carlson, among prominent journalists, has up to this point dared to present the investigative account developed by Hersh in a five-minute segment of his program. Newsweek has also run a piece examining the issues raised featuring Constitutional lawyer John Yoo. More interesting perhaps, a half hour interview of Hersh by Amy Goodman on PBS television’s Democracy Now! aired last week but then was partially blocked because YouTube considered it to be “inappropriate or offensive.”
The full availability of the Seymour Hersh interview video has since that time been restored with the Democracy Now! channel providing the following explanatory message:
“UPDATE: We have blurred some imagery about 30 seconds into the video in response to a content warning from YouTube that severely limited the reach of this interview. What you see now is an edited version. For the uncensored version of this interview that aired on our show, visit democracynow.org.”
Beyond that exposure, there remain, nevertheless, a lot of questions about the destruction of Nord Stream, which was unambiguously an act of war or even terrorism, that continue to be unanswered.
Consider, for example, how NATO countries, the US and Norway, de facto attacked fellow NATO country Germany, which was both the intended recipient and an economic partner in the pipelines. Though some British involvement in the operation, also detected by Russian intelligence, was quickly revealed publicly by then-British Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss’s “It’s done” text to Secretary of State Antony Blinken sixty seconds after the detonation.
Berlin apparently was not trusted enough to have a voice in the planning and execution of the bombing even though it was gravely damaged by it. Also, Article 5 of the NATO charter says an attack on one nation requires all other alliance members to aid the country that was targeted and it is intriguing to consider whether the rest of NATO ought to go to war with the United States and Norway. Alternatively, can “friends” in the defensive alliance attack each other without consequences or ought the US and Norway now be considered rogue nations? Will the alliance itself be able to stay together if several member states take steps unilaterally that can severely damage the economy of another member? And how are the Germans actually responding to their sinking economy and standards of living, with closing factories and cold houses as a consequence of the US/Norwegian action?
Americans, for their part, should also be thinking deeply about the government we have and the lack of restraint with which it behaves. The framers of the Constitution gave only to Congress the power to declare war, perhaps imagining that at some future date the president might stoop to using the military and naval forces of the United States globally to punish and coerce other nations, seize their territory, and kill their people. And it is all justified by something called “exceptionalism” empowering a massive sustained deception that waging continuous war is actually keeping the peace in a “rules based international order.”
But the final, and biggest, question remains: How will Russia retaliate to Nord Stream? Will it be one step closer to possible nuclear war initiated by Joe Biden’s reckless move or will the Kremlin persist with its request to have the United Nations Security Council investigate the incident? Moscow will certainly be careful to pick the right time and place, but the last act in this play surely remains to be written.
*
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 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].
Nuland made the comments when asked about a report from The New York Times that was published in January and said the Biden administration was “warming” to the idea of helping Ukraine attack Russia despite the risk of escalation.
“Russia has turned Crimea into a massive military installation … those are legitimate targets, Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that,” Nuland told the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington DC-based think tank.
Nuland also expressed support for the “demilitarization” of Crimea.
“No matter what the Ukrainians decide about Crimea in terms of where they choose to fight, etcetera, Ukraine is not going to be safe unless Crimea is at a minimum — at a minimum — demilitarized,” she said.
“Now the American warmongers have gone even further: they are inciting the Kiev regime to further escalate, to bring the war to the territory of our country. Just like that, with direct strikes,” Zakharova said.
Nuland’s comments came a day after Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged that a Ukrainian attempt at retaking Crimea would be a “red line” for Russian President Vladimir Putin and would risk a major response from Moscow. US support for such operations would increase the risk of provoking Moscow and heighten the chances of a direct clash between NATO and Russia.
Putin has shown that he will significantly escalate the war over attacks on Crimea. Russia did not start large-scale missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure until after the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea to the Russian mainland.
While Ukraine hasn’t been in a position where it can launch an offensive against Crimea, the Biden administration has made clear throughout the conflict that it wouldn’t discourage Kyiv from attacking the peninsula.
Back in the summer of 2022, when the US first provided the HIMARS rocket systems to Ukraine, the administration sought assurances that the weapons wouldn’t be used to target Russian territory. When asked by Antiwar.com if that restriction applied to Crimea, a State Department spokesperson replied, “Crimea is Ukraine.”
Russia has controlled Crimea since 2014, but neither the US nor Kyiv recognize the peninsula as Russian territory. The people of Crimea voted to join Russia following a US-backed coup in Kyiv, which Nuland played an instrumental role in, and polling since 2014 has shown that they are still happy with the change.
*
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.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
In 2022, the U.S. government approved expenditures of $113 billion on aid to Ukraine. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget writes:
In total, CBO estimated that $6.6 billion of the $113 billion would be spent in FY 2022 and another $37.7 billion in FY 2023. Furthermore, CBO estimated more than half of the approved funds would be spent by the end of FY 2024 and more than three-fourths by the end of FY 2026.
How much will that cost the average household? There are approximately 131.2 million households in the United States. So the average cost per household is $113 billion divided by 131.2 million, which is $861.
Of course, averages are often under-informative. That’s true of this one. In 2018, according to the Brookings Institute, high-income households, those in the top 20% of the income distribution, paid about 68 percent of all the tax revenue that the federal government collected. To be in the top quintile that year, you needed to have an income of $153,301 or more.
Assume for simplicity that these numbers, adjusted for inflation, are about the same today. Also, I’ll assume, even though I know it’s false, that this $113 billion will be paid entirely out of taxes rather than new debt. It’s not as bad an assumption as it looks. To the extent it’s paid out of new debt and to the extent future taxes pay off that debt, based on a progressive tax structure such as the one we have now, it would be a pretty good assumption.
So the top quintile would pay 68% of $113 billion, which is $76.8 billion. There are approximately 26 million households in the top quintile. So the cost per top-quintile household is $76.8 billion divided by 26 million, which is $2,956.
That’s a lot to fight someone else’s war.
Consider my wife’s and my case. In 2018, our income put us in the top quintile, probably just below the top 10 percent. So because we aren’t socked by high income tax rates to the same extent as the top 10 percent, our cost is probably closer to $2,000 than to $2,956. Let’s say it’s about $2,200.
Put it in perspective this way. In the first month of the war, my wife and I wanted to “do something” to help Ukrainians. A friend recommended giving money to a local restaurant owner who has relatives in Ukraine. She trusts him and we trust her. So we gave him $100. I know that that’s not much, but the $2,200 number above gives an idea of just how “not much.” We’ll pay in federal tax revenues about 22 times the amount we contributed voluntarily.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Mainstream newspapers, the television news, and the alternative news blogs that we are forced to rely on for information have decayed into unstable and shifting palimpsests on which scraps of science, ideology and rhetoric are projected so as to confuse and to mislead us.
Although the alternative media is screaming at us that Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have ended COVID19 restrictions, our experience with such “breakthroughs” so far is that the assault on humanity will continue on in another format in another country. Those countries are but a tiny part of the population of the globe.
The powerful float fraudulent signs of an impending end to COVID19 in an effort to give us hope that the current corrupt system is capable of solving the crisis on its own. That scenario, however, is entirely impossible.
The criteria that the media offers us for the end to COVID19 are so useless that we must list here for the public the true indicators that “this epidemic is inconvertibly over”
1. The assets of all the pharmaceutical companies that developed these “vaccines,” of all the multinational media corporations that promoted the COVID19 hoax, of all the investment banks and private equity funds like BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America that invested in the companies that promoted the hoax, and the assets of all the super-rich, starting with Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, who funded the project secretly (or openly) are confiscated and those assets are employed to cover the reparations for those who have been injured by the vaccines, by the PCR tests, by the illegal lockdowns and by social distancing measures that were intended to destroy the lives of ordinary citizens. Other related criminal actions by corporations, governments, hospitals, research institutes, and other organizations controlled by these forces will also be confiscated.
2. The major figures at the Gates Foundation (including Bill and Melinda Gates), at the World Economic Forum (including Klaus Schwab), at DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency), at The Wellcome Trust, and at the major multinational corporations like Pfizer and Moderna who were responsible for the development of, and the promotion of, these deadly “vaccines” are arrested and tried for their crimes.
All documents related to the COVID19 operation in the United States, Israel, France, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere are fully declassified so that the trials can be conducted in a meaningful manner and the corrupt relationship between corporations, billionaires, governments and institutions of global governance made clear to the world.
3. The politicians and government officials who promoted the COVID19 hoax, who followed the orders from lobbyists and corporate representatives to enact COVID19 directives, and who obeyed the directions from the lackeys of the super-rich, are removed from office, and, in many cases, jailed.
4. The development of long-term treatment for the symptoms of those injected with modified RNA is made a critical subject for medical research and substantial funding, derived from the assets seized from those responsible, is committed to that research.
Similar research on the long-term treatment of the ill effects on the body of nano-sensors, nano-robots, graphene oxide, and the other toxic substances contained in these vaccines, and in other vaccines, is launched with the intention of developing new therapies.
Policies are put in place to assure that all future vaccines, and other medications, are subject to rigorous scientific evaluation by experts who derive no financial benefit from corporations and that the contents of vaccines are fully disclosed to the world.
5. New healthcare policies are adopted in the United States (and elsewhere) that take the profit out of drugs and out of medical treatment, and the pharmaceutical lobby is shut down, and its leaders jailed, for the distribution of fraudulent materials to promote dangerous and addictive medications, and for the false testimony they gave before Congress and before other government institutions.
The privatization of research, and of medical treatment in the United States, that led to the COVID19 fraud is ended and medicine for the people, by the people and of the people is put into effect.
6. The true and complete story of how this COVID19 hoax was hatched, and implemented on a global scale, is described in detail for the public in carefully researched articles, accessible books, and those materials are made an essential part in history books employed in schools and universities.
All information related to the COVID19 hoax is declassified and all corporate records are made public.
If the six criteria listed above have been met, you can be confident that the COVID19 pandemic is nearing its end. If not, you should not be distracted by screaming headlines about the end of mask or vaccine mandates.
*
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.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
As an Oncologist, I diagnosed 10,000s of Canadian cancer patients and treated 100s with Targeted Radionuclide Therapy. I have seen many horrific things during my career. But I have never seen a rapid progression like this.
From Diagnosis to death in 4 days
21 year old California University student Evan Fishel was graduating from Cal Maritime Academy and was accepted to Berkeley Law School. He died on Feb.10, 2023, 4 days after being diagnosed with Leukemia (click here).
His University, Cal Maritime Academy had a COVID-19 vaccine mandate and to this day, recommends COVID-19 booster shots based on CDC guidelines (click here).
“Turbo cancer” post COVID-19 Vaccination
I never liked the term “turbo cancer”. It doesn’t sound very scientific. However, it is a term that has caught on and is now recognized as a frightening phenomenon following COVID-19 vaccination.
In November 2021, a small paper was published by Goldman et al: “Rapid Progression of Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma Following Pfizer mRNA vaccine booster shot” (click here).
This image will be familiar to many:
I performed thousands of PET/CT scans like this in Edmonton, Alberta with radio-labeled glucose, to diagnose cancer patients. Other than the normal brain, heart and radioactive urine in the bladder, the rest of the black dots are cancer-filled lymph nodes in the neck, axillae and iliac regions.
This was a 66 yo man who had 2 Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and developed an aggressive lymphoma 6 months later (left image). In preparation for chemotherapy, doctors gave him a Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA booster shot (!!!). Within a few days, the patient reported “considerable swelling of neck lymph nodes”. Fortunately, his doctors wanted another PET/CT scan to have a more precise baseline scan before his chemotherapy, so they did one 8 days after the COVID-19 booster shot.
In the image on the right, the cancer effectively exploded all over the body, growing and spreading to new groups of lymph nodes in new locations. The authors themselves noted just how abnormal this was:
“First, the dramatic speed and magnitude of the progression manifested on two 18F-FDG PET-CT performed 22 days apart. Such a rapid evolution would be highly unexpected in the natural course in the disease.”
“this is the first observation suggesting that administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine might induce AITL (lymphoma) progression”
This was the first time that “turbo cancer” following COVID-19 vaccination was caught on a PET/CT scan, and it was purely by chance.
There was another small study by Zamfir et al. reporting two cases of aggressive lymphoma that developed within a week following Pfizer COVID-19 mRNAvaccination (click here). This study includes some gruesome pictures of these rapidly progressing cancers.
No one has been able to properly explain these cases. One US surgical oncologist wrote a long article in Dec.2022 claiming that “turbo cancer” doesn’t exist (click here). In his article, he also doesn’t provide any explanation for these shocking cases, and his entire argument rests on a series of faulty assumptions on what the spike protein mRNA can or cannot do.
How can COVID-19 vaccines induce “turbo cancer”?
The effects of COVID-19 vaccines on the immune system are extremely complex and not fully understood. However, based on several studies I can best summarize it like this:
COVID-19 vaccines “reprogram” the immune system (click here). This reprogramming alters the normal communication between immune system cells (production of certain cytokines), and it also alters the function and activity of certain immune cells.
As the authors of another study noted (click here):
“…revealed dramatic alterations in gene expression of almost all immune cells after vaccination”
MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff and Texas Cardiologist Dr.Peter McCullough wrote an article titled “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations” (click here) which describes complex mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines impair immune system signaling, leading to innate immune suppression:
There is also a study that suggests that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein strongly interacts with tumor suppressor proteins p53 and BRCA-1/2, potentially turning them off (click here):
“p53 and BRCA are the well-known tumor suppressor proteins, that regulate downstream genes in response to numerous cellular stress and are frequently mutated in human cancer”
In some people, this immune system “reprogramming” or innate immune system suppression leads to a complete loss of protection against cancer cells arising and spreading rapidly.
Recently, on the “Ask Dr. Drew” show, US pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole showed evidence of the extensive presence of spike protein in lymphoma tumors (view here).
Needless to say, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine spike protein should not be found in malignant tumours.
Anecdotal reports on twitter…
There are many anecdotal reports on twitter from people who describe “turbo cancers” suffered by their family members following COVID-19 vaccination. Most of these seem honest enough to take seriously, but it is clear that doctors are not taking these cases seriously enough.
My take…
Many obituaries now talk about a “brief but courageous battle with cancer”. We need more autopsies with immunohistochemical staining for the spike protein in cases of rapidly progressing cancer, but we will not be getting them anytime soon. Certainly not in Canada.
So far, doctors are not taking this issue seriously, and by the time they do, it will be far too late for many, and we may have a full blown healthcare catastrophe on our hands.
*
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.
Featured image is from UKColumn
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
After the derailment of a freight train loaded with highly toxic chemicals in the US state of Ohio, a devastating environmental catastrophe may now be imminent. The wagons burned for days, and a “controlled” explosion by the authorities released dangerous gases into the environment.
*
A dark cloud of smoke could be seen from afar. The residents who were brought to safety are now allowed to return to their homes. But they all reported skin and respiratory irritation and numerous dead animals.
About 50 wagons of the freight train, some of which were loaded with the carcinogenic vinyl chloride and other chemicals, derailed on February 3 in East Palestine, Ohio. Several of the tankers caught fire. To prevent an explosion, local authorities decided to release the vinyl chloride. Now there are fears of a large-scale environmental disaster, which could affect the region’s drinking water supply in particular.
Environmental disaster
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said state and local agencies are taking samples throughout the Ohio River “to ensure drinking water abstraction points are not affected.” At the same time, they tried to reassure the population that there was no acute danger to life. However, environmentalists warn that burning vinyl chloride releases hydrogen chloride and phosgene. The latter served as a chemical warfare agent during World War I. In Ohio, it is feared that these substances have settled in groundwater and soil.
There has also been strong criticism of the safety precautions that are apparently too lax. The accident train is said not to have been equipped with electronic pneumatic brakes. Worse still, according to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, the train was not marked as dangerous goods.
Biden administration also responsible for gross neglect
US commentators also point to a possible link between the train disaster and the ongoing conflict between US railroad workers’ unions and the Biden administration.
The unions have been on strike for months, one of the main reasons being rationalization measures associated with the acronym PSR: Precision Scheduled Railroading. According to railroad workers, PSR results in fewer staff, less maintenance, fewer vacation days, longer trains and questionable business practices, with railroad companies being forced to keep their trains moving as much as possible for profit reasons.
This is how far the deadly plume from East Palestine, OH had traveled by Feb. 8.
Many of the larger US railroads are managed by large hedge funds and financial investors such as Vanguard, JP Morgan and BlackRock, as is the Norfolk Southern Railway, one of the major railroad companies east of the Mississippi River.
According to some sources, Norfolk Southern has since been trying to pay affected residents $1000 “inconvenience” fees because they have been exposed to dangerous, toxic carcinogens. BlackRock and Vanguard will try to use it as a waiver of all future claims, they say.
The disaster train, traveling from Illinois to the Conway station on February 3, ran over a sensor that detects heat on the train’s wheels and axles and reported that the wheels were on fire. What is now known is that instead of stopping to inspect and repair the damage, the train crew was instructed by the dispatcher to proceed towards Conway, allowing the train to travel 20 miles at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour to East Palestine Station.
Meanwhile, the wheels overheated. Videos from surveillance cameras have now surfaced online showing sparks flying from some of the overheated wagon axles. Some of the cars derailed, causing a fire.
Most farms in Idaho are family owned
Federal data released in January 2022 by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, showed that ninety-six percent of the 25 000 farms in Idaho are family owned, adding to concerns about the the future of their livelihoods as the Ohio basin provides water to 5 million residents.
The data was gathered from the 2017 Census of Agriculture. “For consumers, that means most of the food products they buy were produced by families just like theirs,” said Idaho Farm Bureau Federation President Bryan Searle.
“We farm potatoes, sugar beets, wheat and children, but not in that order; the children come first,” one farmer explained. “It’s a very family-oriented operation. When it comes time for planting or harvesting, we’re all involved. We all climb in different trucks and tractors, all the wives and kids. We’re all involved in it.”
Highlights from the NASS report
Small family farms (with gross cash farm income, or GCFI, of less than $350 000 per year) account for 45 percent of all direct sales to consumers, compared to 17 percent for mid-size family farms (GCFI between $350 000 and $999 999) and 23 percent for large-scale family farms (GCFI of $1 million or more).
The majority of small family farms specialize in cattle (34 percent) or “other crops” (23 percent). More than half (53 percent) of mid-size farms specialize in grains and oilseeds. Large-scale family farms vary more in product specialization, although they are more likely than other family farms to specialize in dairy production or specialty crops.
*
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.
Featured image: Contractors removing the burnt wagons, East Palestine, Ohio. (Facebook via Free West Media)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
The whole reason why the mainstream media and allied accounts on social media are overdosing on this cheap “copium” is because they know very well that tougher days are ahead for their side considering NATO’s military-industrial crisis, the sanctions’ failure, and Russia’s likely capture of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”. Kiev’s supporters urgently need a proverbial shot in the arm to keep their morale alive amidst the series of impending setbacks that are poised to afflict the Golden Billion’s proxies in the coming future.
The term “copium” refers to an artificially manufactured narrative aimed at distracting a targeted audience from a disadvantageous development by convincing them that “everything is going according to plan”, which is why it’s a fitting description of the purpose behind Biden’s surprise visit to Kiev. His trip occurred against the context of the NATO chief finally admitting his bloc’s military-industrial crisis that risks depriving its Ukrainian vassals of the armed support they need to continue this proxy war.
Just the day before Biden arrived, Zelensky disclosed in an interview with Italian media that his forces might abandon Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut” if their casualties continue to climb, which represents a decisive reversal of the “official narrative” hitherto claiming that they’ll cling to it no matter the cost. On the topic of decisive narrative shifts, American and Polish officials spent the past month informing everyone that Kiev’s victory is no longer “inevitable”, which was meant to prepare them for impending setbacks.
Between the initiation of that newfound narrative trend and Biden’s trip, the New York Times reported that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions failed, after which Bloomberg proved that India had been working as the middleman for indirectly facilitating Russia’s oil exports to the West. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s two practically back-to-back trips to Africa in recent weeks also confirmed that his country is far from isolated since it enjoys that geostrategic continent’s support.
The sequence of events that began at the start of this year were obviously disadvantageous for the US-led West’s GoldenBillion since they discredited everything that this de facto New Cold War bloc’s perception managers had claimed up until that point. Russia continues gradually gaining ground in Donbass, neither its economy nor military collapsed under sanctions, and the global systemic transition to multipolarity has only accelerated since the start of its special operation a year ago.
It therefore makes perfect sense why the US was so desperate for a distraction, hence Biden’s visit to Kiev, which is being spun by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as supposedly representing one of the most symbolic moments since Russia was forced to initiate the latest phase of the UkrainianConflict. Nothing of tangible significance was achieved during his trip, though, and the comparatively miniscule armed aid that he announced on Monday obviously didn’t require him to be there in person.
The whole reason why the MSM and allied accounts on social media are overdosing on this cheap “copium” is because they know very well that tougher days are ahead for their side considering NATO’s military-industrial crisis, the sanctions’ failure, and Russia’s likely capture of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”. Kiev’s supporters urgently need a proverbial shot in the arm to keep their morale alive amidst the series of impending setbacks that are poised to afflict the Golden Billion’s proxies in the coming future.
The last thing that this de facto New Cold War bloc’s liberal-globalist elite needs is the masses losing hope in this post-modern crusade lest public pressure build to the point of complicating some NATO countries’ further dispatch of armed assistance to Kiev at the expense of their minimum security needs. The chain reaction of disadvantageous developments that was described in the present analysis and everything else that might thus follow if that unfolds could end up being a game-changer in this conflict.
The military-strategic dynamics are trending in Russia’s favor at this pivotal moment in the conflict, and even the economic ones too after the New York Times reported that the West’s sanctions failed, so there’s never been a more urgent time for a “copium” binge than now. Biden’s visit to Kiev won’t change the aforesaid, but it might very well succeed in temporarily distracting the Western masses from all this long enough for their elites to weaponize a new set of infowar narratives against them.
*
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.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent 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 (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.
***
We are all aware of just how much today’s world depends on fossil fuels. Oil, coal, and natural gas are extracted in every corner of the globe, beneath oceans, deserts, mountains, and land. Imagine for a moment if almost three-fourths of all fossil fuel beneath the earth’s surface was instead extracted from a single patch of earth roughly four hundred by one hundred kilometers in size. Imagine that within this patch of earth, approximately half the oil was located in and around a single city and that the deposits were shallow enough for anyone to access with a shovel. This would surely be the most indispensable city in the world. Massive drilling companies would flock to it to stake their claims on the riches. So too would the local population from miles around. Violence would erupt to secure control of valuable territory. Preservation of the environment would become an afterthought. Regional governance would be marred by corruption. Profits would be asymmetrically distributed, with powerful stakeholders at the top of the chain accruing the most benefit while the local inhabitants languished. This is the exact situation taking place today with a crucial mineral that will be as important to our future as fossil fuels have been to our past. The mineral is cobalt, and the city is Kolwezi.
Kolwezi is tucked in the hazy hills of the southeastern corner of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Although most people have never heard of Kolwezi, billions of people could not conduct their daily lives without this city. The batteries in almost every smartphone, tablet, laptop, and electric vehicle made today cannot recharge without Kolwezi. The cobalt found in the dirt here provides maximum stability and energy density to rechargeable batteries, allowing them to hold more charge and operate safely for longer periods. Remove cobalt from the battery, and you will have to plug in your smartphone or electric vehicle much more often, and before long, the batteries may very well catch on fire. There is no known deposit of cobalt-containing ore anywhere in the world that is larger, more accessible, and higher grade than the cobalt under Kolwezi.
Cobalt is typically found in nature bound to copper, and the copper-cobalt deposits in the Congo stretch in varying degrees of density and grade along a four-hundred-kilometer crescent from Kolwezi to northern Zambia, forming an area called the Central African Copper Belt. The Copper Belt is a metallogenic wonder that contains vast mineral riches, including 10 percent of the world’s copper and about half the world’s cobalt reserves. In 2021, a total of 111,750 tons of cobalt representing 72 percent of the global supply was mined in the DRC, a contribution that is expected to increase as demand from consumer-facing technology companies and electric vehicle manufacturers grows each year.1 One might reasonably expect Kolwezi to be a boom town in which fortunes are made by intrepid prospectors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kolwezi, like the rest of the Congolese Copper Belt, is a land scarred by the mad scramble to feed cobalt up the chain into the hands of consumers across the globe. The scale of destruction is enormous, and the magnitude of suffering is incalculable. Kolwezi is the new heart of darkness, a tormented heir to those Congolese atrocities that came before— colonization, wars, and generations of slavery.
The first European to cross the heart of the African continent in a single trip from east to west, British lieutenant Verney Lovett Cameron, ominously wrote this about the Congo in The Times on January 7, 1876:
The interior is mostly a magnificent and healthy country of unspeakable richness. I have a small specimen of good coal; other minerals such as gold, copper, iron and silver are abundant, and I am confident that with a wise and liberal (not lavish) expenditure of capital, one of the greatest systems of inland navigation in the world might be utilized, and from 30 months to 36 months begin to repay any enterprising capitalist that might take the matter in hand.
Within a decade of Cameron’s missive, “enterprising capitalists” began pillaging the “unspeakable richness” of the Congo. The great Congo River and its capillary-like tributaries provided a built-in system of navigation for Europeans making their way into the heart of Africa, as well as a means by which to transport valuable resources from the interior back to the Atlantic coast. No one knew at the outset that the Congo would prove to be home to some of the largest supplies of almost every resource the world desired, often at the time of new inventions or industrial developments — ivory for piano keys, crucifixes, false teeth, and carvings (1880s), rubber for car and bicycle tires (1890s), palm oil for soap (1900s+), copper, tin, zinc, silver, and nickel for industrialization (1910+), diamonds and gold for riches (always), uranium for nuclear bombs (1945), tantalum and tungsten for microprocessors (2000s+), and cobalt for rechargeable batteries (2012+). The developments that sparked demand for each resource attracted a new wave of treasure seekers. At no point in their history have the Congolese people benefited in any meaningful way from the monetization of their country’s resources. Rather, they have often served as a slave labor force for the extraction of those resources at minimum cost and maximum suffering.
The rapacious appetite for cobalt is a direct result of today’s device-driven economy combined with the global transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. Automakers are rapidly increasing production of electric vehicles in tandem with governmental efforts to reduce carbon emissions emerging from the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015. These commitments were amplified during the COP26 meetings in 2021. The battery packs in electric vehicles require up to ten kilograms of refined cobalt each, more than one thousand times the amount required for a smartphone battery. As a result, demand for cobalt is expected to grow by almost 500 percent from 2018 to 2050 and there is no known place on earth to find that amount of cobalt other than the DRC.
Cobalt mining in towns like Kolwezi takes place at the bottom of complex supply chains that unfurl like a kraken into some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world. Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Dell, LTC, Huawei, Tesla, Ford, General Motors, BMW, and Daimler-Chrysler are just some of the companies that buy some, most, or all their cobalt from the DRC, by way of battery manufacturers and cobalt refiners based in China, Japan, South Korea, Finland, and Belgium. None of these companies claims to tolerate the hostile conditions under which cobalt is mined in the Congo, but neither they nor anyone else are undertaking sufficient efforts to ameliorate these conditions. In fact, no one seems to accept responsibility at all for the negative consequences of cobalt mining in the Congo — not the Congolese government, not foreign mining companies, not battery manufacturers, and certainly not mega-cap tech and car companies. Accountability vanishes like morning mist in the Katangan hills as it travels through the opaque supply chains that connect stone to phone and car.
The flow of minerals and money is further obscured by a web of shady connections between foreign mining companies and Congolese political leaders, some of whom have become scandalously rich auctioning the country’s mining concessions while tens of millions of Congolese people suffer extreme poverty, food insecurity, and civil strife. There was not a single peaceful transfer of power in the Congo from 1960, when Patrice Lumumba was elected to be the nation’s first prime minister, until 2019, when Félix Tshisekedi was elected. In the interim, the country was subjected to one violent coup after another, first with Joseph Mobutu, who ruled the Congo from 1965 to 1997, followed by Laurent-Désiré Kabila’s reign from 1997 to 2001, followed by his son Joseph Kabila from 2001 to 2019. I use the words rule and reign because Mobutu and the Kabilas ran the country like despots, enriching themselves on the nation’s mineral resources while leaving their people to languish.
As of 2022, there is no such thing as a clean supply chain of cobalt from the Congo. All cobalt sourced from the DRC is tainted by various degrees of abuse, including slavery, child labor, forced labor, debt bondage, human trafficking, hazardous and toxic working conditions, pathetic wages, injury and death, and incalculable environmental harm. Although there are bad actors at every link in the chain, the chain would not exist were it not for the substantial demand for cobalt created by the companies at the top. It is there, and only there, where solutions must begin. Those solutions will only have meaning if the fictions promulgated by corporate stakeholders about the conditions under which cobalt is mined in the Congo are replaced by the realities experienced by the miners themselves.
Today’s tech barons will tell you that they uphold international human rights norms and that their particular supply chains are clean. They will assure you that conditions are not as bad as they seem and that they are bringing commerce, wages, education, and development to the poorest people of Africa (“saving” them). They will also assure you that they have implemented changes to remedy the problems on the ground, at least at the mines from which they say they buy cobalt. After all, who is going to go all the way to the Congo and prove otherwise, and even if they did, who would believe them?
*
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.
Featured image: Pure (99.9 %) cobalt chips, electrolytically refined, as well as a high purity (99.8 % = 2N8) 1 cm3 cobalt cube for comparison. (Licensed under FAL)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Part one of two parts. Canada has blood on its hands in Syria. Canadian intelligence would have provided its government with the facts concerning the Syrian uprising in Deraa in March 2011.
That information would have allowed the Canadian government to determine whether to support the US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change or to stand on its own two feet and stay out of nation-building in the Middle East.
Instead, the Canadian government knowingly hung on to the apron strings of their southern neighbor and followed the leader into destroying a nation, and deliberately preventing its recovery when the conflict was over.
The conflict in Syria has been described as a popular uprising that was crushed, or as a civil war. The Syrian conflict is neither. It was a CIA-engineered plan for regime change directed by US President Obama. Later, the EU and Canada supported the US-NATO attack on Syria because the EU and Canada usually follow the lead of the US unquestioningly.
The US plan failed because of overestimating the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s support in Syria. The majority of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but they are overwhelmingly secular in terms of governance. Had the population supported the Free Syrian Army, which was the foot soldiers of Obama, the regime change might have been successful. But, most Syrians rejected the notion of chopping off the heads of their neighbors to effect a change in government. The majority of Syrians reject Radical Islam, which is a political ideology hiding behind a religion. They prefer a secular government that protects religious rights for all, given the fact, there are 18 different sects in Syria.
The Kurdish section was not involved in the recent earthquake, and they support themselves by selling stolen oil from the oil wells guarded by the US military which President Trump ordered, and President Biden has ordered to remain occupied. When the US troops leave Syria, the Kurds will reunite with the central government. The US occupation is the only thing keeping them separate.
The country has been prevented from recovery due to the US-EU sanctions which prevent any materials from being shipped to Syria. Canadian companies, and individuals, have not sent machines, materials, or other recovery supplies for fear of being penalized by the US Treasury Department. Humanitarian supplies are supposed to be exempt, except there is a time-consuming and costly procedure to get an exemption approved, and most firms and individuals are not willing to seek approval.
On February 9 the US Treasury Department issued General License 23 which waives the sanctions for humanitarian supplies only for 180 days in the wake of the 7.8 earthquakes. Canadian companies and individuals could send supplies to Damascus, but they must be sent through an NGO and not the Syrian government.
Humanitarian aid was sent to Idlib from the UN, crossing the Turkish border at Bab al Hawa. International aid agencies and charities have arrived in Idlib from Turkey. When the Canadian government states they are supporting humanitarian efforts inside Syria, they are referring strictly to the one small province of Idlib, under the command of Al Qaeda terrorists who call themselves Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.
Canada has taken in over 25,000 Syrian refugees. While this has been seen as a humanitarian act, it is also a political tool. From the outset of the conflict in 2011, refugee camps were established on the border of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Refugees sleeping in tents in bad weather demonstrate on western media that Syria was not safe to live in, and not politically correct. Some of the refugees left Syria because they were politically opposed to the government in Damascus. Those refugees mainly numbered among the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a global terrorist organization, whose goal is to establish an Islamic government everywhere. However, most of the refugees were escaping violence caused by the conflict. Houses were destroyed by both the terrorists and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). In many cases, it was the terrorists who attacked homes and civilians. In response to the terrorists’ attacks, the SAA responded likewise attacking terrorist positions which were located in civilian homes.
Both Turkey and Jordan were allied with the US foreign policy under Obama and were playing supporting roles to the CIA program Timber Sycamore which supported Radical Islamic terrorists fighting the government in Damascus. Both Turkey and Jordan had offices that supplied weapons, cash, and training to the terrorists fighting in Syria. The refugee camps in both countries served as a haven for the families of the terrorists fighting in Syria, in which the UN and other international aid agencies would be feeding and caring for the basic needs of the refugees in the camps.
By 2016, Canada had spent over $1 billion in humanitarian, development, and security assistance in the Syria crisis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced 2016 Canada’s new strategy for the Syrian crisis. His new strategy was to keep following the Americans, and he tried to reframe his government’s involvement as humanitarian.
Over the years, Canada has been accused of being a lap dog for the US. While most Canadians would prefer to think of themselves as free of constraint from US foreign policy, still history will show that most often Canada’s foreign policy is a mirror image of the US. Many would say that is because the US policy is in the best interest of Canada, and not a dictated position. US President Obama used the Israeli paper “A Clean Break” as the road map for regime change in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. He was trying to create a ‘New Middle East’. His plan failed in each country, but succeeded in destroying much of each country, and killing thousands. Obama used the Muslim Brotherhood as his partner on the ground in each of the countries. Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria resisted the Muslim Brotherhood and fought back to remain secular governments even though the full weight of US-EU-NATO resources was thrown at the project.
They would later find that Trump was not in favor of the Obama plan, and it was his wish to leave Syria, but in 2019 he was prevented from a troop withdrawal from Syria by the US State Department headed by Mike Pompeo, who said the US troops needed to remain to prevent the Syrian government from access to their oil. This is why Syrian homes have 30 minutes of electricity 3 times per day now.
According to the US government, and their Canadian followers, if you keep the Syrian people without electricity, without gasoline, and without heating fuel in winter, they will rise and complete the Obama regime change plan. That strategy is both immoral and unethical. It is also illegal under international law to steal a nation’s resources.
In the meeting of senators, an excerpt from the memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood was shown as evidence.
“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”
The Muslim Brotherhood had successfully entered into the Obama administration and key US official positions. The group had done the same in Canada.
Hamdani was in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as an adviser on national security matters since he has been associated with organizations whose charitable status has been revoked by the Canada Revenue Agency due to their involvement in the financing of international terrorism.
Senator Beyak spoke at the meeting and said, “They declare themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood, and as Senator Lang pointed out, their plans are very clear.”
This demonstrates the deep understanding of the Canadian government of the deadly nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its involvement in Canada, its government, and its link to the conflict in Syria, which was part of the Obama plan.
Read part two of this expose for the rest of the story.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Twenty years ago — on February 15, 2003 — the world said no to war. People rose up in almost 800 cities around the world in an unprecedented movement for peace.
The world stood on the precipice of war. U.S. and U.K. warplanes and warships — filled with soldiers and sailors and armed with the most powerful weapons ever used in conventional warfare — were streaming towards the Middle East, aimed at Iraq.
Anti-war mobilizations had been underway for more than a year as the threat of war against Iraq took hold in Washington, even as the war in Afghanistan had barely begun.
Opposition to the war in Afghanistan was difficult following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even though none of the hijackers were Afghans and none lived in Afghanistan, most Americans saw the war as a legitimate response — a view that would change over the next two decades, with the vast majority saying the war wasn’t worth fighting when American troops were withdrawn in 2021.
But Iraq was different from the beginning. There was always opposition. And as the activist movement grew, its grounding in a sympathetic public expanded too. By the time February 15, 2003 came around — a year and five months after the 9/11 attacks — condemnation of the looming war was broad and fierce.
Plans for February 15 had been international from the beginning, starting with a call to mobilize against the war issued at the European Social Forum in Florence in November 2002. With just a few weeks of organizing, the first internet-based global protest erupted.
On that day, beginning early in the morning, demonstrators filled the streets of capital cities and tiny villages around the world. The protests followed the sun, from Australia and New Zealand and the small Pacific islands, through the snowy steppes of North Asia and down across Southeast Asia and the South Asian peninsula, across Europe and down to the southern tip of Africa, then jumping the pond first to Latin America and then finally, last of all, to the United States.
Across the globe, the call came in scores of languages: “The world says no to war!” and “Not in our name!” echoed from millions of voices. The Guinness Book of World Records said between 12 and 14 million people came out that day — the largest protest in the history of the world. The great British labor and peace activist, former MP Tony Benn, described it to the million Londoners in the streets that day as “the first global demonstration, and its first cause is to prevent a war against Iraq.”
What a concept — a global protest against a war that had not yet begun, with the goal to stop it.
Standing against the scourge of war
The February 15 mobilization was so broad that even it reached researchers in Antarctica. (Still from Amir Amirani’s “We Are Many”)
It was an amazing moment — a movement that pushed governments around the world to do the unthinkable: They resisted pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom and said no to endorsing Bush’s war.
The governmental opposition included the “Uncommitted Six” members of the UN Security Council. Under ordinary circumstances, U.S.-dependent and relatively weak countries like Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan could never have stood up to Washington alone. But these were not ordinary circumstances.
With diplomatic support from “Old Europe,” including Germany and France who for their own reasons opposed the war, the thousands filling the streets of their capitals allowed the Six to resist fierce pressure from Washington.
The U.S. threatened to kill a free-trade agreement seven years in the making with Chile. (The trade agreement was quite terrible, but the Chilean government was committed to it.) Washington threatened to cancel U.S. aid, granted under the African Growth & Opportunity Act, to Guinea and Cameroon. Mexico faced the potential end of negotiations over immigration and the border. And yet all stood firm.
The day before the protests, February 14, the Security Council was called into session once again, this time at the foreign minister level, to hear the final reports of the two UN weapons inspectors for Iraq.
Many had anticipated that their reports would somehow wiggle around the truth — that they would say something Bush and Blair would grab to try to legitimize their spurious claims of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Or at least they might appear ambivalent enough for the U.S. to use their reports to justify war.
But the inspectors refused to bend the truth, stating unequivocally that no such weapons had been found.
Following their reports, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin responded with an extraordinary call, reminding the world that “the United Nations must remain an instrument of peace, and not a tool for war.” In that usually staid, formal, rule-bound chamber, his call was answered with a roaring ovation beginning with Council staff and quickly embracing the diplomats and foreign ministers themselves.
Enough governments said no that the United Nations was able to do what its Charter requires, but what political pressure too often makes impossible: stand against the scourge of war.
A new internationalism
On the morning of February 15, just hours before the massive New York rally began outside the United Nations, the great actor-activist Harry Belafonte and I accompanied South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu to meet with then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan on behalf of the protesters. We had to be escorted by police to cross what the NYPD had designated its “frozen zone” — not in reference to the bitter 18 degree temperature or the biting wind whipping in from the East River, but the forcibly deserted streets directly in front of UN headquarters.
In the secretary-general’s office on the 38th floor, Bishop Tutu opened the meeting. He looked at Kofi across the table and said, “We are here today on behalf of those people marching in cities all around the world. And we are here to tell you, that those people marching in all those cities around the world, we claim the United Nations as our own. We claim it in the name of our global mobilization for peace.”
It was an incredible moment. And while we weren’t able to prevent the Iraq war, the global mobilization pulled governments and the United Nations into a trajectory of resistance shaped and led by global movements. We created what the New York Times the next day called “the second superpower.” It was a new kind of internationalism.
Midway through the marathon New York rally, a brief Associated Press story came over the wires: “Rattled by an outpouring of international anti-war sentiment, the United States and Britain began reworking a draft resolution…. Diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the final product may be a softer text that does not explicitly call for war.” Faced with a global challenge to their desperate struggle for UN and global legitimacy, Bush and Blair threw in the towel.
Someone called in the text to those of us backstage. A quick debate: Should we announce it? What if it wasn’t true? What did it mean? A quick decision: Yes, the people have the right to know. Someone pushed me back out onto the stage to read the text.
Half a million people or more, shivering in the cold, roared their approval.
We didn’t stop the war. But we changed history.
Our movement changed history, but we didn’t prevent the Iraq war. While the AP story was true, it reflected the U.S.-U.K. decision to ignore international law and the UN Charter and go to war in violation of them both.
Still, the protests proved the war’s clear illegality and demonstrated the isolation of the Bush administration’s policies — and later helped prevent war in Iran in 2007 and the bombing of Syria in 2013. And they inspired a generation of activists.
February 15 set the terms for what “global mobilizations” could accomplish. Eight years later some Cairo activists, embarrassed at the relatively small size of their protest on February 15, would go on to help lead Egypt’s Arab Spring as it overthrew a U.S.-backed dictator. Occupy protesters would be inspired by February 15 and its internationalism. Spain’s indignados and others protesting austerity and inequality would see February 15 as a model of moving from national to global protest.
In New York City on that singular afternoon, some of the speakers had particular resonance for those shivering in the monumental crowd.
Harry Belafonte, veteran of so many of the progressive struggles of the last three-quarters of a century, called out to the rising U.S. mobilization against war and empire, reminding us that our movement could change the world, and that the world was counting on us to do so.
“The world has sat with tremendous anxiety, in great fear that we did not exist,” he said. “But America is a vast and diverse country, and we are part of the greater truth that makes our nation. We stand for peace, for the truth of what is at the heart of the American people. We will make a difference — that is the message that we send out to the world today.”
Belafonte was followed by his close friend and fellow activist-actor Danny Glover, who spoke of earlier heroes, of Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, and of the great Paul Robeson on whose shoulders we still stand. And then he shouted: “We stand here today because our right to dissent, and our right to participate in a real democracy, has been hijacked by those who call for war. We stand here at this threshold of history, and we say to the world, ‘Not in Our Name’! ‘Not in Our Name!’”
The huge crowd, shivering in the icy wind, took up the cry, and “Not in our Name!” echoed through the New York streets.
Our movement’s obligation as “the second superpower” remains. February 15 inspired a generation. Now what we need is a strategy to rebuild the breadth and intensity of that moment, to build broadly enough to engage with power and to challenge once again the wars and militarism, the poverty and inequality, the racism and xenophobia and so much more oppression that still faces people around the world.
We have a lot of work to do.
*
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.
Featured image: Antiwar demonstrators protest against the looming Iraq War in New York, February 15, 2003. (Still from Amir Amirani’s “We Are Many”)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Vladimir Putin has blamed the West for starting the war in Ukraine and claimed Russia responded with force “in order to stop it”.
In a speech describing his aims as the first anniversary of the conflict nears, the Russian president said Ukraine was in talks with the West about weapons before Russia invaded its neighbour on 24 February last year.
Putin admits ‘very difficult time for Russia’ – Ukraine war latest
Mr Putin also announced that Russia was suspending its participation in a key nuclear treaty with the US which limits the two sides’ strategic nuclear arsenals.
“I would like to repeat, they started the war and we used force in order to stop it,” he said in his state of the nation address on Tuesday.
The Russian leader said Kyiv held talks with the West about weapons supplies before the “special military operation”, as Moscow calls it, began.
‘Playing a dirty game’
“I would like to emphasise when Russia tried to find a peaceful solution they were playing with the lives of people and they were playing a dirty game,” he said.
Mr Putin said Russia decided to “protect its people and history” by conducting a “special military operation step-by-step” – as he warned that Moscow will “continue to resolve the objectives that are before us”.
His speech came a day after US President Joe Biden made his first visit to Ukraine since the Russian invasion, as Washington pledged $500m worth of military aid to Kyiv.
Mr Putin announced that Russia was suspending its participation in the New START treaty with the US, which caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the US and Russia can deploy.
Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, with close to 6,000 warheads, according to experts.
Mr Putin said Russia was not fully withdrawing from the treaty and said Moscow must stand ready to resume nuclear weapons tests if the US does so.
West ‘released genie from the bottle’
The Russian president took aim at the West and said they “released the genie from the bottle” in the 10 years prior to the war, by starting others.
He claimed Western countries were painting Russia as an enemy of the state to divert attention from the corruption and socio-economic problems in their own countries.
On weapons, Mr Putin also claimed the West was “in negotiations” over the “supply of heavy military equipment and planes and anti-aircraft missile systems” before the operation began.
While Russian forces have suffered three major battlefield reversals since the war began, it still controls around one-fifth of Ukraine.
In his wide-ranging speech, the Russian president also claimed millions of people in the West are being “led to a real spiritual catastrophe”, as he criticised the “Anglican Church’s plan to consider the idea of a gender-neutral God”.
West ‘punishment themselves with sanctions’
The Russian president accused the West of collapsing its own energy sectors by sanctioning Russian-linked companies and individuals.
“All sanctions are just a means, but the objective is to force our citizens to suffer – this is their humanistic approach,” he said.
He added that they have “not been successful” and that the government has spent 3bn roubles on measures to stabilise the Russian economy.
On Monday, Mr Biden added that alongside additional military aid for Ukraine, the US would announce additional sanctions against Russian elites.
Mr Biden said the Russian president was “dead wrong” to think the West’s support for Ukraine would not last as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the talks as “fruitful”.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Without any formal declaration of war or even a fireside chat with the American people, pretend President Joe Biden in his surprise visit to Kiev, continues to pledge US military support until the cows come home. As well as providing an additional $500 M in American taxpayer assistance amid undisclosed discussions regarding the availability of F16’s, Biden’s adamant confirmation “that the United States will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes” was alarming in view of Russia’s impending Spring/Winter Offensive.
According to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the intent of Biden’s visit was to acknowledge the “US clear, unmistakable message of enduring American support for Ukraine” and that the Russians were notified of Biden’s impending visit with no further information as to their response. This current visit is in direct contradiction to an earlier ‘negotiation balloon’ that Secretary of State Antony Blinken floated with the Russians per a favorite Washington Post reporter.
As the US, the UK and NATO are the war’s major aggressors, threatening Russia with the biggest and the most lethal weaponry, the quiet truth is that all are sitting on a declining stockpile of artillery, ammunition and air defenses weaponry with limited capability to support a long war.
Understandably, the obtuse Biden Administration was, therefore, quietly contemplating an escape hatch from the bloody carnage in Ukraine that they themselves initiated via NATO siccing the equally obtuse Secretary Blinken onto the Washington Post’s favorite messenger to introduce the foreign concept of diplomacy. Reporter David Ignatius was charged with conducting an interview with Blinken featured in “Blinken Ponders the Post Ukraine War Order.”
Hardly an objective source on Russia or any other foreign policy fiasco, Ignatius reports
“He (Blinken) also underlined President’s determination to avoid direct military conflict with Russia, “even as US weapons helped pulverize Putin’s invasion force” and that “Biden has always been emphatic that one of his requirements in Ukraine is that there be no World War III.”
Ignatius continues “Crimea is a particular point of discussion. There is a widespread view in Washington and Kyiv that regaining Crimea by military force may be impossible.”
There is the verification that the American Empire and NATO have been highly covetous of Russia’s state-of- the-art nuclear naval facility in Sevastopol along the coast of the Black Sea. While the majority of Crimean residents are ethnic Russians, they voted overwhelmingly in 2014 to secede from Ukraine in annexation to their Russian homeland. Putin has confirmed it will fight to the death to preserve Crimea’s devout connection as a center for spiritual unity which began in the 10th Century as the basis for what became the Russian nation.
Catherine the Great returned Crimea to its rightful owner in 1783. At that time, Russia began construction of its critically important Black Sea Fleet into what became its only warm water port.
It is unclear exactly how Blinken ‘ponders’ that which he has insignificant influence to affect, yet per his instructions, he publicly introduced alternatives as if the Administration’s neo con globalists are in a position to dictate ‘concessions’ to Russia. Ignatius’ report is stunning in its revelation of a world where perception is shaped by a lack of moral standards and where exposure to truth does not matter. Blinken’s inability to grasp the paradox of “offering terms of territorial concessions to Russia’s security objectives’ including a demilitarized zone which identifies ‘historical territories’ already acknowledged as belonging to Russia while, at the same time, daring to suggest that weaponry like the HIMARS, the Leopard and Abrams tanks would be geographically limited so they might ‘maneuvre as a deterrent against future Russian attacks.”
While the Biden globalists, on one hand, were seeking a convenient, comfortable exit strategy, Biden’s latest articulation of US military aid to Ukraine includes longer range missiles with an operational range of up to 93 miles. Able to reach deep within Russia’s heartland, the ground-based missiles are seen by Russia as a deliberate provocation. To date, US authorized arms transfers to Ukraine have been valued at $30 Billion.
At this stage in the conflict, given the recent revelation that the 2015 Minsk Agreement was little more than a stall for time so that NATO and the US could train the Ukraine Army, there is little to no chance that Putin and the Russian Federation’s Security Council have any level of trust to enter into a negotiated treaty with the same evil doers who deceived them on the true purpose of Minsk.
Therefore, with the potential of over 500,000 Russian troops on the border awaiting the green light from Putin to launch its much awaited offensive, a reasonable question is what exactly will be the role of the 101’s Airborne Division, Second Brigade Combat Team’s approximately 4,700 members which have been training Ukraine’s army since May, 2019?
As an integral part of the famed 101st, will the elite Brigade be moved onto the Ukraine border to go eyeball-to-eyeball with the Russians or will the Biden Administration and Congress decide that no Americans will directly participate in what promises to be a massive slaughter of America’s finest. I don’t know the answer to that question but I do not choose to remain silent prior to such a potentially horrific demise of sitting ducks that will totally outrage the American public.
Once the offensive begins, there is no question that the Russians will not stop to ask for identification; they will continue to roll over everything in their path.
The first contingent of the historic 101st Airborne arrived in support of NATO’s response to the war in Ukraine as part of the Multi Joint Training Group (MJTG) which is tasked with training and equipping Ukraine forces as the dominant provider of defense assistance to Ukraine. The Brigade was deployed to the International Center for Peacekeeping and Security in Lviv Oblast in western Ukraine and may currently be stationed along the Romanian border.
Established as an airborne unit one minute after midnight on August 16 1942, the 101st Airborne paratroopers are well known as the “Screaming Eagles” who were promised they would soon have a “rendezvous with destiny.” As a division, the 101st has never failed that prophecy as it participated in the landing at Normandy on D Day, followed by the liberation of the Netherlands and the Battle of the Bulge in France against the German Nazis. If called to combat, today’s 101st will be fighting on the same side as Ukrainian Nazis.
To digress, it may come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention that all the bravado that NATO, the EU, the UK and the United States have been spouting for the last year; predicting the defeat of Russia militarily, anticipating its economic collapse and the imminent ouster of Vladimir Putin as President of Russia have all failed to materialize.
Since those faded days of western hubris with NATO’s unilateral expansion on Russia’s border seen as an existential threat to its sovereignty, the Biden Administration led its EU allies into an ill-considered overreach of multiple sanctions meant to terminate all things Russian. Those sanctions reverberated almost immediately to bite all its Atlantacist purveyors in their collective ass with a vengeance.
While sputtering frantic demands to provide Ukraine with sophisticated weaponry as quickly as possible as well as massive unconditional financial largesse failed to improve Ukraine’s battlefield performance or its willingness to negotiate, the full extent of Russia’s military dominance and its economic sustainability has only recently come to the attention of Ukraine allies as an unwelcome reality.
*
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.
Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Army soldiers assigned to the 101st Airborne Division arrive in Mihail Kogalniceanu, Romania, June 28, 2022. Units from the 101st will support the Army’s V Corps’ mission to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank and engage in multinational exercises with partners across Europe to reassure allies and deter further Russian aggression. (Photo by Army Capt. Angelo Mejia)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
The United States and Israel make quite a pair. They tango, they align, they scratch each other’s back, they can be bitchy toward each other, and have a Faustian deal but are also lone rangers — and Israel lets the Big Brother feel he’s the one taking all major decisions.
Which of the above templates is currently at work is a moot question, as the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday to persuade the latter not to press ahead with the UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate halt to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.
The proposed resolution, drafted by the UAE is in response to the announcement by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Sunday that it would be “legalising” nine outposts and advancing future plans for creating around 10,000 new settlement homes in the West Bank. It demands that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
Consistent with the US doublespeak on the Palestinian problem, the Biden Administration spoke on record against Jerusalem’s plans but is also pushing back against the Palestinian effort to bring the resolution to a vote. If push comes shove, US won’t hesitate to veto the resolution but its optics will be very damaging at a time when Biden is holding high the banner of democracy, human rights, UN Charter, rules-based order, etc.
Blinken later also called Netanyahu to update him on his conversation with Abbas. There is nothing new in this pattern. But an interesting coincidence merits attention — Blinken’s activism came just two days after the visit by Israeli foreign minister Eli Cohen to Kiev and his meeting with President Vladimir Zelensky on Thursday.
This is the first visit by a Israeli foreign minister to Ukraine since the Russian special operations began and during this period, some chill had descended on the Ukraine-Israel relations as Tel Aviv stood neutral on the conflict in Ukraine and refused to criticise Russia or supply Ukraine with military hardware, the US entreaties notwithstanding.
Blinken must be pleased about the development. He can take credit for it, since a subtle shift in the Israeli stance on Ukraine began appearing following his visit to Israel on January 30 and his meeting with Netanyahu.
At the joint press conference of with Blinken, Netanyahu made a cryptic remark about how Iran has begun “export[ing] aggression beyond its border and beyond the Middle East.” And Blinken completed with alacrity the ellipsis in Netanyahu’s articulation:
“Just as Iran has long supported terrorists that attack Israelis and others, the regime is now providing drones that Russia is using to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians. In turn, Russia is providing sophisticated weaponries to Iran. It’s a two-way street.”
Blinken went on to disclose that
“Russia’s ongoing atrocities only underscore the importance of providing support for all of Ukraine’s needs — humanitarian, economic, and security — as it bravely defends its people and its very right to exist, a topic that we also discussed today. One of the most effective ways to make Israel more secure is to continue to build bridges in the region and even well beyond the region.”
Ukraine issue and the Iran question have become intertwined in the US-Israeli talking points. But this is not so much because Iranian drones are being used by Russia to attack Ukrainian targets, but the alchemy of Russia-Iran relations has dramatically changed since the drone deal. A strategic axis is taking shape between the two countries with a robust military and economic content to it, which has the potential to radically change the balance of forces in Israel’s security environment.
Netanyahu appreciates that the Biden Administration is determined to use all options on the table to contain Iran and that includes regime change. No American president has gone thus far. This was also the impression created by the White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan when he met Netanyahu on January 19 (ahead of Blinken’s visit) — albeit Sullivan’s visit was packaged as consultations over the new Israeli government’s judicial overhaul plan and Biden’s concerns over “the effect it might have on Israel’s democratic institutions.”
Israel’s dependence on US to contain Iran is more critical than ever before. Tensions are spiralling since the drone attack on the Iranian assets in Isfahan on January 28. Two Israeli officers have since been killed; an Israeli tanker attacked. On Saturday, there was a missile attack on the US base near Al-Omar oil field in Deir Ezzor (Syria), and early Sunday, central Damascus came under Israeli missile attack. Meanwhile, the US has begun a renewed attempt to incite anti-government protests in Iran.
In sum, the US and Israel realise that Iran has gained huge strategic depth during the past year in the geopolitical realignment triggered by the Ukraine conflict. Thus, During the state visit of President Ebrahim Raisi to China last week, President Xi Jinping voiced strong support for Iran against US interference in its internal affairs and for Iran’s nuclear brief.
In a highly significant statement, the Chinese Communist Party daily Global Times wrote that “Iran’s ‘Look to the East’ policy meant the transition from its policy of negative balancing and non-alignment to building alliances with non-western world powers that have similar political structures to Iran, such as Russia and China.”
Since his return to Tehran, Raisi disclosed that Xi has supported Iran’s BRICS membership. Iran recently became a member of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, too.
Now, what form the Israeli shift on Ukraine conflict will take remains to be seen. Israel participates in the Pentagon’s Ukraine Defence Contact Group. But Cohen gave few details after his meting with Zelensky other than that they agreed to step up cooperation in a shared struggle against Iran. He was evasive: “We spoke about deepening cooperation with Ukraine against the Iranian threat in the international arena.”
Cohen said Israel would provide $200 million in loan guarantees to build hospitals in Ukraine and reiterated an Israeli pledge to give Ukraine a sophisticated air-defence warning system. But he was not specific when that system might be delivered; nor did he make any mention of Russia or how Israel would respond to Ukrainian appeals for Israeli arms.
Cohen said, “Israel, as stated in the past, stands firmly in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and remains committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” He refused to answer questions on intelligence cooperation.
The big question is whether Israel will continue to walk a tightrope between assisting Ukraine and avoiding friction with Russia with which it has strategic regional interests. But Ukraine conflict has shown the potential to reshape global alliances and Russia has warned Israel against supplying weapons to Ukraine.
The Russian ambassador in Tel Aviv told Jerusalem Post on Friday that Moscow has taken “serious note” of Israel’s “diplomatic and balanced position” and would hope that “this position … will remain unchanged and there will be no weapons components provided by the Israeli authorities to Ukraine.”
Israel’s understanding with Russia is far from limited to Syria. It is a multifaceted relationship where “Russia holds many important cards,” as a commentary in Middle East Monitor took note even as Cohen was travelling to Kiev.
Netanyahu would have to convince himself first about the wisdom of jettisoning Israel’s neutrality, as he’d know that with all his ingenuity, it will be difficult to characterise any Israeli move to supply weaponry to fight Russian forces in Ukraine as an act directed against Iran.
*
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.
Featured image: Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky (L} with Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, Kiev, Feb. 16, 2023 (Source: IP)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Referring to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an editorial in Saturday’s Washington Post exclaims that Ukraine’s “struggle is also a crucible for Europe and an assault against the most basic precept on which the Western system rests: the impermissibility of unprovoked wars of aggression.”
In a follow-up editorial today, the Post calls for an international tribunal to try Vladimir Putin and his “henchmen” for waging a “war of aggression” against Ukraine. The Post quotes the Nuremberg tribunal:
“To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
What befuddles me, however, is why the Post doesn’t also condemn President George W. Bush and his “henchmen” for their unprovoked invasion of Iraq and, further, why the Post doesn’t call for a Nuremberg-type tribunal for Bush and his “henchman.” After all, there is no statute of limitations on war crimes of this nature. Is it only Russia, Germany, and other nations that are to be condemned and put on trial for unprovoked wars of aggression? Why should U.S. officials be exempt from the Nuremberg principle?
It is an undisputed fact that Iraq never attacked the United States. The United States was the aggressor in this conflict from the start. Bush and his henchmen were upset that his father, President George H.W. Bush, had not ousted Saddam Hussein from power in the Persian Gulf War. They were intent on correcting what they considered was a grave mistake on the part of the elder Bush.
To justify their unprovoked invasion of Iraq, Bush and his henchman made up a lie about Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. After all, when their lie was made manifest by the non-discovery of those WMDs, it is undisputed that Bush did not apologize for his “mistake” and immediately order a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Instead, Bush ordered his army to remain in Iraq and to kill whomever objected to the new regime that he and his henchmen had installed into power.
But even if Bush’s WMD claim had not been a lie, the fact that a nation-state has weapons of mass destruction does not legally or morally justify a war of aggression against that nation-state. Moreover, only the United Nations, not the U.S. government, has the authority to enforce its own WMD resolutions, and it is undisputed that the UN chose not to authorize an invasion and war of aggression against Iraq.
It’s not just Bush the son who was upset over the failure of Bush the father to effect regime change in the Persian Gulf War. Throughout his term in office during the 1990s, President Bill Clinton waged war against the Iraqi people by enforcing one of the most brutal systems of sanctions in history, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children.
Indeed, in 1996 Clinton’s ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, declared that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.” By “it” she was referring to regime change, by which Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, would be ousted from power and replaced by another U.S.-approved dictator.
The idea was that the deaths of all those Iraqi children would cause Saddam to have a crisis of conscience that would cause him to relinquish power. The deadly scheme didn’t work. Saddam remained in power and the deadly sanctions continued killing innocent Iraqi children for another five years, including after Bush the son was elected.
Why shouldn’t Clinton, George W. Bush, and their henchmen be brought up on criminal charges for contributing to the unprovoked murder of all those Iraqi children? Why should a “war of aggression” apply only to bombs, bullets, missiles, soldiers, tanks, drones, and planes and not economic sanctions that knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately kill innocent people?
One irony in all this is that Saddam Hussein, whom U.S. officials were calling the “new Hitler,” had been a partner and ally of U.S. officials in the 1980s, when he was waging an unprovoked war of aggression against Iran. U.S. officials were supporting Saddam in his war of aggression because they loved the fact that his army was killing Iranians. The reason they loved those killings was that they had still not forgiven the Iranian people for ousting the brutal dictator who the CIA had installed into power (the Shah of Iran) in CIA’s 1953 regime-change operation against Iran.
Today, at least Russia can point to the U.S. threat to use NATO to place military bases, tanks, soldiers, and missiles in Ukraine as the reason for its “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine. All that the United States can point to to justify its unprovoked invasion of Iraq is its own lie about non-existent WMDs.
In conclusion, permit me to repeat a critically important point: Iraq never attacked the United States. It was the United States that attacked Iraq. Throughout the conflict, the United States was the aggressor and Iraq was the defender.
Why doesn’t the Washington Post recognize and acknowledge this fundamentally important point? Why does it apply the Nuremberg principle to Russia and not the United States?
*
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.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Touting a supposed “new study,” mainstream media is unquestioningly advocating globalist prescriptions for climate change that would utilize existing public school lunch programs to compel children to eat unhealthy processed vegetarian alternatives to wholesome grass-fed meats or fresh local foods. The audacity and misinformation of these proposals reflect elitist disconnect from basic nutrition and soil health.
This supposedly salvific solution to the world’s carbon problems is less a “study” and more of a globalist New World Order propaganda plug. The proposal is that school lunches “may be the key to changing our food systems worldwide.” How is this to be achieved? – by sourcing artificial meats manufactured profitably by the new would-be food purveyors from chemical-saturated, environmentally-destructive agricultural production of soy and other GMO plants, to thereby wean children from having a palate for meats.
“Offering more plant-based protein such as vegan burgers and nuggets, and also beans and soy products like tofu could help to “shift social norms around meat consumption,” reads the report. ….The shift would help to reduce heat-trapping gases and pollution generated by factory farms which produce most of the meat on the planet. Livestock farming accounts for 8% of these gases, the report notes.”
The sins of factory farms are here employed to throw the cows out with the formaldehyde hoof-bath. Shifting farm critters back to rotational grazing would sequester more carbon than all the EV cars, solar panels, and soy-burgers combined. As Joel Salatin explains in The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer:
“If every farmer in America practiced this prehistoric system, in fewer than ten years we would sequester all the carbon that’s been admitted since the beginning of the industrial age. ….One of the most environmentally-enhancing things that you can do is to eat grass-finished beef. That sequesters more carbon than soybeans or corn or any other annual.” (p. 28).
The so-called “study,” created by a biased ally of the World Economic Forum, claims this beneficent shift in diet to vat-hatched meats would avoid compulsion by simply altering what kids desire:
“According to Mark Meldrum from Systemiq and co-author of the report, none of the recommended shifts are about banning the old ways.
“They are about supporting and lifting the new, to help them be as competitive and attractive as possible,” he says. “So we get to a place where we don’t need a ban, because everyone wants the new thing anyway.” ”
How un-scientific can a con-job get? Using public funds to process soy into fake-burger allocates profits to patent holders like Bill Gates, while soaking kids’ guts with microbiome-killing glyphosate. Soy farming depends not just on GMOs (and thus glyphosate) but upon synthetic fertilizers and massive amounts of fossil fuels. Allowing cows to roam grasslands is organic, and uses far less energy. And grass-fed meats are healthy for children.
“The three super-leverage points are: mandates for the sale of electric vehicles, mandates requiring “green ammonia” to be used in the manufacturing of agricultural fertilisers, and public procurement of plant-based proteins. These changes could trigger a cascade of tipping points, leading to cheaper batteries to help solar and wind scale-up in the electricity sector, cheaper hydrogen opening up decarbonisation for the shipping and steel industries, and reduced pressure for deforestation.”
“Systemiq” is a “partner” of the WEF, together with hundreds of bad corporate actors determined to profit from food at the expense of human and ecological health. Bayer, Syngenta, Dow and Cargill all boast their involvement.
The proposed “New World Food Order” is in plain-if-shameless sight: “Reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050 is possible if the right technologies are brought to commercial scale within the next decade.” These “right technologies” can’t compete without government compulsion. Never mind that the majority of the world’s food is provided by local peasant agriculture – more chemicals and magical (patented) technologies of the would-be corporate food-masters are proposed as the only way to save humanity.
The WEF’s Orwellian, earth-saving moniker is the “First Movers Coalition”: corporations offering to be the saviors from their own pollution:
“The First Movers Coalition’s unique approach assembles ambitious corporate purchasing pledges across the heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors responsible for a third of global emissions. For these sectors to decarbonize at the speed needed to keep the planet on a 1.5-degree pathway, they require low-carbon technologies that are not yet competitive with current carbon-intensive solutions but must reach commercial scale by 2030 to achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050.”
A better plan would be to reduce “heavy industry and long-distance transport sectors” by sourcing food locally and regeneratively. A better plan would employ cows to rebuild soils, sequester carbon, avoid synthetic fertilizers and chemicals, disperse profits equitably to local producers, and feed children food that doesn’t cause cancer, obesity, diabetes, and endocrine disruption.
Instead, the proposal is to increase dependency on corporate food provision using government compulsion and citizen tax dollars. The name coined to summarize this Shwabian malarkey is “agritech”:
““Agritech” is a natural evolution of precision agriculture, realized through the automated analysis of data collected from the field via equipment sensors and other sources. An emerging set of smart technologies, coupled with new digital skills and enhanced data control, can help foster more forward-looking decision making and positively shape the future direction of the value chains connecting farmers to consumers. This new paradigm calls for a comprehensive evolution from traditional to digital systems, in order to reduce costs, increase efficient production, and inject greater environmental and social sustainability into agricultural activity.”
Ah, the utopian promises of those who don’t read their own Kool-aid recipes! Technomystical faith in Big Ag to “feed the world” is the folly that has created the agricultural and health quagmire in which humanity is embroiled: now the same failed systems are paraded as cure. This will surely compound corporate hegemony, food insecurity, soil erosion, water depletion, and declining human health – all in the name of “data control,” “digital skills,” “automated analysis,” and “social sustainability.”
This is labeled a “new paradigm,” but it is just old glyphosate in shiny new globalist vessels, “evolving” in a forward-profit-looking fraud that will negatively shape humanity’s future. This is the expected product of “the views of a wide range of experts from the World Economic Forum’s Expert Network and is curated in partnership with the Smart AgriFood Observatory.”
Readers are told that this corrupt path will save the planet, and that it has been fashioned by philanthropic stakeholders who only seek the public good for meat-loving youngsters:
““Cooperation in a fragmented world” was chosen as the theme of the gathering of the great and the good at Davos this year. ….EU policies should not simply be aimed at securing access, but also at minimising critical raw material needs. They must examine ways to decrease the use of all materials, improve resilience and minimise the negative environmental, health and social impacts associated with the extraction, use and end of life of these resources.”
What would most minimize critical raw material needs would be to nurture local regenerative agricultural production, not increase scale, corporate domination, and long-distance transport. Minimizing glyphosate, synthetic fertilizers, and confinement feed operations would decrease toxic raw material use. Nothing would do that more than by restoring cows and other animals to rotational grazing. (And then there is the “end of life” of solar panels and EV cars….)
“….too few policymakers take the time to examine the root causes of a problem and to address the drivers and pressures behind it. They fail too often to see how our current system does not incentivise sustainable resource use, but encourages quite the opposite.”
Ain’t that the truth! How about the world stops subsidizing destructive monocultures like soy and corn production; stops feeding children high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats; and stops calling such barbaric and demonstrably harmful practices enlightened and world-saving?
Instead, these miscreants advise children to gobble more chemicals at school lunch tables. This is the “key to changing our food systems worldwide” …for the worse.
*
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.
John Klar is an attorney, author, grass-fed beef and lamb farmer, and grandfather. John advocates for greater conservative leadership in conservationism and environmental policy through policy supports for regenerative, local agriculture. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker, and pens a column for Vermont’s conservative True North Reports.
Comments Off on Solution to the World’s Carbon Problems: Compel Children to Eat Unhealthy Processed Vegetarian Alternatives to Wholesome Grass-fed Meats or Fresh Local Foods
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
On February 16, President Joe Biden issued an executive order titled
“Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government”.
The order is supposed to level the racial playing field by “addressing systemic racism in our Nation’s policies and programs”, but it does nothing of the kind.
In truth, the order represents a massive and disturbing restructuring of the federal government in a way that fundamentally changes the manner in which the agencies operate. The new system will feature “equity” commissars who will have nothing to do with “systemic racism”, but will be appointees designated to enforce the edicts of the state.
The senior agency official (in these agency equity teams) will then coordinate with the “Gender Policy Council” which is directly linked to the executive branch of government. In short, the administration is methodically building the basic scaffolding for a centrally-controlled police state masquerading as social justice operation. For all intents and purposes, the equity agenda is a cleverly-phrased moniker that conceals a plan to exert absolute control over the entire sprawling bureaucracy. Here is an excerpt from the White House print-out:
Each Agency Equity Team shall be led by a designated senior official (senior designee) charged with implementing my Administration’s equity initiatives, and shall include senior officials from the office of the agency head and the agency’s program, policy, civil rights, regulatory, science, technology, service delivery, financial assistance and grants, data, budget, procurement, public engagement, legal, and evaluation offices, as well as the agency’s Chief Diversity Officer, to the extent applicable. Agency Equity Teams shall include a combination of competitive service employees, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 2102(a), and appointees, as defined in Executive Order 13989 of January 20, 2021 (Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel), and, to the extent practicable, shall build upon and coordinate with the agency’s existing structures and processes, including with the agency’s environmental justice officer designated pursuant to Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad), and with the senior agency official designated to coordinate with the Gender Policy Council pursuant to Executive Order 14020 of March 8, 2021 (Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council). (“Executive Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government”, The White House)
In other words, these new equity commissars will not only oversee the many areas of government involvement (aka– civil rights, regulatory, science, technology, service delivery, financial assistance and grants, data, budget, procurement, public engagement, legal, and evaluation offices etc) but will also be in a position to determine how those activities are portrayed to the public.
Just as the Vaccine narrative was crafted by big pharma, Madison Avenue and an accommodating media, we expect that senior agency officials will generate propaganda that aligns with the Party Doctrine while advancing the agenda of elites.
And, what assurances do we have that these “designated senior officials” will limit their supervisory duties to issues strictly related to equity, after all, equity is a fluid and potentially expansive term that could be used to include virtually anything. And, that, of course, is the real objective, to use equity as a fig leaf for controlling every nook and cranny of the federal bureaucracy. Here’s more from an article at Federal News Network titled “3 requirements for agencies under Biden’s new executive order on equity”:
Agencies have until this September to submit an equity action plan to the newly created White House Steering Committee on Equity. Ambassador Susan Rice, the White House’s Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, will serve as chairwoman of the steering committee….
…agency heads will also have to appoint a senior official to lead the equity team, in partnership with each agency’s chief diversity officer.The equity teams will also work with each agency’s environmental justice officer, as well as the White House Gender Policy Council...
Additionally, agencies should proactively engage with underserved communities, for example by holding listening sessions and outreach events. These engagements will help agencies inform their equity action plans, annual budget submissions and grants and funding opportunities, Biden said….(“3 requirements for agencies under Biden’s new executive order on equity”, Federal News Network)
When did Susan Rice become a champion of racial justice and underserved communities of color?
Never. Rice is a political powerbroker whose intimate grasp of the federal government puts her in the unique position of a trusted insider who knows how to serve her masters behind the cloak of racialist propaganda. This whole charade has nothing to do with equity or any of the other liberal claptrap the administration is peddling. This is a old fashioned power grab.
Think of the potential for corruption if the new system operates as I expect it to operate. Who will decide how contracts are issued and to which companies? What are the chances, for example, that a corporation owned by a Christian conservative would prevail in a competition with a big donor to the Democratic party?
And what about new hires? Would applicants for employment have to profess their support for the doctrinal positions of the Democrat party including racial equity, gender, climate and whatever other spurious mumbo-jumbo the party is pushing at the time ? And what about compliance? Is compliance going to be determined by politically-connected committees comprised of party loyalists and members of the donor class?
Keep in mind, every federal agency will be required to “proactively engage with underserved communities, for example by holding listening sessions and outreach events.” How is that going to work? So, now the Secretary of Defense or the the Secretary of the Treasury or the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the the Director of the National Science Foundation are going to convene “rap sessions” with minority communities or town hall meetings where the local folks can complain that they are not fairly represented? Can we expect General Mark Milley to show up at a gym on Chicago’s south side so he can ask the attendees, “Are we sending enough lethal weapons to Ukraine to meet your expectations?
No, the aim here is to create unachievable goals so the “designated senior officials” can coercively reshape the agency in a way that better fits the elite agenda. After all, no one on the Biden team conjured up this monstrosity. Like the Patriot Act, this executive order was crafted by special interests who are now actively creating the government they’ve always wanted. By using Biden as their front-man and the “equity” bunkum to hoodwink the public, they are well on their way to controlling all the levers of bureaucratic power and terminating representative government once-and-for-all. Here’s more from Biden’s executive order:
We have taken historic steps to advance full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) Americans, including by ending the ban on transgender service members in our military; prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics across Federal programs; and signing into law the Respect for Marriage Act (Public Law 117-228) to preserve protections for the rights of same-sex and interracial couples. My Administration is also implementing the first-ever National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality to ensure that all people, regardless of gender, have the opportunity to realize their full potential.” (“Executive Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government”, The White House)
What a pathetic deception clearly aimed at diverting attention from the nuts-and-bolts restructuring that is going on right before our eyes. Biden cares as much about “gender identity” as he does about the destitute and poisoned people of Palestine, Ohio. Here’s more from Biden:
Each Agency Equity Team shall be led by a designated senior official (senior designee) charged with implementing my Administration’s equity initiatives, and shall include senior officials from the office of the agency head and the agency’s program, policy, civil rights, regulatory, science, technology, service delivery, financial assistance and grants, data, budget, procurement, public engagement, legal, and evaluation offices, as well as the agency’s Chief Diversity Officer, to the extent applicable….
So without congressional consultation, review or approval, the Biden team is forging ahead the most radical and far-reaching overhaul of the federal bureaucracy in the nation’s 247 year history. These new “Agency Equity Teams” will meddle in every area of government activity– not to improve the lives of ordinary black and brown people in underserved communities– but to ensure that the system functions in a way that best serves the interests of Biden’s paymasters. Isn’t that really what’s going on? Here’s more from the order:
There is hereby established a White House Steering Committee on Equity(Steering Committee), which shall be chaired by the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. The Steering Committee shall include senior officials representing policy councils and offices within the Executive Office of the President, as appropriate. The Steering Committee shall:
(i) coordinate Government-wide efforts to advance equity;
(ii) coordinate an annual process to consult with agency heads on their respective agencies’ Equity Action Plans, established in section 3(a) of this order. (The White House)
There it is in black and white: Central planning writ large. They want to run the whole kit-and-cabootle from the office of the Dear Leader. This isn’t about equity. This is about power; raw, political power. Here’s more:
Equity Action Plans described in subsection (a) of this section in order to reinforce agency efforts to meaningfully engage with and invest in underserved communities and advance equitable outcomes.”
This is undiluted hogwash. Not one person of color will see their life improved due to Biden’s executive order nor was that the objective to begin with.
This is a giant restructuring project. Can you see that? Can you see that equity is just the mask behind which the real objective is concealed? The real goal is to install political operatives in positions of power across the federal government and put them under the control of the executive. It is the centralizing of power across the bureaucracy.
The relentless virtue-signaling language in the order is the same obfuscating blather you would expect from a professional confidence huckster. It’s the type of language that people use when they want to pull the wool over your eyes. It’s important that people apply their critical thinking skills to see through this ruse and try to understand where Biden’s handlers want to take us. We are on the well-beaten path to police-state tyranny and it will take a colossal effort to turn things around.
*
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 The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
If the Feb. 19 rally to end the war in Ukraine fails it will not be a success for other antiwar organizations that disagree with the Libertarian Party. It will only show that internal divisions can unravel every hope. A bunch of people who disagree with each other on a lot of things have actually gotten together to organize a big antiwar rally in Washington next Sunday. I say, Bravo!
Never Again Is Now Global,” a five-part docuseries highlighting the parallels between Nazi Germany and global pandemic policies. Each one-hour episode focuses on recent testimonies by Holocaust survivors and their descendants who discuss comparisons between the early repressive stages under the Nazi regime that culminated in the Holocaust and global COVID-19 policies.
Deconstructing this single conflict into its four real wars may be necessary to understand the issues that must be resolved if a negotiated settlement is to be possible.
During October 1929, the United States economic system was plunged into an unprecedented depression where tens of millions were thrown out of work and their homes. In the South, the African American people living in major cities, small towns and rural areas were impacted more than any other demographic inside the country.
Overall Canadian physician mortality in 2022 was 53% higher than 2019, however, as with all excess mortality data in highly COVID-19 vaccinated jurisdictions, this mortality is heavily skewed towards the younger age groups, with the youngest doctors – medical students or medical residents under age 30 dying at a 900% higher rate in 2022, compared to the 2019/2020 average.
The visit of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to Beijing and his face-to- face meeting with counterpart Xi Jinping is a groundbreaking affair in more ways than one. Raisi, the first Iranian president to officially visit China in 20 years, led an ultra high-level political and economic delegation, which included the new Central Bank governor and the Ministers of Economy, Oil, Foreign Affairs, and Trade.
The newspaper’s sources declined to specify how many Russian generals had been killed with US assistance. But Ukrainian officials claim they have killed 12 Russian generals on the front lines, “a number that has astonished military analysts,” the NYT said, adding that the US is said to prohibit itself from providing intelligence on Russia’s “most senior” military leaders to Kiev.
I am pleasantly surprised to see the mainstream German publication Die Welt openly asserting that clinical trials of the “Pfizer COVID vaccine” were rife with fraud. (paywall-free German language link, PDF with English translation) What a change!
Swedish prosecutors destroyed copies of email correspondence related to the extradition case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi. The documents were destroyed while Maurizi was litigating her freedom of information request, making it “highly suspicious.”
The Kremlin’s top diplomat has warned that Western involvement in Ukraine is nearing “the point of no return,” accusing the United States and the NATO bloc of attempting to transform the country into a “Russophobic military stronghold.” Meanwhile, Moscow’s UN envoy declared that all of Russia’s “red lines” have already been crossed.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
“Never Again Is Now Global,” a five-part docuseries highlighting the parallels between Nazi Germany and global pandemic policies.
Each one-hour episode focuses on recent testimonies by Holocaust survivors and their descendants who discuss comparisons between the early repressive stages under the Nazi regime that culminated in the Holocaust and global COVID-19 policies.
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Though they are being fought in the confusion of a single catastrophic conflict, there are four closely related, but distinct, wars being fought in Ukraine.
The first is the war within Ukraine.
The second is the war between Russia and Ukraine.
The third is the proxy war between NATO and Russia.
And the fourth is the direct war between the United States and Russia.
Deconstructing this single conflict into its four real wars may be necessary to understand the issues that must be resolved if a negotiated settlement is to be possible.
The latent domestic problems that have been ripped open by this war are not new. They are the torn fabric of the Ukrainian nation. They go back long before the war, and the war will not be safely resolved before they too are finally resolved.
Ukraine has always been a nation divided: northwestern and central Ukraine, which had once been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then the Austro-Hungarian Empire, have always faced west to Europe; the southeast, long part of the Russian Empire, has always faced east to Russia. Historically, western Ukraine has voted for presidential candidates with European-oriented policies, and eastern Ukraine has voted for presidents with Russian-oriented policies. It is a national tug-of-war that always risked ripping the country in two.
The tug-of-war became overt during the 2004 election between Viktor Yanukovych and his Russian-leaning eastern base and Vikto Yushchenko and his American and European-leaning western base. When Yushchenko was forced to appoint Yanukovych as his prime minister, the nation and its government was being dangerously pulled in opposing directions.
For the first time, the nationalist view that saw only western, European Ukraine as truly Ukrainian was represented, through Yushchenko, in government. It polarized the nation.
Soon the most unpopular government in the history of Ukraine, and six years later, Yushchenko would receive only 5.5% of the national vote.
Yanukovych’s subsequent election was a bitter defeat for the nationalists. Nicolai Petro, Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island and the author of The Tragedy of Ukraine, says that “it was seen as a betrayal that proved that elections alone could no longer be relied upon to guarantee Ukrainian independence.” That set the stage for the coup four years later.
The U.S. sponsored coup of 2014 took Yanukovych, who was acceptable to Russia, out of power and replaced him with a Western-leaning president who was hand picked by Uncle Sam.
The western and nationalist participants in the coup saw it as a vehicle to pull Ukraine back from Russia and return it to its European-Ukrainian identity. Petro quotes Igor Guzhva, who says that “for the first time in modern Ukrainian history, a change of regime had taken place through the assault of one part of the country on the rights of another.” The ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine had been defeated in a coup.
The new government guaranteed amnesty for all acts of violence that defended the coup. (There were many.) Petro explains that the new government had to rely on radical, nationalist elements and their militias. The ethnic Russians of the Donbas would subsequently suffer attacks on their language, their culture, their rights, their property, and their lives.
The first elected government after the coup, the government of Pyotr Poroshenko, became, in Petro’s words, the “prime sponsor…of Ukrainian nationalism.” Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at Kent, says, “Poroshenko inherited a government largely made up of militants.” His government represented “a monist vision of Ukraine statehood that denied the pluralist alternative demanded by the Donbas…”
The Donbas rebelled against the coup government, and by May 2014 had approved referendums declaring some form of autonomy. The war within Ukraine had begun.
It was the U.S. supported coup that exploited the inherent rip in Ukraine and was the catalyst for the first war.
If the U.S. bears a large share of the blame for the war within Ukraine, Russia bears the blame for the war between Russia and Ukraine.
That is not to accept the Western mantra of the “unprovoked” war. Russia has legitimate security concerns and may truly have felt that, in the words of its ambassador to the U.S., they had “come to the point when we have no room to retreat.” But that does not justify the assault on Ukraine. The war was a choice made by Russia without authorization by the United Nations or an immediate need for self-defense. It is an illegal war. And Russia bears responsibility for starting it.
In a February 7 opinion piece in The New York Times, Christopher Caldwell asks, “Russia started the war between Russia and Ukraine. Who started the war between Russia and the United States?”
The U.S. and its NATO allies are providing Ukraine with the money, the weapons, the training, the intelligence, and the targeting to fight Russia.
They are providing the plans and the war-games.
They are providing an ever-increasing list of advanced weapons that cross previously self-imposed red lines. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that “NATO, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy.
War means war.” The speaker of the Russian Duma drew a similar conclusion: “The U.S. is taking part in the military operations in Ukraine. Today, Washington is basically coordinating and engineering military operations, thus directly participating in the military actions against our country.”
In his Times piece, Caldwell points out that “In an age of smart devices, robotics and remote control, the United States’ involvement in the war has always been greater than it appeared.” He explains that “Most of the new weapons’ destructive power comes from their being bound into an American information network…So the United States is participating in these military operations at the moment they happen. It is fighting.”
So, the U.S. and NATO bear their share of responsibility for the proxy war against Russia militarily. But they also bear responsibility diplomatically. Twice, in March and April 2022, Ukraine and Russia were ready to negotiate an end to the war that satisfied both their interests. But twice the U.S. and the United Kingdom intervened and put an end to these negotiations.
Up to that moment, the war between Russia and Ukraine was Russia’s responsibility; from that moment on, the U.S. and the UK shared responsibility.
The war was now being fought, not to defend Ukraine’s interests, but to advance American and NATO interests in “a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia [and] bigger than Ukraine,” in the confessional words of State Department spokesman Ned Price.
It is the United States that bears the bulk of responsibility for its proxy war against Russia.
“The CIA argued that…it would have to be covert…Everyone understood the stakes…If the attack were traceable to the United States, ‘it’s an act of war.’”
According to reporting by Seymour Hersh, this was the internal discussion in the United States government before it decided to attack the Nord Stream pipeline, jointly operated by Russia and Germany, on September 26, 2022.
If Hersh is correct, the U.S. is responsible for the, until now unknown, direct war on Russia. “It’s an act of war,” as the members of the Biden authorized task force, which was headed by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and included representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the State Department and the Treasury Department, were fully aware.
Their first meeting was held in December 2021. Hersh points out that the timeline reveals that President Biden had begun planning an act of war against Russia “two months before the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine.”
The United States is responsible for the direct war on Russia.
There are four wars being fought at once in the war in Ukraine. Russia bears responsibility for the one that gets all the media attention: Russia’s war on Ukraine. But Washington bears significant responsibility for the three wars that don’t get enough attention: the war within Ukraine, the proxy U.S. and NATO war on Russia, and the direct U.S. war on Russia. If a comprehensive and lasting settlement to the war in Ukraine is to have a chance of succeeding, it may be necessary to analyze the war into its four related, but distinct, conflicts and to come to understand the causes and issues behind each.
*
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.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets.
Featured image: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivers an address in Kiev, Ukraine, April 15, 2022. (Credit: Ukrainian Presidency)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
During October 1929, the United States economic system was plunged into an unprecedented depression where tens of millions were thrown out of work and their homes.
In the South, the African American people living in major cities, small towns and rural areas were impacted more than any other demographic inside the country.
The Great Depression began under the leadership of Republican President Herbert Hoover who refused to initiate any major policy reforms to seriously mitigate the rising tide of joblessness, foreclosures, evictions and food deficits. The lack of political will on the part of the Hoover administration led to the ascendancy of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932-33.
Roosevelt realized that the failure to act decisively would prove far more disastrous in light of the mobilization by left wing forces which organized hunger marches, unemployed councils and leagues along with putting forward demands for the institutionalization of social safety nets to curb the level of homelessness and hunger.
Under the Roosevelt administration a New Deal was proclaimed which sought to recorrect the problems which arose prior to and after the Great Depression. An Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was adopted and implemented through the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA).
However, the AAA exposed the contradictions within the policies of Roosevelt since it did not address the inherent class and national oppressive conditions prevailing among the African American people since the conclusion of the Civil War and the defeat of Federal Reconstruction. The concluding decades of the 19th century witnessed the rise of the Black Codes, lynching and the imposition of tenant agriculture production through sharecropping and contract prison labor exploitation.
This process continued during the first three decades of the 20th century where African Americans who could not escape the plantations and penal institutions migrated into municipalities in the South, the North and the West. Despite the prosperity of the ruling class in the 1920s, most African Americans remained in poverty. Others who were able to secure incomes as successful commercial farmers, small business owners, professionals and industrial workers were consistently reminded of the institutional racism enshrined in the laws and mores of the U.S.
One source on the period described the AAA as follows:
“Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), in U.S. history, was a major New Deal program to restore agricultural prosperity during the Great Depression by curtailing farm production, reducing export surpluses, and raising prices. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (May 1933) was an omnibus farm-relief bill embodying the schemes of the major national farm organizations. It established the Agricultural Adjustment Administration under Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace to effect a “domestic allotment” plan that would subsidize producers of basic commodities for cutting their output. Its goal was the restoration of prices paid to farmers for their goods to a level equal in purchasing power to that of 1909–14, which was a period of comparative stability. In addition, the Commodity Credit Corporation, with a crop loan and storage program, was established to make price-supporting loans and purchases of specific commodities.” (See this)
Nonetheless, this agricultural policy sparked efforts to organize African American toilers, white farmers and agricultural workers. The consequences of the AAA reinforced the already existing class and racial divisions in the Southern U.S.
The Southern Tenant Farmers Union and the Unemployed League
In the deep South the decision by the AAA to subsidize landowners to refrain from farming in order to artificially raise agricultural prices had negative consequences for sharecroppers. Although the owners were expected to divide a portion of their government subsidies with the tenant farmers, this was often not the case.
Southern Tenant Farmers Union rally reading the Sharcroppers Voice (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
To the contrary, plantation owners began to evict their tenant farmers both African American and white. The relatively low prices for crops had been blamed on overproduction beginning during World War I. However, it would be the declines experienced on Wall Street beginning in 1929 and the natural disasters such as floods and drought extending from 1927 to 1930-31 which made farming impossible in many areas.
It was the eviction by plantation owner Hiram Norcross of several tenant farm families in Poinsett County, Arkansas in 1934 which prompted the formation of the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU). The organization was founded by white and Black sharecroppers after extensive discussions. Many of the rallies and public meetings of the STFU were attended and addressed by African Americans and white organizers. Women played a critical role in the early efforts of the STFU through their participation in the Baptist churches which routinely hosted the organizational gatherings.
This character of the STFU and its alliance partner known as the Unemployment League made them targets for the white landowners seeking to maintain their political and economic authority in relationship to the resources supplied by the New Deal policies of the AAA. As the struggle unfolded, there were elements which emerged from the AAA bureaucracy that were frustrated with the apparent bias of the agency towards the large landowners who were segregationists and pro-business. These former AAA workers would join in with the organizing efforts of the STFU.
In a report published by the Arkansas Encyclopedia:
“Another critical factor in the formation of the STFU was the organization of an active socialist local in Tyronza (Poinsett County) by H. L. Mitchell and H. Clay East. Mitchell ran a drycleaning shop in Tyronza and was a former sharecropper from Halls, Tennessee. He became a socialist in Tennessee and later converted East to the cause. The two of them went to meetings in Memphis together, organized the local in Tyronza, and helped to organize the Tyronza Unemployment League in the spring of 1934. The Unemployment League was an attempt to force the local agencies of the AAA to provide jobs for desperate tenants or croppers. At the instigation of Norman Thomas, the leader of the Socialist Party in the United States, the two men participated in the formation of the STFU.” (See this)
The STFU would expand rapidly in Arkansas, Tennessee and other states between 1934-1938 when it claimed to have 35,000 members. However, factional disagreements would erupt over several important issues regarding the STFU and its relationship to the Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO), the Communist Party and the Democratic Party. During the course of its early years, STFU had joined the CIO only to withdraw at a later time. Although African American and white members made strides in uniting on major campaigns, tensions would arise with an important factional dispute involving leaders of the STFU such as African American Vice-President Rev. E.B. (Britt) McKinney and Mitchell who left the organization for a period.
Mitchell would return to the STFU in a leadership role in 1941. Nonetheless, the escalation in the production of armaments and the entering of World War II by the U.S. would further fuel the Great Migration to the northern urban areas. Mitchell would continue to serve in leadership positions of the STFU for decades to come.
Significance of the STFU in Shaping the Post-War Civil Rights Movement
Although the STFU would decline in membership and significance, it has been noted for its contribution to the character of the mass Civil Rights Movement which would emerge in the South after WWII during the 1950s and 1960s. The STFU, like the later organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), were heavily based in the African American churches.
Southern Tenant Farmers Union national conference in 1944 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
Moreover, as in the 1950s and 1960s, African Americans and whites who shared radical and liberal views would make strides in building inter-racial unity. As the intensity of the movements of the post-War period would develop, tensions would arise straining, and in many instances, tearing asunder multinational organizations and coalitions.
In an upcoming article we will reexamine the role of African Americans in the Communist Party, the Sharecroppers Union and other Left formations along with the national campaigns to eliminate peonage during the Great Depression and the WWII era. These historical developments portend much for the current situation in the U.S. where the contradictions and failures within Reconstruction era, the Populist Movement, the New Deal and the Civil Rights legislative initiatives have resulted in the continuing necessity to wage a protracted struggle for complete liberation and social emancipation.
*
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.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Southern Tenant Farmers Union meeting in Arkansas (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Overall Canadian physician mortality in 2022 was 53% higher than 2019, however, as with all excess mortality data in highly COVID-19 vaccinated jurisdictions, this mortality is heavily skewed towards the younger age groups, with the youngest doctors – medical students or medical residents under age 30 dying at a 900% higher rate in 2022, compared to the 2019/2020 average.
2021 sudden and unexpected Canadian doctors’ deaths:
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Michael for the tremendous work and hundreds of hours spent compiling this important data from official medical sources: (Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Provincial Medical Associations, Canadian Medical University Alumni Associations, Provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and online obituary aggregators), as well as Sonja, VA and everyone else who provided valuable contributions over time.
This data has been available to the Canadian Medical Association as well as the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
*
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
The visit of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to Beijing and his face-to- face meeting with counterpart Xi Jinping is a groundbreaking affair in more ways than one.
Raisi, the first Iranian president to officially visit China in 20 years, led an ultra high-level political and economic delegation, which included the new Central Bank governor and the Ministers of Economy, Oil, Foreign Affairs, and Trade.
The fact that Raisi and Xi jointly supervised the signing of 20 bilateral cooperation agreements ranging from agriculture, trade, tourism and environmental protection to health, disaster relief, culture and sports, is not even the major take away.
This week’s ceremonial sealing of the Iran-China comprehensive strategic partnership marks a key evolution in the multipolarity sphere: two Sovereigns – both also linked by strategic partnerships with Russia – imprinting to their domestic audiences and also to the Global South their vision of a more equitable, fair and sustainable 21st century which completely bypasses western dictates.
Beijing and Tehran first established their comprehensive strategic partnership when Xi visited Iran in 2016 – only one year after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iranian nuclear deal.
In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a 25-year cooperation deal which translated the comprehensive partnership into practical economic and cultural developments in several fields, especially energy, trade and infrastructure. By then, not only Iran (for decades) but also China were being targeted by unilateral US sanctions.
Here is a relatively independent analysis of the challenges and prospects of the 25-year deal. And here is an enlightening perspective from neighboring Pakistan, also a strategic partner of China.
Iran: gotta modernize everything
Beijing and Tehran are already actively cooperating in the construction of selected lines of Tehran’s subway, the Tehran-Isfahan high-speed railway, and of course joint energy projects. Chinese tech giant Huawei is set to help Tehran to build a framework for a 5G telecom network.
Raisi and Xi, predictably, stressed increased joint coordination at the UN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which Iran is the newest member, as well as a new drive along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
While there was no explicit mention of it, underlying all these initiatives is the de-dollarization of trade – in the framework of the SCO but also the multipolar BRICS group of states. Iran is set to become one of the new members of BRICS+, a giant step to be decided in their upcoming summit in South Africa next August.
There are estimates in Tehran that Iran-China annual trade may reach over $70 billion in the mid-term, which will amount to triple the current figures.
When it comes to infrastructure building, Iran is a key BRI partner. The geostrategy of course is hard to match: a 2,250 km coastline encompassing the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Sea of Oman and the Caspian Sea – and huge land borders with Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every think tank in China sees how Iran is irreplaceable, not only in terms of BRI land corridors, but also the Maritime Silk Road.
Chabahar Port may be a prime Iran-India affair, as part of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) – thus directly linked to the Indian vision of a Silk Road, extending to Central Asia.
But Chinese port developers do have other ideas, focused on alternative ports along the Persian Gulf and in the Caspian Sea. That will boost shipping connections to Central Asia (Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan), Russia and the Caucasus (Azerbaijan).
And that makes perfect sense when one combines port terminal development with the modernization of Iran’s railways – all the way to high-speed rail.
An even more revolutionary development would be China coordinating the BRI connection of an Iranian corridor with the already in progress 3,200 km-long China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), from Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gwadar port in the Indian Ocean.
That seemed perfectly plausible when Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was still in power, before being ousted by a lawfare coup. The key of the whole enterprise is to build badly needed infrastructure in Balochistan, on both sides of the border. On the Pakistani side, that would go a long way to smash CIA-fed “insurgents” of the Balochistan Liberation Army kind, get rid of unemployment, and put trade in charge of economic development.
Afghanistan of course enters the equation – in the form of a China-Afghan-Iran corridor linked to CPEC. Since September 2021, Beijing has explained to the Taliban, in detail, how they may profit from an infrastructure corridor – complete with railway, highway and pipeline – from Xinjiang, across the Wakhan corridor in eastern Afghanistan, through the Hindu Kush, all the way to Iran.
The core of multipolarity
Iran is perfectly positioned for a Chinese-propelled boom in high-speed cargo rail, connecting Iran to most of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan).
That means, in practice, cool connectivity with a major logistics cluster: the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) of Khorgos, only 330 km from Almaty on the Kazakh-China border, and only four hours from Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital.
If China pulls that off, it would be a sort of BRI Holy Grail, interconnecting China and Iran via Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Nothing less than several corridors in one.
All that is about to happen as the Islamic Revolution in Iran celebrates its 44th year.
What is already happening now, geopolitically, and fully recognized by China, might be defined as the full rejection of an absurdity: the collective west treating Iran as a pariah or at best a subjugated neo-colony.
With the diverse strands of the Resistance embedded in the Islamic Revolution finally consolidated, it looks like history is finally propelling Iran as one of the key poles of the most complex process at work in the 21st century: Eurasia integration.
So 44 years after the Islamic Revolution, Iran enjoys strategic partnerships with the three top BRICS: China, Russia and India.
Likely to become one of the first new members of BRICS+, Iran is the first West Asian state to become a full member of the SCO, and is clinching a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
Iran is a major strategic partner of both BRI, led by China, and the INSTC, alongside Russia and India.
With the JCPOA all but dead, and all western “promises” lying in the dust, Tehran is consolidating its pivot back to the East at breakneck speed.
What Raisi and Xi sealed in Beijing heralds Chinese pre-eminence all across West Asia – keenly perceived in Beijing as a natural consequence of recognizing and honoring Iran’s regional centrality.
Iran’s “Look East” strategy could not be more compatible with BRI – as an array of BRI projects will accelerate Iran’s economic development and consolidate its inescapable role when it comes to trade corridors and as an energy provider.
During the 1980s Tehran was ruled by a “Neither East nor West” strategy – faithful to the tenets of the Islamic Revolution. That has now evolved, pragmatically, into “Look East.” Tehran did try to “Look West” in good faith, but what the US government did with the JCPOA – from its murder to “maximum pressure” to its aborted resuscitation – was quite a historical lesson.
What Raisi and Xi have just demonstrated in Beijing is the Sovereign way forward. The three leaders of Eurasia integration – China, Russia and Iran – are fast on their way to consolidate the core of multipolarity.
*
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.
Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
The BRICS countries seem interested in advancing cooperation beyond mere economic partnership. Now, Russia, China and South Africa engage in joint naval exercises, taking a significant step towards the creation of an axis of military collaboration between the countries of the group. However, India and Brazil seem hesitant about the bloc’s direction, as they have interests and alliances that are still very much linked to the West.
South African, Russian and Chinese naval exercises, codenamed Mosi II, began in the Indian Ocean on February 17.
According to official information from the Russian Defense Ministry, the drills are to take place along the coast of the African nation for ten days. It was also reported that the drills are a platform for the three nations to share military knowledge, skills and operational experience, and prove that Moscow is not globally “isolated”, contradicting what the western media irresponsibly claims. During the exercises, navies will combine their operational naval systems and improve joint command and control systems.
It is important to remember that this is the second trilateral exercise between South Africa, Russia and China. The previous one was held in November 2019 near Cape Town, in the southwest of South Africa, in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The case demonstrates a constant interest on the part of these three countries in raising the intra-BRICS partnership to a military level, surpassing mere the economic alliance. This is extremely significant for the group to play a prominent role in the current process of geopolitical transition towards a multipolar world.
In January, the White House stressed that the US would always express “concerns” about any country training with Russia in the current context – where there is a strong effort on the part of NATO to “isolate” Moscow in the international arena. South Africa assures that it maintains neutrality in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, using the argument that it intermittently carries out similar maneuvers with other countries, including Russia’s rivals, such as the US and France. However, despite South African diplomatic discourse, there is an undeniable move towards the political and military cooperation among the BRICS being represented by the current drills.
The possibility of the BRICS becoming a military alliance has been discussed for a long time. Some pro-multipolarity experts suggest that this would be an important step to combat NATO interventionism and encourage the process of geopolitical decentralization. However, many challenges arise in the face of these attempts, such as Western sanctions and constant pressure from NATO countries for Moscow to be isolated and kept without international alliances.
Although the mere execution of military exercises does not mean a major geopolitical change, the mere fact that they are being operated at the moment of height of Western sanctions shows that these BRICS countries are solidly united in order to strengthen diplomacy with Russia. In practice, this shows the failure of attempts to make Moscow an international pariah, evidencing the victory of diplomacy over hostility.
Regrettably, however, Brazil and India remain the two most ambiguous countries in the group. Trying to maintain a strong dialogue with the West, Brasilia and New Delhi seem undecided about occupying their role within the BRICS. In fact, their absence from the current exercises shows how many opportunities are being lost due to this ambiguity.
Although India is cooperating strongly with Russia on economic issues and has even withdrawn troops from the border with China, there is still a kind of distrust in the country regarding the possibility of engaging in military cooperation projects that also involve Beijing. The country has largely evolved towards overcoming its alliance with Washington, but there are still some steps to be taken for New Delhi to definitively prioritize the BRICS in its foreign policy.
In the same sense, the absence of Brazil arouses suspicion. When the military cooperation project between Russia, China and South Africa emerged, in 2019, Brasilia was under the most pro-US phase of the Bolsonaro government, when there was a policy of automatic alignment with Trump, which is why Brazil’s distance from BRICS initiatives was expected. Now, however, Lula is expected to take a more sovereign and pro-BRICS stance.
For Brazil, as well as for India, it would be extremely interesting to participate in the current military exercises, since a lot of combat experience would be passed on to soldiers, preparing them for an eventual conflict scenario in the future. However, more than a merely military issue, this is an essentially geopolitical maneuver. It is necessary that Brazil and India contribute more actively with the other partners, so that the BRICS take a step beyond mere economic collaboration.
If the BRICS start to engage in mutual military support projects, the greater will be the reciprocal trust between the members, as knowledge and data will be shared, making them equally strong to deal with common challenges. If the consolidation of a multipolar world is really an objective of all BRICS members, it is essential that internal rivalries and disagreements are overcome and that all cooperate for a common objective.
*
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.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Although it has been only 16 years since President Putin’s historical speech at the 2007 Munich Conference, that event now seems like a distant past of a long-lost world. Back then, Russia was warning the political West that further NATO aggression would inevitably lead to the revival of the Cold War.
However, Washington DC and Brussels seem to have wanted exactly that. The political West has tried to present the 2023 Munich Security Conference as some sort of a groundbreaking global event that “sent a strong signal” and showed “just how isolated” Russia is. However, nothing could be further from the truth, given the comments of some of the most prominent participants, including NATO and EU member states.
“We will never accept the instructions of the United States and even threats to put pressure on Russian-Chinese relations,” Wang was quoted as saying in a statement published on Sunday by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. “The Sino-Russian relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation are based on non-alignment, non-confrontation and non-targeting against third parties. They are within the framework of the sovereignty of two independent states,” he added.
“If the US continues to use this as an excuse, to promote further escalation and aggravate the situation, then China will definitely go to the very end. All the consequences of this will be borne by the American side,” Wang said.
China also called on the US to stop escalating the Ukrainian crisis and start promoting a peaceful settlement. Wang said that “Washington DC should stop adding fuel to the fire”. He noted that China’s position is constructive and called for the negotiation process to continue.
“Being a great power, the United States should contribute to the political settlement of the crisis, and not add fuel to the fire and look for opportunities to extract its own benefits,” Wang was quoted as saying.
Hungary also called for the de-escalation of the crisis and insisted on maintaining economic relations with Russia. During the traditional annual address to his fellow citizens, Prime Minister Viktor Orban stated that “the only way for Hungary to live peacefully is to stay out of the conflict, as it is not our war”.
“We will maintain our economic relations with Russia, and we advise the entire Western world to do the same, because without relations there will be no ceasefire or peace talks,” Orban said.
On the other hand, the European Union is doing exactly the opposite. The bloc’s top diplomat Josep Borrel called Russia “an existential threat” and urged all member states not to continue supporting the Kiev regime, but “help more”. He also insisted that “the EU should start an industrial techno-blitzkrieg to produce more weapons“, effectively nullifying the claim that the bloc was an economic union. Borrel added that member states will spend an additional €70 billion on defense by 2025.
“In the next two years, the EU countries intend to spend an additional €70 billion on defense. France will increase defense spending by 40%, while Poland will double it,” he stated.
Interestingly, India was also targeted. George Soros, a controversial oligarch infamous for providing financial backing for various groups responsible for destabilization and undermining of countries the political West sees as “uncooperative”, stated the following:
“India is an interesting case. It’s a democracy, but its leader Narendra Modi is no democrat. Inciting violence against Muslims was an important factor in his meteoric rise. Modi maintains close relations with both open and closed societies. India is a member of the Quad (which also includes Australia, the US, and Japan), but it buys a lot of Russian oil at a steep discount and makes a lot of money on it… …Modi and business tycoon Adani are close allies; their fate is intertwined. Adani Enterprises tried to raise funds in the stock market, but he failed. Adani is accused of stock manipulation and his stock collapsed like a house of cards. Modi is silent on the subject, but he will have to answer questions from foreign investors and in parliament. This will significantly weaken Modi’s stranglehold on India’s federal government and open the door to push for much-needed institutional reforms. I may be naive, but I expect a democratic revival in India.”
In essence, the Munich Conference not only failed to produce the desired results (Russia supposedly isolated), but it even strengthened the multipolar world, as neither India nor China proved malleable in any way, showing their sovereignty is untouched by the political West’s pressure. On the other hand, many Europeans are extremely unhappy by the EU’s militarization. According to varying estimates, the huge crowd of protesters in Munich numbered up to 50,000 people. In conclusion, while there are massive differences between Munich 2007 and Munich 2023, the latest conference is somewhat similar to the 1938 Munich Agreement between Nazi Germany and Western allies. Considering how that ended (along with any other invasion of Russia), the political West’s prospects against Moscow look rather grim, to say the least.
*
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.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
China has made good on its prior threats to retaliate and introduce “countermeasures” against the United States following the ‘spy’ balloon shootdown incident a week-and-a-half ago, and has done so in relation to Washington arming Taiwan.
On Thursday Beijing has unveiled new sanctions against Lockheed Martin Corporation and Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a subsidiary of Raytheon Technologies Corp – both of which are now banned from either importing, exporting and investing in China.
They are now on China’s “unreliable entities list” of companies deemed a threat to national sovereignty and security, and so will have their activities restricted, along with punitive fines.
“Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Missiles will not be allowed to invest within China and they will be fined an amount equivalent to twice the value of their contracts related to the sale of arms to Taiwan island since the implementation of China’s Unreliable Entity List rules,” writes China Daily.
While the move is seen as most immediately connected with Raytheon and Lockheed’s major weapons contracts with the self-ruled island of Taiwan brokered under US government approval, the catalyst appears to be the US shootdown of the Chinese balloon off South Carolina on Feb.4 and ensuing war of words and accompanying accusations.
While neither companies have done military equipment deals with China, especially since the US long ago banned such transfers with China, the sanctions might be felt to a limited degree by the civilian aviation industry in China:
Raytheon Missiles and Defense, part of Raytheon Technologies Corp, was awarded a $412m contract in September to upgrade Taiwan’s military radar as part of a $1.1bn package of US arms sales to the island. Lockheed Martin has supplied Taiwan’s military with radar, helicopters and air traffic control equipment.
In China, Lockheed Martin has sold air traffic control equipment for civilian airports and helicopters for commercial use.
Last week, the US slapped punitive sanctions on six Chinese entities believed connected to the alleged Chinese spy balloon breaching American airspace.
China had promised to send a strong message back, while also pointing out that the US has breached Chinese airspace ten times in the last year with balloons. China’s foreign ministry has maintained the object was a weather balloon which blew off course, and that the situation is being exploited by the Biden administration to attack Beijing.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
This article was initially published in May 2022
The New York Times (NYT), citing senior US officials, (May 2022 Report) claimed that Washington provided Kiev with intelligence that led to the death of high-ranking Russian officers whose number is not specified.
The newspaper’s sources declined to specify how many Russian generals had been killed with US assistance.
But Ukrainian officials claim they have killed 12 Russian generals on the front lines, “a number that has astonished military analysts,” the NYT said, adding that the US is said to prohibit itself from providing intelligence on Russia’s “most senior” military leaders to Kiev.
According to the newspaper, the US and other NATO allies are secretly providing real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine.
That intelligence in particular includes anticipated Russian troop movements after the start of the second phase of the war in Ukraine.
While the United States focused on providing details about the Russian military’s mobile headquarters, Kiev combined the data with its own intelligence, including some intercepted communications, to deliver artillery strikes and conduct other attacks that have killed Russian officers, explained the NYT.
The report underlined that the US administration “has sought to keep much of the battlefield intelligence secret, out of fear it will be seen as an escalation and provoke President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into a wider war.”
The NYT said that in fear of endangering their methods of collection, US officials would not explain how they gathered information on Russian troops’ headquarters, but indicated that US intelligence agencies “have used a variety of sources, including classified and commercial satellites, to trace Russian troop movements”
It is noteworthy that Pentagon Spokesperson John Kirby had mentioned that Washington provides Kiev “with information and intelligence that they can use to defend themselves.”
However, a National Security Council Spokesperson, Adrienne Watson, claimed in a statement that information provided to Ukraine is not “with the intent to kill Russian generals.”
But multiple US officials also claimed that not all Ukrainian strikes on Russian locations have been carried out based on US intelligence, saying that Washington “prohibits itself from providing intelligence about the most senior Russian leaders,” the NYT reported.
Nevertheless, the officials pointed out that US intelligence was “critical” in the deaths of other Russian generals.
In the same context, the NYT indicated that “The Biden administration is also supplying new weaponry that should improve Ukraine’s ability to target senior Russian officers.”
“The smaller version of the Switchblade drone, which is now arriving on the battlefield, can be used to identify and kill individual soldiers, and could take out a general sitting in a vehicle or giving orders on a front line,” the newspaper explained.
On Tuesday, General Mark Milley, the chairperson of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel that “There’s a significant amount of intelligence flowing to Ukraine from the United States.”
Al Jazeera Report
*
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.
Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin and General Valery Gerasimov (Source: Al Mayadeen English)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
I am pleasantly surprised to see the mainstream German publication Die Welt openly asserting that clinical trials of the “Pfizer COVID vaccine” were rife with fraud. (paywall-free German language link, PDF with English translation) What a change!
The article explains that Pfizer unblinded and removed numerous patients who suffered adverse events from the Covid vaccine trial. It also gives examples of Pfizer subjects whose deaths were covered up. One of the victims described by Die Welt is Pfizer subject C4591001 1162 11621327, whose story I unearthed in July of 2022.
WELT has documents according to which patient no. 11621327 was found dead in his apartment three days after the 2nd dose, apparently a stroke. Patient #11521497 died 20 days after vaccination, diagnosis of cardiac arrest. “According to the current state of science, these two cases would be assigned to the vaccination,” says the Berlin pharmaceutical specialist Susanne Wagner, “especially since the US health authority CDC is currently investigating strokes in vaccinated people and it is known
As you remember, Pfizer’s investigators falsely ruled these deaths unrelated.
Die Welt also describes Argentine lawyer Augusto Roux, who remained alive, but whose sufferings were written off as “anxiety.”
Three weeks later, test candidate Roux received the second dose. He remained under observation for 40 minutes, then left the hospital feeling good. In the taxi home he felt uncomfortable, and later he had shortness of breath, burning chest pain, nausea and fever. His urine turned black like cola and he passed out. Three days later, Roux was in the Alemán Hospital, several PCR tests for Covid were negative. Senior physician Gisela di Stilio noted in the discharge report, which is available to WELT: “Adverse reaction to the coronavirus vaccine (high probability)”. The computer tomograph had provided images of fluid in Roux’s heart. A pericardial effusion.
Over the next few months, Roux lost 14 kilos, he had liver problems, and his heart sometimes beat irregularly. … The diagnosis for the symptoms after the second vaccination is very likely to be “pericarditis”, inflammation of the heart. All of this fits exactly with a clinical picture that the Paul Ehrlich Institute also has in its list of “rare side effects” for mRNA vaccines.
Note how Die Welt sarcastically puts “rare side events” in quotes.
… He found amazing things there. His story, one might think, should appear in Pfizer’s pivotal study papers, but it doesn’t. The pharmaceutical company’s papers say Roux informed the research team that he was hospitalized with pneumonia on both sides, following the initial report, which was classified as an “adverse event of toxicity level 1”. That could have nothing to do with the vaccine, the file goes on to say, it is probably a Covid infection. Not a word that Roux had tested negative for Corona in several PCR tests.
The paper finds more cases of Pfizer fraud:
Almost at the same time as the Roux case, there must have been an incident in the Buenos Aires test center. In one fell swoop, the test management said goodbye to 53 subjects on August 31, 2020. The test candidates were “unblinded”, which means they were informed about their vaccination status, a process that the Pfizer study protocol expressly only provides for “in emergencies”. But there is nothing about it in the approval study. In protocol documents that are available to WELT, and which are actually not intended for the public, those responsible get caught up in contradictions.“
Pfizer Fraud Discussed in Mainstream Press.
While Die Welt does an excellent job at exposing Pfizer’s trial fraud, which the FDA wanted to hide for 75 years, most of what it discussed is not new to us. What is new is that mainstream newspapers are now discussing it.
Die Welt mentions that Pfizer’s contracts included a liability waiver even for Pfizer’s negligence and for “fraud or bad faith on the part of Pfizer itself.”
I expect this “fraud waiver” will be litigated furiously in many countries. In the United States, liability for certain misdeeds, such as fraud, cannot be waived in advance because it would “violate public policy” and encourage fraud. Thus, I expect Ed Dowd’s “fraud vitiates all contracts” doctrine to prevail legally in many localities.
A “General COVID Reckoning” Will Follow!
A question that many of us are asking is, “will there be trials.” A friend of this substack, Eugyppius, concludes with regret that “there will be no Corona reckoning in Germany.”
I am not an expert on German politics, but I would like to make a statement: in more than one country, though possibly not in Germany, there WILL be Corona reckoning. A mini-reckoning is already happening in Florida, which gives us a hint of the future.
The governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, is a shrewd political operator who expects to benefit politically from defending the public from Covid vaccines.
I am optimistic that some reckoning and some punishments will happen. Consider this:
Almost everyone was affected by Corona vaccinations. People were either vaccinated or discriminated against, with the extent of discrimination varying from country to country.
[added a day later] A large fraction of vaccinated people were forced to vaccinate and are resentful of what happened to them.
Covid vaccination harmed a significant fraction of vaccine recipients.The harms are numerous. A Thailand study found 29% of young males having subclinical heart damage, for example. I discussed, numerous times, immune system damage affecting vaccinated people who suffer Covid reinfections and endless other illnesses.
While many vaccinated individuals do not realize that Covid vaccines affected them, they can be easily convinced that they are vaccine victimswhen presented with evidence.
Many vaccinated people had multiple COVID infections. If nudged, they will see the apparent disconnect between promises and the ugly reality.
Lawsuits against Big Pharma, and possibly against Google and Facebook, will, naturally, make many people consider whether they are also victims when financial compensation becomes a possibility.
People understandably fear death, and the excess mortality we are experiencing worldwide should unsettle any person whose risk of death is heightened in a mysterious, unknowable way.
Many political operators will realize they can build a career by being anti-Covid-vaccine and demanding retributions.
There is a possibility of mass hysteria created around “will the Covid vaccine kill me,” which the above-mentioned political operators can turn to their advantage. While this has the potential of turning ugly, it is an important factor.
I want these trends to reverse and mortality and fertility to return to normal. Such a fortunate turn of events would necessitate only a moderately serious reckoning.
In the highly undesirable case of the general public’s health trends taking a turn for the worse, stricter punishments against people who lied to us and forced the public to take the deadly experimental vaccines would be perfectly acceptable.
National laws may need to be revised to allow legal punishment of wrongdoers who participated in a novel global biomedical crime that harmed billions of humans. In plenty of precedents, crimes against humanity committed under the color of national laws were successfully prosecuted.
So… do you think at least one country will see any “Corona reckoning”?
*
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.
Featured image is from The Expose
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
According to the Daily Sceptic, documents obtained by doctor Dr. Melissa McCann as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request were shared at a conference on Covid gene drugs held in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.
McCann reported on her extraordinary efforts to obtain these documents from the TGA which took six months. The doctor made the application after noticing an unexpectedly high number of patients with adverse events after a Covid injection at her clinic. She also noted a high number of reports of serious side effects in the official DEAN database, including the reported death of a 14-year-old in October 2021.
However, the TGA only published the case of a 21-year-old woman in the safety reports while some of the victims were as young as 7 years old. The reported deaths are listed in DEAN, but the assessment of causality is not visible to the public.
Australians have been falsely and misleadingly informed by the TGA that out of 973 reported deaths, only 14 have been linked as causally linked to the Covid shots. The causality assessment reports released as part of FOI prove this statement to be incorrect.
Lying to the public
The TGA safety report from November 2022 also stated: “There were no deaths in children or adolescents who were found to be related to the Covid 19 vaccination”. However, the assessment reports demonstrating the causal role of the Pfizer vaccine in cases of seven- and nine-year-old children were presented to McCann in July 2022. They prove that this statement is also incorrect.
McCann was surprised to find that 10 of the 11 documents received were not published by the TGA.
When questioned, the TGA responded: “The decision maker noted that disclosure of the documents could undermine public confidence and reduce the public’s willingness to report adverse events to the TGA.”
EuroMOMO also records rise in child deaths linked to jabs
Since the vaccines were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2021, initially for 12-15 year olds and then even for 5 to 11 year olds, the excess mortality among children has increased massively. According to new studies, it rose by 1,580 percent.
According to calculations by the portal The Exposé, the increase in deaths among up to 15-year-olds is now around 1,580 percent compared to the average before the Covid vaccines were approved. The portal refers to current statistics from EuroMOMO, in which figures from 27 European countries were collected and evaluated.
Children: From zero to high excess mortality
According to this, in the first 21 weeks of 2021, when no vaccinations were administered to children and adolescents, there were 346 fewer deaths than expected within the relevant age group in the EU countries examined – specifically a low mortality rate of minus 346 cases (or “zero excess mortality”). In the first Corona year 2020, there were 466 fewer deaths among children than in the years before Corona.
This was at a time when Corona was said to be at its peak and the myth was being spread that children were even the “main drivers” of the virus. In fact, their risk of transmission and infection was minimal and the number of serious cases in this population group was practically below the detection limit.
*
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.
Featured image is from Mercola
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Swedish prosecutors destroyed copies of email correspondence related to the extradition case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi.
The documents were destroyed while Maurizi was litigating her freedom of information request, making it “highly suspicious.”
Maurizi uncovered this major revelation during a hearing in her lawsuit against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the United Kingdom, the very agency that is representing the United States in its effort to bring Assange to trial on Espionage Act charges.
So far, both CPS and the Swedish Prosecution Authority have blocked the release of any documents between UK authorities and US authorities or Swedish authorities and US authorities.
In particular, the correspondence stems from the time period, where Assange was faced with extradition as part of a Swedish investigation into sexual assault allegations.
“From 2010 to 2015, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Swedish Prosecution Authority exchanged between 7,200 and 9,600 pages of correspondence,” Maurizi reported for the Italian daily newspaper il Fatto Quotidiano.
“Over the last 8 years of our FOIA battle, we have obtained just 551 pages from the CPS and 1373 pages from the SPA,” Maurizi added. “Of these, 1373 pages of documents from the SPA, only 310 pages represent correspondence between the SPA and CPS. Which means we have barely obtained the tip of the iceberg.”
Hiding FBI Correspondence
Maurizi also reported, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny deleted an email from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in March 2017. The Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed it was sent by an FBI executive and “reached a chief prosecutor.”
The appeals court peculiarly claimed an FBI executive sought information that Swedish prosecutors told the FBI was available on the SPA’s website.
Maurizi chronicles her effort to obtain documents in Secret Power: WikiLeaks and Its Enemies. She said in an interview for The Dissenter, “Why did the Swedish prosecutor destroy this correspondence with the FBI?” And what else did they destroy? “Because they claim there was no further correspondence, but how can we believe them?”
Up until the latest proceeding, the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) had denied that such correspondence between Swedish prosecutors and US authorities existed.
In 2015, Maurizi obtained a small number of documents from Swedish prosecutors in response to her freedom of information request that exposed how Paul Close, a lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime Division, had advised prosecutors in Sweden not to question Assange while he was living under political asylum in the Ecuador embassy in London.
As Maurizi puts it, the division that was responsible for prosecuting high-profile cases advised Swedish prosecutors “against the only legal strategy that could have brought the case to a rapid resolution.”
Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader who is part of a powerful faction that purged Jeremy Corbyn and other left-leaning Labour Party members from leadership positions, led the CPS Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013.
“Critical decisions and advice on the Julian Assange case were provided by the Crown Prosecution Service between 2010 and 2013, when it was headed by Keir Starmer,” Maurizi declared. “What role, if any, did Starmer play in the case?
The truth may never be known. Back in 2015, Maurizi “discovered that the Crown Prosecution Service had deleted all data associated with Paul Close’s email account, which cannot be recovered.”
The UK judge presiding over the freedom of information litigation, according to Maurizi, said “there was nothing untoward,” and would not order an investigation into CPS’s destruction of documents.
Human rights attorney Michael Ratner, who represented WikiLeaks until he died in 2016, maintained from 2012 to 2016, “If Julian Assange were to go to Sweden, he would be put in jail immediately. He is not allowed to get bail in Sweden. Let’s understand that. He would be in prison in Sweden, and he could no longer apply for asylum.”
“At that point, the US files its extradition request. Julian Assange never sees the light of day and winds up going to the United States.”
The destruction—and concealing—of documents by Swedish prosecutors appears to further demonstrate how correct Ratner was in his advice to Assange to seek political asylum from Ecuador and not go to Sweden for questioning.
‘In Cahoots’ With Nils Melzer
Since 2017, Maurizi has been fighting in court for documents. She said this hearing was the first time a Crown prosecutor chose to question her.
“[The prosecutor tried] to put me in a light that I was basically in cahoots with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer,” Maurizi recalled.
British authorities maintain the correspondence should only be released while the extradition case is still unfolding if it would reveal “serious misconduct” committed by the state requesting Assange. Maurizi’s lawyer Estelle Dehon argued that is clearly the case and referred to the evidence that Melzer compiled.
This evidence was laid out for the world in Melzer’s acclaimed book, The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution.
“At this point, the Crown Prosecution Service tried to make the argument that Nils Melzer is biased, and of course, is in contact with Maurizi, with me, because he endorsed my book. In his endorsement, he said that my investigative work contributed to his investigation,” Maurizi said.
This is not the first time Crown prosecutors have tried to diminish the credibility of individuals who may undermine their effort to secure Assange’s extradition.
During a month-long extradition trial in September 2020, Crown prosecutor James Lewis QC sought to discredit the assessments of psychiatrist Michael Kopelman by accusing him of relying on Melzer’s work, which he maintained was “neither balanced nor accurate.”
Even more bizarre is the fact that Maurizi’s attorney asked the Crown Prosecution Service’s head of extradition if they were involved “directly in the extradition of Assange.” They claimed they were not part of any “operative” decision-making and then described Maurizi’s book as “very powerful and moving.”
Maurizi wondered, why has the Crown Prosecution Service proceeded with the case if the head of extradition finds my book to be moving?
Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In Legal Fees
In the US, Maurizi’s attorney is representing her pro bono in her freedom of information case against the US State Department.
“They told me that our legal fees have reached hundreds of thousands of dollars in two years.”
“They use all sorts of delay tactics and obstruction in order to make the process as expensive as possible, as long as possible,” Maurizi described. “So that, even if you win, you obtain this documentation after years and years, and maybe, sometimes it’s still relevant.”
Maurizi reminded readers that the “highly anomalous handling of the Swedish case by prosecutor Marianne Ny resulted in justice for no one, contributed to the devastation of Assange’s health, cost British taxpayers at least 13.2 million pounds [$16 million] to keep the Ecuadorian embassy under siege by Scotland Yard from 2012 to 2015.”
It also “resulted in the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention decision that Sweden and the United Kingdom had arbitrarily detained Assange since 2010, in the case of Sweden the first time the UN Group had ever made such a decision in the country’s history.”
Below is a 35-minute interview with Stefania Maurizi for The Dissenter:
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
US officials acknowledged the Chinese balloon they shot down on February 4 had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather. The US Air Force later spent $2 million using missiles to blow up what appeared to be a $12 hobbyist balloon.
A Chinese balloon that the US military shot down had likely been pushed off course by unexpected weather conditions, according to multiple officials in Washington.
This is according to numerous reports in major US media outlets, including the Washington Post and CNN.
In response to hysteria surrounding the Chinese rubber object, the US Air Force subsequently spent roughly $2 million to destroy what appears to have been a hobby group’s $12 balloon.
On February 1, a large Chinese balloon was first seen over the US state Montana.
On February 4, US military fighter jets shot down the rubber object, off the coast of South Carolina.
Washington accused Beijing of using the balloon to spy on US territory.
China adamantly denied that the rubber object was a surveillance device, instead maintaining that it was used for weather research.
There are legitimate reasons to take Beijing at its word. The Washington Post had acknowledged on February 3, “Experts in national security and aerospace said the craft appears to share characteristics with high-altitude balloons used by developed countries around the world for weather forecasting, telecommunications and scientific research”.
The Pentagon itself said that “the payload wouldn’t offer much in the way of surveillance that China couldn’t collect through spy satellites” and that “the balloon posed no serious physical or intelligence threat”.
The newspaper quoted an anonymous US “senior defense official” who “said the payload wouldn’t offer much in the way of surveillance that China couldn’t collect through spy satellites”, stating, “I wouldn’t characterize it as revolutionary”.
Even the bellicose right-wing think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – which is funded by the US government and weapons industry and is notorious for its anti-China bias – called for caution early on, conceding in a February 3 article: “China has not used balloons for spying before, and using a balloon would be a step back. The most likely explanation is that this is an errant weather balloon that went astray—lost weather balloons are the basis of many ‘UFO sightings’”.
The neoconservative, US government-funded think tank CSIS is very anti-China, but even it admits:
It was clear from the beginning that the Chinese balloon was part of a manufactured crisis, and its significance, like the rubber object itself, was being blown out of control.
Hawkish US politicians from both the Republican and Democratic Parties, along with neoconservative think tanks, capitalized on the bubble to portray China as a dangerous threat.
Slate reported that Republican Congressman James Comer, who chairs the US House Oversight Committee, warned that the balloon could have “bio-weapons” made in Wuhan, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted it “could be trial runs for low-visibility deliver[y] of devastating EMP weapons”.
CNBC declared that the balloon “threatens NATO members”, citing the Western military alliance’s bellicose Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who denounced the rubber object as a sign of a dangerous “pattern of Chinese behavior”, insisting, “We need to be aware of the constant risk of Chinese intelligence and step up what we do to protect ourselves”.
Spy balloon confirms 'pattern of Chinese behavior' that threatens NATO members, Stoltenberg says https://t.co/zaih1xmjGp
US Air Force spent $2 million to shoot down hobbyists’ $12 balloon
From February 10 to 12, Air Force fighter jets shot down three objects. At first, US government officials and Western media outlets implied that Washington had targeted more Chinese surveillance devices, but they actually appeared to have been civilian balloons.
Aviation Week noted: “The descriptions of all three unidentified objects shot down Feb. 10-12 match the shapes, altitudes and payloads of the small pico balloons, which can usually be purchased for $12-180 each, depending on the type”.
The founder of a company that makes pico balloons for hobbyists told Aviation Week, “I tried contacting our military and the FBI—and just got the runaround—to try to enlighten them on what a lot of these things probably are. And they’re going to look not too intelligent to be shooting them down”.
British newspaper The Guardian followed up on this report, in its own article amusingly titled “Object downed by US missile may have been amateur hobbyists’ $12 balloon“.
Researcher Stephen Semler estimated that the Pentagon spent around $2 millionin this operation to shoot down the hobbyists’ balloon over Lake Huron.
The Air Force used two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles in the attack, which cost more than $440,000 each and are manufactured by the arms corporation Raytheon.
How much did it cost to shoot down what was most likely a balloon over Lake Huron? About $2 million, based on my analysis of procurement and operational data: https://t.co/a4f4jrl0egpic.twitter.com/zguxExdnuz
Immediately after the attacks, the Democratic majority leader of the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, had insisted without evidence that the three objects were spy balloons, declaring, “The Chinese were humiliated – I think the Chinese were caught lying… It’s a real setback for them”.
“We haven’t seen any indication or anything that points specifically to the idea that these three objects were part of [China’s] spying program, or that they were definitively involved in external intelligence collection efforts”, Kirby added.
President Joe Biden himself admitted on February 16 that the three objects the military blew up were “most likely balloons tied to private companies, recreation or research institutions studying weather or conducting other scientific research”.
President Biden said Thursday that three unidentified flying objects shot down over North American airspace were "most likely" balloons tied to private companies or research institutions, not part of China's surveillance spy balloon operation. https://t.co/mGO8mBTHuu
US intelligence officials acknowledge the Chinese balloon may have been blown off course by weather
Ten days after the Air Force shot down the Chinese balloon, US officials conceded that the rubber object had probably been blown off course by weather.
The newspaper reported that the balloon “took an unexpected northern turn, according to several U.S. officials, who said that analysts are now examining the possibility that China didn’t intend to penetrate the American heartland with their airborne surveillance device”.
US “intelligence analysts are unsure whether the apparent deviation was intentional or accidental”, the Post wrote.
“This new account suggests that the ensuing international crisis that has ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Beijing may have been at least partly the result of a mistake”, the newspaper said.
Exclusive: The U.S. tracked the Chinese spy balloon a week before shooting it down off the coast of South Carolina. The Chinese surveillance device may have been diverted on an errant path caused by unusual weather conditions. https://t.co/ESXLKthHhg
CNN also cited numerous anonymous sources and reported, “US intelligence officials are assessing the possibility that the suspected Chinese spy balloon was not deliberately maneuvered into the continental US by the Chinese government and are examining whether it was diverted off course by strong winds“.
The major US media outlet stated that the balloon took “a path that US officials are not sure was purposeful, and may have been determined more by strong winds than deliberate, external maneuvering by Beijing”.
“Weather modeling done by CNN suggests it is plausible that the wind currents at the time diverted the balloon northward toward Alaska”, the network wrote.
CNN added, “US officials have acknowledged that the balloon’s maneuverability was limited”.
US officials are looking at the possibility that the spy balloon's path was accidental, determined more by strong winds than a course set by China. https://t.co/Z6iPlTl8dK
In a speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 18, top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi said Washington’s response to the balloon was “absurd and hysterical“.
He added, “It does not show the US is strong; on the contrary it shows it is weak”.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
The Kremlin’s top diplomat has warned that Western involvement in Ukraine is nearing “the point of no return,” accusing the United States and the NATO bloc of attempting to transform the country into a “Russophobic military stronghold.” Meanwhile, Moscow’s UN envoy declared that all of Russia’s “red lines” have already been crossed.
Addressing lawmakers at Russia’s State Duma on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov outlined the causes of the current conflict in Ukraine and the deterioration of US-Russia relations, saying Washington has a “maniacal desire to revive the neo-colonial unipolar world order.”
“An integral part of this policy is the long-term containment of Russia, including through the expansion of NATO towards our borders, as well as the transformation of fraternal Ukraine into a Russophobic military stronghold,” he said. “In recent years, this line of Washington and its European satellites has reached the point of no return.”
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Washington and several other Western states gave assurances to Moscow that the NATO alliance would not expand beyond Germany. However, in the years since, Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have each allowed new members to join the alliance, all of them inching closer to Russia’s borders.
Starting in 2008, NATO has repeatedly declared its intention to someday allow Ukraine to become a member, again reiterating that pledge at a recent alliance summit. The move would cross the “brightest of all red lines” for Moscow, as was previously noted by then-State Department official and current CIA Director William Burns, who penned a 2008 memo warning of the geopolitical perils of extending membership to Kiev.
Still, President Joe Biden has refused to change course, insisting it is up to Ukraine whether it would like to join the US-led military bloc while effectively making Kiev a de facto member in the meantime.
In an interview with Newsweek on Tuesday, Russia’s UN envoy Dmitry Polyanskiy argued that the West has not respected Moscow’s core security concerns, and has become directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine.
“All the red lines have already been crossed by Western countries. There is already semi-direct involvement of NATO in the conflict because it’s not only weaponry but it’s intelligence,” he said. “It’s the situation when the targets of certain artillery systems, in particular HIMARS, these targets can be hit only with the coordination with Washington.”
Last week, the Washington Post reported that Ukraine relies on American intelligence for selecting targets. Since the start of the year, the White House has authorized the shipment of main battle tanks and long-range rockets to Kiev. Additionally, NATO appears to be preparing to send Western-made warplanes to Ukraine.
”It means that NATO is not only providing weapons but also are choosing the targets for Ukrainian strikes,” Polyanskiy continued.
He went on to allege that citizens from NATO countries are already fighting – as well as getting captured and killed – in Ukraine.
”We know this from the people that we capture and from the bodies that we see on the battlefield.”
The ambassador said Western weapons would only escalate the conflict, even warning that foreign intervention could eventually trigger a nuclear war.
“It’s absolutely clear that any deliveries of weapons to the zone of conflict, of course, is like pouring oil into the fire,” he said, adding “If you are dealing with a nuclear power and if you are citing the goal of inflicting defeat to this nuclear power, you should have all the options in mind of our possible response.”
In their remarks, both diplomats also pointed to potential American involvement in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. Last week, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a bombshell report claiming that Washington planned to bomb the pipelines. The White House has denied that it had any part sabotaging the line, though Senator Mike Lee later acknowledged that it was possible.
On Wednesday, Polyanskiy said that Moscow requested a UN meeting next week to address Hersh’s reporting.
Lavrov rejected denials from the Biden administration, saying the West is “lying, hiding the truth about the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream and Nord Stream-2 gas pipelines, just as they lied about the Minsk agreements.”
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkelclaimed the Minsk agreement, which ostensibly was meant to end the civil war in Ukraine, was really intended to give Kiev time to build up its military. In a December 1 interview with Der Spiegel, Merkel said that she believes that during the Minsk talks, she was able to buy the time Ukraine needed to better fend off a Russian attack.
*
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.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute.
Will Porter is the assistant news editor of the Libertarian Institute and a staff writer and editor at RT.
Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter host Conflicts of Interest along with Connor Freeman.
Featured image: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin are seen during a meeting with Germany’s foreign minister in Moscow, Russia, March 23, 2016. (Credit: Kremlin)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
By stating that the US will support Ukrainian attacks on Crimea, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland confirms beyond doubt that Washington encourages Kiev’s aggression and escalation of war. However, a possible attack on Crimea will not only fail because the peninsula is well protected, but it will lead to a more devastating retaliation by Russia against the ruling regime in Kiev.
“I’m not going to prejudge where the Ukrainians choose to fight or how they choose to deal with Crimea over the short term, medium term, or long term. We recognise Crimea as Ukraine,” Nuland said during an online discussion organised by Carnegie Endowment on February 16.
“Those [Russian military installations in Crimea] are legitimate targets, Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that,” she continued, adding that Ukraine will not be safe unless Crimea is demilitarized as a minimum.
Nuland is effectively inciting Kiev to a new escalation in the conflict even though it will bring more suffering to ordinary Ukrainians. None-the-less, by Ukraine being at war with Russia, it has brought great benefit to the US as their ultimate goal is to weaken the Eurasian Giant. By giving Kiev the false belief that it can conquer Crimea, Washington is effectively emboldening the Ukrainian military to continue their futile war effort.
The US overlooks that Crimea became part of the Russian Federation in accordance to international norms and standards. Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia, and this is a harsh reality that the West refuses to acknowledge.
Denial of this reality is seen with the fact that Nuland is encouraging Ukraine to bring terror to Crimea. Effectively, she is not only advocating for the violation of Russia’s sovereign territory, but given her position and the fact that there is no denial or rejection from her superiors, she is expressing the official opinion of the Biden administration.
Washington does not only provide rhetorical encouragement for Ukraine though. The US has delivered billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to the Ukrainian military and American instructors are training new soldiers and are active on the battlefield. Moscow has repeatedly warned that military aid to Ukraine will only escalate the conflict further.
Nuland is fully aware that if there was an attack on Crimea, there would be powerful strikes on Ukrainian facilities. Besides this fact, Crimea is well protected and is effectively a fortress with an abundance of anti-aircraft defence systems, ship systems, fighter jets and a many troops. In fact, the bulk of Russia’s military forces in the Black Sea region is concentrated in the Crimean Peninsula.
It should be noted that the Russian Embassy in the United States also responded to Nuland’s statement. The embassy emphasized that Nuland’s statement only confirms US involvement in the conflict.
“It should finally become obvious to the entire international community that the United States is the actual instigator of confrontation in Ukraine. However, Washington’s attempts to use the Ukrainians to inflict a strategic defeat on us are doomed. No one can have the slightest doubt that Russia will protect its citizens and territory,” the embassy warns.
Although President Joe Biden and his administration are undoubtedly provoking further war in Ukraine, not everyone within his party are convinced with the strategy. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that most people accept that Ukraine will never retake Crimea.
“I think there’s more of a consensus out there that people realize that Ukraine is not going to militarily retake Crimea,” he said on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, adding that at some point there will be a negotiated end to the war.
It is recalled that Pentagon officials told the House Armed Services Committee in a classified briefing in January that Ukrainian forces are unlikely to be able to recapture Crimea from Russian troops in the near future. This is of course a reality that any sensible person would conclude, but by Nuland doubling down that Ukraine could recapture Crimea, a core goal of Kiev’s war with Russia, it serves to only prolong the conflict and the suffering in the country.
As Politico highlighted, the comments by Smith “reflect what appears to be a growing view in Washington that after a year of heavy fighting, some kind of agreement will need to be realized to end the war.”
Albeit, it should not be considered surprising that negotiations need to occur after nearly a year of the conflict, especially if Ukraine wants to quickly make an economic recovery. However, the comments by Nuland demonstrates that although Washington begrudgingly accepts that Moscow will win the war, it is prepared to fully exhaust Ukraine in the hope of weakening Russia.
*
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.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
If the Feb. 19 rally to end the war in Ukraine fails it will not be a success for other antiwar organizations that disagree with the Libertarian Party. It will only show that internal divisions can unravel every hope.
A bunch of people who disagree with each other on a lot of things have actually gotten together to organize a big antiwar rally in Washington next Sunday. I say, Bravo!
In a nation as divided as the United States is today, a large rally of people who agree with each other on everything is hardly imaginable.
A rally by people who disagree with each other gives hope that a movement to stop war can grow, and even shake the political system paralyzed by the military industrial congressional complex and confusion spread by its servile media.
Abroad, the United States has exploited deep political enmities to provoke a war in Ukraine intended to split Europe definitively, cutting Russia off totally from Germany and the EU, cementing permanent U.S. control of Western Europe.
This divisive policy is pursued in all sorts of sneaky ways that make it hard to uncover and explain. The war in Ukraine creates division between those who have understood what it’s all about and those who haven’t. A large movement is needed to spread discussion, understanding and opposition.
While supporting the war machine’s foreign policy of divide and rule, in recent years the American political class has also fostered internal divisions to an unprecedented extent — some of them real, some of them more or less artificial.
The degree of internal animosity echoes the international hatred fostered by U.S. President Joe Biden’s geopolitical mindset. WE are the GOOD (democracy), THEY are BAD (not communism any more, rather, “autocracy”).
At home, Democrats and Republicans, left and right are two different species, one species born good and the other bad. The bad are inherently bad, with a contagious badness, so we must not meet and try to persuade them. We must have nothing to do with them, and a political apartheid might be the solution. A sort of moral/political racism, creating total division between US and THEM reigns both at home and abroad.
In such an atmosphere, it is no wonder that the Feb. 19 rally “Rage Against the War Machine,” its organizers and its speakers, are being attacked for not being good enough.
Organizers & Speakers
The main announced organizers of the Rage rally are two relatively weak political organizations: the People’s Party and the Libertarian Party. Their weakness should be a positive signal. Inasmuch as neither has the strength to manage a really significant antiwar movement alone, these sponsors are voluntarily offering the movement as a gift to all who take it up. So grab it!
Inevitably, however, the rally itself is being attacked, even by some opponents of the current war, on grounds of the political deficiencies of the organizers.
Could veteran activists be so petty as to be jealous that somebody else got there first? I hope not.
Veteran socialist and antiwar militant Jeff Mackler has strongly condemned the rally as “reactionary” mainly because it is backed by the Libertarian Party. Its success would be a defeat for all enemies of the capitalist system, he has claimed. At one point he observes:
“The Libertarians’ call for a return to a capitalist society where ‘free competition’ prevails is pure fantasy.”
For one thing, that policy has nothing to do with the demands of the rally. For another, if Libertarian Party socio-economic policies are indeed pure fantasy, totally inapplicable in today’s world, they are nothing to worry about.
Come to the rally, try to find a Libertarian and argue. Libertarians are against spending billions for war, this is a point of agreement that could start a fruitful discussion.
Leftist militants who believe a man can be transformed into a woman should have no trouble believing that a libertarian might be transformed into a socialist. Such miracles do occur.
Guilt by Association
Besides that, the presence of the People’s Party makes it clear that the Libertarians’ extreme free market policies are irrelevant to the rally.
The Libertarian Party quickly demonstrated its incapacity to lead the movement very far by its failure to support an important announced speaker against personal attacks — to the dismay, incidentally, of leading libertarians. But the bandwagon rolls on.
Some critics of the rally trot out a favorite cliché of the self-righteous left according to which we must stay away in order not to “legitimize” rightwing participants. This “legitimize” threat is merely the other side of the “guilt by association” coin. Both are used to evade discussion of serious matters by treating political convictions as if they were incurable contagious diseases.
It is perfectly childish to claim that anyone is “legitimized” (or guilty) by random association, such as participation in an antiwar demonstration.
The Feb. 19 speakers’ list is very long, perhaps even too long for the time allotted. But the point is precisely to show a range of viewpoints.
However much I may disagree with this one or that one on somethings, or even on everything else, I am glad to see them getting together to stop the rush toward World War III.
When the subject is WAR, if you can join in opposition only with people who agree with you about everything else, you have lost the sense of common humanity.
The organizers’ list is short, too short. It would be great to see ANSWER, Black Alliance for Peace, Code Pink and other longstanding antiwar organizations involved. No single one of them is strong enough to build a major mass movement alone — at least, so far, none of them have proposed anything as promising as Feb. 19.
The failure of Feb. 19 would not be their success. It would be a failure for all who oppose the war, showing that internal divisions can unravel every hope.
The rally is open. Everyone can share its success by crashing the party, arousing their supporters and friends, turning the rally into the broad, wide-open mass movement that can really begin to challenge the war machine. The need for peace is nobody’s private property.
Wherever you see popular resistance to war begin to come to life, go to it and make it belong to everybody.
*
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.
She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image: Winter sun over Lincoln Memorial, planned focal point of the Feb. 19, 2023, Rage Against the War Machine rally for ending the war in Ukraine. (Tim Brown/GPA Photo Archive, Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
This was originally published on GR in August 2013.
“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.” — Anonymous
The infamous NeoConservative, anti-democratic Roberts’ Supreme Court 5/4 decision in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling (granting personhood to corporations) has emboldened the already powerful and very corruptible multinational corporations (that have already achieved dominion over politics and the economy in the United States) to “buy” any number of politicians and brain-wash many voters in many state and national elections.. The US Supreme Court has made legal the absurd notion that inanimate corporations deserve the same rights (but not the same responsibilities) as living humans.
Soberingly, after the ruling came down, there was only a brief bit of anger and outrage from our national leadership over this democracy-threatening decision, and the outrage was quickly drowned out of the public consciousness by a well-timed, mainstream media-orchestrated “tempest in a teapot” – Toyota’s recall of tens of thousands of accelerator pedals (that apparently had only infrequently been the cause of significant accidents).
The following question must be asked:
If corporations have the privileges of personhood shouldn’t they also bear the same responsibilities and incur the same punishments as individuals do when they commit crimes?
Peace and justice activists briefly applauded when the citizens of Shapleigh, Maine protected their water rights last March from the insatiable water-extracting corporate giant Nestle. (See video and more information on this episode)
Nestle, one of the most infamous of the countless multinational corporate exploiters, has no allegiance to Maine or Wisconsin or any other locality where they try to extract relatively non-polluted water; but when the water is gone, so will be Nestle, and so will be Coca-Cola and Perrier or whatever other corporate intruder that extracts the people’s resources for the benefit of their shareholders and their predatory corporate executives. The good citizens of Maine recognized the foxes that tried to get inside their henhouse, and they did the right thing by resisting, and little David and his slingshot won another rare victory against the evil giant Goliath.
This small victory for justice should illustrate what must be done if the disastrous Citizens United decision is allowed to stand. The future of the nation, the future of the children and the future of the planet is at stake. And corporations don’t seem to care.
It is important to understand that the allegiance of corporations is to its shareholders, executives and management teams, and not to the people whose lives and health depend on the sustainability of the land, water, air and food supplies. Most corporate shareholders and executives are motivated by profits/greed and are not affected when local resources are used up and the struggling local communities (that placed their trust in untrustworthy corporations) are degraded.
The hollow “promises” of conscienceless megacorporations to “trust us” to un-poison the poisoned environment aren’t revealed as the cunning disinformation it is until it is too late and the mess that is left behind is no longer the sneaky corporation’s problem. What was promised prior to the pull-out or the bankruptcy or the merger was designed by clever corporate lawyers to legally go back on the promises that had been made during the conniving “courtship” phase of the deal.
One of the many tax avoiding American megacorporations is Wal-Mart. Most of its profits go to a handful of Walton family billionaires in Arkansas. WaMart tries hard not to pay for healthcare insurance and other benefits for their exploited and underpaid employees, who are victims of WalMart’s union-busting policies.
US taxpayers are left holding the bag while Wal-Mart legally avoids what should ethically be their corporate responsibility to support their workers. Wal-Mart is notorious for not hiring workers for full-time work and then paying the part-timers below-subsistence level wages that force many of them to apply for welfare benefits – a cunning cost-shifting tactic that places economic burdens on the tax-paying public.
Another example is Coca-Cola. Coke depends on water that it extracts from anywhere the corporation can suck it out, including, as a particularly egregious example, from the aquifers that are situated beneath struggling, starving (and then suicidal) farmers who are losing their farms in drought-stricken India. Millions of gallons of water, that has traditionally been used for farmland irrigation systems, are being ruthlessly used up by Coca-Cola in order to meet the artificial demand that has been created for the sweet, addictive, nutritionally useless, sickness-inducing and obesity-producing soft drink that contains two cents worth of ingredients but is being sold to poor people everywhere for as much as the market will bear.
Coke’s predation of poor people in India and elsewhere brings to mind another corporate crime that has never been brought to justice. The infamous 1984 Union Carbide/Bhopal cyanide catastrophe that killed 25,000 slum-dwellers, left 100,000 permanently poisoned, and has left uncounted numbers of people living on poisoned soil, drinking contaminated water and breathing poisoned air.
Every person that has been exposed to the Bhopal plant environs since 1984 is chronically ill; and Indian mothers are still delivering malformed babies and dead fetuses because of the pesticide residues that cannot be detoxified. Union Carbide, the American corporation responsible for the disaster, has consistently shirked its moral responsibilities to the suffering victims. Carbide eventually sold itself to the equally infamous Dow Chemical, the company that brought us Agent Orange, immune-destroying silicone breast implants and a multitude of other highly profitable and very poisonous products.
Union Carbide’s corporate executives have been subpoenaed to appear in Indian courts for their crimes. But the US has not honored the extradition treaties it has with India. These executives have repeatedly refused to appear and are therefore in contempt of court. There are warrants out for their arrests in India, just as there are warrants out for the arrest of citizen Henry Kissinger for his part in international war crimes in Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc. All remain at large, harbored by America’s big Business-friendly, corporate-controlled nation.
There are a number of common denominators that link human criminals and corporate criminals that populate the Fortune 500 list (like Union Carbide, WalMart, Dow, Monsanto, Merck, Nestle, Enron, British Petroleum, Halliburton, etc, etc). For one, the corporations, being just as afraid of facing the music as were Henry Kissinger, Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and the multitude of others of their ilk, will use any means necessary to evade or delay justice. Similarly, none of them will admit their guilt and none of them can be expected to show any genuine remorse for the massive human suffering their actions have caused.
There are checklist diagnoses for various personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel (DSM), the recipe book and billing manual for psychiatrists. One of these disorders, antisocial personality disorder (301.7), describes pathological cheaters, liars and abusers whose lack of morals, ethics and consciences often enables them to avoid being caught or punished for their crimes and misdeeds. These sociopaths (aka psychopaths) refuse to take the blame or accept responsibility for their actions.
The quasi-humans who meet the full criteria for this diagnosis are incapable of showing genuine remorse if or when they are caught, convicted or punished for their crimes. Below are seven diagnostic criteria that are used to diagnose antisocial (aka, sociopathic or psychopathic) personality disorder (be mindful that only three of the seven are needed for a positive diagnosis):
callous disregard for the feelings of other people,
the incapacity to maintain human relationships,
reckless disregard for the safety of others,
aggressiveness,
deceitfulness (repeated lying and conning others for profit)
the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.
Other common traits include these:
No conscience
Lack of remorse for evils done to others
Indifferent to the suffering of its victims
Rationalizes (makes excuses for) having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others
Willingness to exploit, seduce or manipulate others
No sign of delusional or irrational thinking.
Cunning, clever
Commonly above average intelligence
Always looking for ways to make money or achieve fame or notoriety
Willing to cause or contribute to the financial ruin of others
Untrustworthy
Cannot be trusted to adhere to conventional standards of morality.
We are talking about criminality in otherwise sane individuals. Sadly, psychopaths are, for all intents and purposes, incurable. These disordered individuals (as are their sociopathic corporate counterparts) never truly feel guilty about their misdeeds, and therefore they never truly try to change; nor do they even ask for help.
When court-ordered to submit to “treatment”, they usually only pretend to change until the pressure is off and criminal activities look doable again. History tells us that rehabilitation for full-fledged sociopaths is useless, although the often charming, charismatic sociopath will commonly fool the treatment team into thinking progress is being made.
By and large, most criminally-minded sociopaths have to be locked away to protect society from them. So another set of questions needs to be asked: “what needs to be done with sociopathic corporations when they lie, cheat, commit crimes or otherwise act unethically?”
Given the Supreme Court ruling granting personhood to corporations, shouldn’t they be treated like their human sociopathic counterparts, perhaps with long prison sentences, confiscation of property or even capital punishment? (I hasten to add that I am against capital punishment for humans, but corporations are not human (despite the Citizens United ruling), don’t bleed and don’t cry out in pain during the execution process, although they may plead for mercy.) Capital punishment for corporations, contrary to the data on capital punishment for humans, would prevent a lot of sociopathic behaviors from multinational corporations.
What about the crime of rape as applied to corporations? Rape has several definitions, including the following ones that are in my dictionary: 1) Any violent seizure or hostile action against a weaker opponent; 2) to rob or plunder; 3) the act of seizing and carrying off by force; and the common one most people think of, 4) the crime of having forcible sexual intercourse without consent.
Corporations who plunder Mother Earth meet most of the definitions of rape. Should our society punish corporate rapists as severely as we punish human rapists? And what about the serial corporate killers of the creation and the creatures that have every right to co-exist on our increasingly poisoned planet?
What about the known lethal poisons that thousands of unregulated chemical companies knowingly discharge into the water, air, soil? Should their acts of desecration be regarded as premeditated murder? Their murderous actions have already caused a multitude of dead zones in our aquifers, oceans, lakes and rivers.
What about the extractive mineral companies that blow the tops off mountains in Appalachia or the Philippines (or in the Penokee Mountain range of northern Wisconsin) to extract the resources beneath and then claim innocence when living things downstream die off from the poisoned water and toxic sludge that contaminates previously pristine streams that previously provided safe drinking water, irrigation water for farming and a healthy natural environment for fish and wildlife?
How many strikes should any corporate predator be allowed before they are called out and thrown off the land and out of the game? Shouldn’t exploitive intruders be stopped before they despoil even one more aquifer, one more lake, one more mountain or just one planet? Shouldn’t cunning, politically-connected corporate exploiters be banned, arrested, tried and punished just like the human predators that civilized people despise? And shouldn’t there be generous monetary restitution to the victims of their crimes?
Shouldn’t corporate thieves and liars and rapists and killers be treated the same as human thieves and liars and rapists and killers? Shouldn’t we refuse to trust untrustworthy corporations that are lying to us or poisoning us?
And shouldn’t some of the most dangerous – albeit legal – of the thousands of toxic synthetic chemicals so cavalierly marketed by BigPharma, be recalled just like Toyota’s occasionally dangerous accelerator pedals? BigPharma’s drugs cause many more deaths than do design problems of automobiles. Shouldn’t the pharmaceutical manufacturers, marketers, suppliers and sellers of such potentially lethal substances be stopped just like the street corner pushers of illicit drugs? What about the corporate pushers of the cocaine-like drug Ritalin and the amphetamine Adderall that are being dispensed so cavalierly to inattentive or active little children whose brains haven’t been hard-wired yet?
What about corporate junkies, those companies and executives that are addicted to their profits, their prestige, their corporate jets, their vacation homes and their quarterly bonuses? We regularly intervene for some of society’s human addicts, who are on the road to ruin and damnation and a danger to themselves and others. Shouldn’t there be interventions planned for these wealth, power and greed addicts before they kill again?
The answer, in a fair society, should be yes to all these questions, no matter how often the smiley-faced, well-dressed corporate CEOs or their well-paid spokespersons, in their most cunning damage-control mode, try to convince us that their companies are “responsible citizens”. We star-struck celebrity-worshippers of Fortune 500 companies seem to sucker for that line again and again – but the stakes are higher this time.
Deep down, all fair-minded Americans know that corporations are NOT people, despite what the corrupted and co-opted Roberts’ Supreme Court so shamefully ruled back in 2010. I wonder if the best approach for society in dealing with those shady inanimate corporate entities, is to, rather than applying the standard constitutional guarantee of being innocent until proven guilty, we should judge these often ruthless corporations as being guilty until they are proven innocent.
I like that notion. I have often advised my psychologically traumatized patients who were physically, sexually or emotionally abused in childhood by parent figures to only give respect and forgiveness to them when they have truly earned it and therefore deserve the respect and forgiveness. Psychologically speaking, not obeying – and also not respecting one’s victimizers should be the norm in interpersonal relationships. Psychologically speaking, and in my considered opinion, parental neglect or abuse negates the 4th commandment that commands children to honor their father and mother. Likewise, we should only do business with companies that have earned and therefore truly deserve our respect.
Being suspicious of psychopathic entities is an important strategy to follow if one is to protect oneself from getting cheated or otherwise victimized. Staying out of a sociopath’s grasp is the proper thing to do, even if the person or corporation seems to be charming. Staying clear of anybody or anything that you suspect has no conscience makes tremendous sense, since conscienceless entities are also likely to be liars and thieves and are fully capable of rape, pillage and murder if they feel that there is a chance of getting away with the crime.
Staying away from (boycotting) corporations that have behaved unethically is the best strategy to combat corporate criminality. Corporations hate it when the nonviolent tactic of boycott is used, but in our largely brainwashed, advertised-into-submission citizens, only small minorities of people recognize that they are being victimized by psychopaths. Many victims of corporate crimes seem to be unaware of their victimhood, probably too distracted to understand that they are being cleverly conned.
The concept of corporate power and privilege – to the point of being above the law – has massively benefited Big Businesses at the expense of the “consuming” public, but the reality is that it has been going on for generations. Multinational corporations are increasingly in control of the White House, the US Congress and the federal courts. Both political parties are guilty of being seduced by corporate campaign money/bribes, although it appears that, whereas the Republicans have been 100 % guilty of facilitating attempted corporate takeovers of the US government for a long time, the Democrats still have had a courageous, though very small minority that are resistant to being seduced by obscenely wealthy corporations and assorted greedy billionaires.And now, sadly, it appears that all three branches of the federal government have been totally bought by big money – and it appears that they are staying bought. It is not just politicians that are controlled by corporations anymore.
The mythical “unbiased” US Supreme Court has, in reality, always been heavily influenced by corporate power. After all, throughout US history, it has been wealthy businessmen, wealthy politicians, wealthy judges and wealthy attorneys that have been the ones to be nominated by wealthy presidents that are all members of the same bipartisan “old boy’s club”. So the court has always had sizable numbers of crony capitalists, racist, anti-union justices, depending on which political party was in control of the White House when an old Supreme Court justice retired or died and a new replacement was to be added.
Mussolini wrote that “fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power:” He should know, he invented it.
Fascism is a far right-wing nationalistic political ideology that controls its population by a controlled and censored media, powerful military and police systems that are backed up by a secretive national security state. Fascist nations commonly violate the human rights of its citizens and try to unify the population by creating enemies and scapegoating them. Oftentimes there is a quasi-merger of church and state, anti-intellectual attitudes and corrupt crony capitalism. Always there is an obsession with law and order (with police state tactics), fraudulent elections and a suppression of trade unions.
The pro-Big Business billionaire’s club called the GOP has succeeded in installing all the right-wing, anti-democracy, anti-worker’s rights justices while the decidedly more pro-democracy, pro-small business and pro-labor (but corruptible and bribable) Democratic Party has accounted for the rest; but the current right-wing court has a solid 5-4 majority now.
But it appears that there has been a slow bloodless corporate coup d’etat that has finally overthrown our one person/one vote democracy in America. We are now a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy class).The coup was accomplished gradually – death by a thousand cuts – and it appears now to be in place, never to be declared officially. Wealthy corporations and their billionaires are in charge of everything now, and they have their privatizing eyes on our drinkable water, our breathable air, our arable land and our nourishing food (as Bob Dylan sang in Union Sundown, “I can see the day coming when even your home garden is gonna be against the law”.).
Elections, fooling us to believe that we still live in a democracy, will continue, although the “debates” and speechifying and small monetary donations will be increasingly meaningless. There will be no viable, courageously anti-establishment candidates like Paul Wellstone (or a Green Party or a Democratic Socialist Party) for whom to cast votes. The American dream (that you have to be asleep to believe in, as George Carlin often told us) is gone, and we sheeple were predictably and apathetically snoozing when it disappeared.
By exercising the privileges of corporate personhood while simultaneously refusing to accept the responsibilities of personhood, corporate greed will accelerate the loss of non-renewable resources that will worsen the disappearances of arable land, drinkable water, breathable air and non-renewable energy sources.
It is the greedy, non-human, conscienceless corporations (and NOT “man”) that have positioned the planet to the verge of extinction. The guilty unregulated multinationals are the ones that cause economic crises, and, because there are no consequences for their misdeeds, they are getting away with murder and don’t seem to care. Their motto seems to be: “grab everything you can steal; pay your spokespersons, lawyers and lobbyists well; cleverly bribe your legislators; wine and dine your judges and media collaborators don’t get caught; and let the devil take the hindmost.”
We all know that most of the acts of out-and-out criminality of powerful corporations are rarely punished commensurate with the crime. Wrist slaps are the norm for corporations and the superrich when they are “brought to justice” in front of conservative judges. If there are any consequences for reckless or destructive business practices at all, the company will usually just pay a relatively small, very affordable fine. At worst, it will threaten to move its corporate headquarters and its manufacturing facilities off shore, leaving their smelly messes to be cleaned up by somebody else, just as one would expect of a conscienceless psychopath.
The brazen action of the Roberts’ court in Citizens United might be one of the final nails in the coffin of America’s mortally wounded democracy. Given the fact that the myth of corporate personhood is now legal, it is past time that we of the 99% majority insist that the transnational corporate 1% minority be treated as severely as human criminals are treated. The 99% needs to exercise its duty to preserve and defend the planet from all enemies, foreign or domestic, human or corporate.
And we can’t fail to identify the many domestic enemies that are members of the executive, judicial or legislative branches of our federal and state governments. We need to name the evil and the evil-doers in order to effectively confront them, and, simultaneously, we need to demand that our human rights to healthy water, soil, air, food supplies and affordable health care be safe-guarded from the exploiters in the ruling classes. The future of our children, grandchildren and planet Earth depends on it.
*
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.
Please join the effort to urge Congress to pass legislation to reverse the Citizens United ruling and correct the damage done. (See www.movetoamend.org for more)
Dr. Kohls is involved in peace, nonviolence and justice issues and therefore resists fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism and other movements that are anti-democratic.
In a recent report, Albert Bourla, the chairman and chief executive of the global pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc accepted the prestigious Genesis award for his work leading to the very first vaccine for COVID-19 to be authorized for distribution in the U.S. and Europe.
The crisis in intelligence in the United States has reached an extreme today as the multitude of contractors that feed on massive, and often obscure, budget, clamor to be fed without any concern for the long-term interests of the citizens of the United States, the constitution that defines that nation, or the security of our brittle planet.
In his as always exuberant presentation with his signature accent reminiscent of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Schwab bragged, “I wrote in 2015 the book, ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’. I mentioned 23 or 25 technologies that will change the world.” He went on mentioning some of them. And continued, “The book was considered science fiction, but all those technologies have become realities.”
A week after Sy Hersh’s expose on the Nord Stream pipeline explosions, there is still no word that President Biden who denies any knowledge or involvement in causing an Act of War in the Baltic Sea has yet to offer an explanation to the American public or reach out to Russian President Vladimir Putin – but what possible explanation could be offered when the Biden co-conspirators, millions of Americans and Putin’s Security Council all know the truth.
The massive earthquake on February 6 devastated parts of the northwest of Syria, including the last remaining terrorist occupied area of Idlib. While Latakia and Aleppo were damaged more than Idlib, they are not receiving any aid from the US, EU are other US allied countries because they are under the central government of Damascus.
My title comes from a 19th century author whose name does not matter nor would it mean much if I mentioned him. It’s an old truth that has not changed a bit over the centuries. I think, however, it would be more linguistically accurate to say that most people want to be deceived, for the world, the earth doesn’t give a damn, as the French poet Jacques Prévert reminds us in “Song in the Blood”.
On the stage of the Sanremo Festival, after reading Zelenski’s message the Kyiv band Antytila performed to “transmit a strong message on the Ukrainian resistance to the Italian public”. Shortly before in Brescia and Bergamo, the concerts of the Russian pianist Denis Matsuev scheduled for the International Piano Festival had been cancelled.
The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline was a gangster act that reveals the cancer at the heart of the “rules-based order”. How can there be peace and security when the world’s most powerful nation can destroy the critical infrastructure of other countries without deliberation or judicial proceedings?
In a previous article – which was republished in ActivistPost, and The Burning Platform – readers were introduced on how the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known as NATO, have created a fifth operational domain (the first four being air, land, sea, space) called cyber which they use with great success to propagandise and brainwash the masses around the globe, particularly on social media, as an instrument to gain support for their war follies.
Rumors are growing that the corporate marriage between German drug firm Bayer and American agrochemicals goliath Monsanto may be heading for divorce. Under increasing shareholder pressure following a dramatic slump in Bayer’s stock price over the past 8 years, the German company’s notorious CEO Werner Baumann is set to be replaced with the former head of Swiss drugmaker Roche, Bill Anderson.
Comments Off on Selected Articles: Medical Marvel or the Second Coming of Al Capone? Pfizer’s Sins and Crimes. “We have a vaccine which is killing people”
February 20th, 2023 by Informed Consent Action Network
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
ICAN’s attorneys demand the CDC and FDA explain the alarming results of an audit of VAERS which found major issues with 42% of the reports reviewed.
React19, a patient advocacy organization that represents thousands of people injured following COVID-19 vaccines, recently conducted an audit of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. It shared the results of this audit with ICAN and its legal team. The results are shocking.
As most of you know, VAERS is the database designed to monitor the safety of vaccines in the United States through vaccine injury reports submitted by patients and doctors. VAERS is used by individuals inside and outside the government to assess vaccine safety. It goes without saying that the VAERS system therefore needs to actually include the data submitted to VAERS. Unfortunately, React19’s audit revealed that, in many instances, that is not the case.
Based on its audit of 126 verified VAERS reports randomly collected from its members, React19 found that 5% never made it into the VAERS system, another 22% made it into the system but were not publicly visible, and incredibly another 15% of VAERS reports made it into the system but then were outright deleted! Even more concerning, the majority of the deleted reports consisted of permanent disabilities and emergency room visits! In total, 42% of reports were not accessible in the VAERS system used by many across this country to assess vaccine safety.
In light of these alarming findings, ICAN’s legal team sent a demand letter to the CDC and FDA demanding it explain why this crucial data the public pays for and deserves to see is either unavailable or has been deleted. We will keep you posted on their response. Unfortunately, whatever the response, this is yet another piece of evidence about how our health agencies are not interested in assessing safety, but rather only in affirming their policy and predetermined view these products are safe.
*
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.
Featured image is from ICAN
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
Nicola Sturgeon is discarded, having served her purpose for the British Establishment once she obtained the UK Supreme Court judgment that Scotland could not hold a referendum on Independence.
That fight was deliberately thrown by Sturgeon’s unionist Lord Advocate. After almost nine years of leading Independence supporters into a whole series of blind alleys, with promise after promise broken to deliver a referendum, and mandate after mandate squandered, she appears to have shattered the Independence movement.
Throughout this nine years, Sturgeon was sustained and promoted by the unionist media.
She pretended she wanted Independence, and they pretended to attack her for it.
Meanwhile Sturgeon was given an extraordinarily easy ride over the real failings of her government. The achievements of Alex Salmond in building an extremely efficient reputation for the SNP’s ability to manage the business of government, were all knocked back.
The collusion of the unionist media in hiding Sturgeon’s role in the attempt to frame Alex Salmond on false charges – a conspiracy orchestrated from her office and her husband’s office – showed the Sturgeon/Unionist axis in operation.
Salmond of course was rightly perceived by the unionists as a much more genuine threat to the union. They had a joint interest with Sturgeon in putting him away.
The main cause of bad government performance was Sturgeon’s compulsion to sideline all people of real talent in the SNP, and surround herself only with the extremely mediocre, who would never challenge her.
No leader genuinely concerned with the good of the country would ever appoint Shirley-Anne Somerville to be a minister.
Scotland has slid down the international tables, in healthcare, in education, in substance abuse, in almost every important area. The ferries debacle has been a disaster for the island communities.
Much of this has been a result of the SNP gradualists walking into the devolution trap. Devolution forces the government in Holyrood to try to mitigate the effects of Tory policies, with resources constrained by Tory austerity and hands tied by neo-con fiscal policy.
Devolution is a dead end filled with poison gas. Sturgeon’s lack of urgency to escape from it was inexplicable.
Sturgeon’s place in history will be as the woman who saved the Union in its hour of maximum danger – the moment the UK left the European Union, against the will of the large majority of Scottish people expressed in a referendum.
Having saved the Union then, Sturgeon went on to obtain the Supreme Court ruling against a referendum and subsequently shattered the Independence movement over identity politics.
She succeeded, by refusal to listen sympathetically to concerns of others, to unleash a wave of hatred towards trans people from those who had previously given the question not a moment of thought.
The contrast is astonishing between her softly softly attitude to Scotland’s Independence, where doubters were to be gently persuaded over decades, and her drastic attitude to gender reform, where doubters were to be condemned as misogynists and racists.
Sturgeon was a great boon to the unionists. Whether as useful idiot or as traitor is something history will decide. My money is on the latter.
But after the Supreme Court judgement, the UK Establishment did not need her any more. All that soft soap treatment disappeared. They started to seriously question her, on all points.
There has been a huge change in press tone towards Sturgeon since the Supreme Court judgment. The UK establishment believe they no longer need her to hold back the Independence movement.
I suspect much more tellingly, the Establishment has also finally taken off the gloves over the missing £600,000, that was donated to to a “ring-fenced” fund to campaign in the Indyref2 that Sturgeon did not deliver.
The money disappeared into the SNP’s accounts and where it went is not clear.
I could not understand why Sturgeon blatantly lied at the press conference last week, when asked by Tom Gordon of the Herald when she first knew that her husband had lent £107,000 to the SNP.
She replied she could not recall, and sought to distance herself from the loan, saying he used “his resources”.
Now it is a strange marriage where the husband lends £107,000 without telling the wife. But it is not impossible.
However it is impossible that the leader of the SNP was not told that the party was lent £107,000. Whoever it was from, let alone her own husband.
But I could see no reason that Peter Murrell should not lend the party the money. It was not illegal to do so and arguably a good thing to do. Why on earth would Nicola pretend she didn’t know?
This only started to make sense to me yesterday, when I learnt that Murrell made the loan the day after he was interviewed by the police about the missing £600,000.
No wonder she wanted to distance herself from it, and the timing.
Numerous sources have reported in the last few days that Police Scotland have now been given the go ahead by the Crown Office to pursue a criminal case over the missing money.
That seems the most likely explanation for the timing of her resignation today.
The good news is that, if my sources are correct, the £600,000 question is going to make the coronation of the Angus Robertson family collective as devolutionist party leaders somewhat difficult.
So farewell Nicola Sturgeon. You served the Union well. Now they don’t need you any more and you have been tossed away.
They won’t get you that UN job either (all UN posts need to be agreed with the candidate’s member state). The Establishment is both ruthless and ungrateful. I suspect the protection over the Salmond affair will disappear too.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
If you want a perfect example of how corrupt our system of government has become, just look at the massive cover-up that is going on in East Palestine, Ohio right now. Federal, state and local officials are telling the public that everything is just fine when everything is obviously not just fine.
On February 3rd, a 50-car Norfolk Southern train derailed in East Palestine. Five of the cars were carrying vinyl chloride which is an extremely hazardous substance that has been proven to cause several types of cancer. Unfortunately, with the approval of Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a decision was made on February 6th to conduct a “controlled burn” of the wreckage. They knew that burning the vinyl chloride would create vast amounts of phosgene gas.
By now, most of you already know that phosgene gas was actually used as a chemical weapon in World War I. The cloud of toxic chemicals that was created by the “controlled burn” was so large that it could literally be seen from space, and the long-term health problems that are being caused all over the east coast could stretch on for decades.
But Ohio Governor Mike Dewine doesn’t want to be blamed.
He is telling everyone from East Palestine to go back to their homes, and he insists that the water in the area is “safe to drink”…
Ohio Governor Mike Dewine: "The water is safe to drink. We never thought that the municipal water was contaminated. But out of abundance of caution our Ohio EPA took samples which were analyzed and they in fact came back and were shown to be safe." pic.twitter.com/sGJYZHrG8S
Visited a local creek in East Palestine today. These waterways are still very polluted. It’s time for Norfolk Southern to finish the cleanup. Check this video out: pic.twitter.com/4lsHBmrMJj
Sadly, it isn’t just the water in East Palestine that has been polluted.
Fifty miles away in Pittsburgh, the water is exhibiting similar qualities…
In Pittsburgh, 50 miles east of East Palestine.
The rain is toxic. There is a rainbow film on top of the pools of water. These spots are scattered everywhere in the Bakery Square complex. This is not an oil leak from a car. pic.twitter.com/hfJpri4qR2
The head of the US Environmental Protection Agency has said he would allow his own children to drink and bathe in public water near the site of a train derailment and chemical spill in Ohio, so long as it had been tested and deemed safe by officials.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan visited the site of the East Palestine derailment on Thursday, seeking to reassure skeptical residents that the water is fit for drinking and the air is safe to breathe.
Nobody wants to see your children do that, Michael Regan.
But we would love to see you down a tall, cool glass of tap water from a home right in the middle of East Palestine.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration is going to work relentlessly to downplay the severity of this crisis because they know that if they admitted the truth it would make them look bad to the voters.
And there is a presidential election coming up in less than two years.
The White House explained why it turned down Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s request for disaster relief this week in the aftermath of a derailment of a train hauling toxic chemicals.
A Biden administration official told Fox News Digital that it has provided extensive assistance to surrounding communities following the chemical release earlier this month in eastern Ohio. However, the official said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency that usually provides relief to communities hit by hurricanes and other natural disasters, isn’t best equipped to support the state’s current needs.
I was floored when I saw that.
We have just witnessed one of the greatest environmental disasters in the entire history of our country, and the Biden administration is not even willing to grant a request for disaster relief?
Ultimately, this is all about protecting the asses of the politicians and protecting the asses of the executives and shareholders of Norfolk Southern.
To the elite, it really doesn’t matter if the poor people of East Palestine all get cancer and die.
What matters is controlling the narrative, and up to this point the corporate media is doing a wonderful job of helping them do it.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
A respected investigative journalist explains how the U.S. sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines. But corporate media working in service to the state ignore the story and endanger the world.
“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The idea behind this old thought experiment should not be relegated to the realm of philosophy. Present day reality can be used in place of hypothetical falling trees. If the United States blows up the Nord Stream pipelines but the media ignores it, did the attack ever happen?
Seymour Hersh has all of the credentials that usually give one gravitas in the world of journalism. As a freelance reporter he exposed the U.S. army’s 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai and won a Pulitzer Prize for his efforts. He later worked at the New York Times and reported on high profile stories such as the Watergate revelations, and the CIA coup against the government of Chile. In 2004 Hersh exposed torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison for The New Yorker.
None of these accomplishments helped Hersh when he recently provided evidence of what had long been obvious, that the Biden administration blew up the Nord Stream pipelines on September 26, 2022. In a 5,200 word article published on his Substack entitled How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline , Hersh utilized highly placed sources who presented as one might say the “receipts” of how the deed was done.
Joe Biden and his foreign policy team at the State Department, National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency first discussed the operation one year before carrying it out, and months before Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine began. The fear of deepening integration between Russia and Germany was the cause of alarm. They wanted to end Europe’s resource and financial connections to Russia, and decided that exploding the means of transporting natural gas was a good idea. According to Hersh’s source(s) the plot was carried out with help from Norway, a NATO member nation that made itself the sole source of natural gas in the region by helping in the attack. The current Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, was formerly a prime minister of Norway.
The U.S. had the motive, means, and opportunity and spent many months confessing to the plot and then to the crime after it took place. In February 2022 Biden pledged to stop the Nord Stream 2 project and added for good measure, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.” After the explosion Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all end the dependence on Russian energy.” Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland smugly said at a Senate hearing, “Senator Cruz, like you I am and I think the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
Hersh’s article was a sensation online when it was published on February 8, 2023 but it has been ignored by major corporate media ever since. One has to ask if it really happened when the New York Times, Washington Post and television networks ignore what ought to be a huge news story.
It isn’t hard to understand why the same individuals and institutions who act as state mouthpieces would want to sweep Hersh’s reporting under the rug. For months they have acted as scribes instead of as journalists. The days when they would compete to break a scoop that a president wanted covered up are long gone. They now go along with establishment narratives, and promote imperialism as much as the people they are tasked with covering and confronting. Not one person asked about Hersh’s revelations at the daily white house press briefing the day after it was published.
Not only have the media ignored what Hersh reported but Republicans who claim to oppose Biden and the Democrats have also been silent. There are impeachable offenses committed in Hersh’s account but the people who should be asking questions have demurred. Republicans were as eager as Democrats to end Nord Stream’s existence. The word collusion which was bandied about so much in recent years is apropos here and that means the Hersh story is now at the bottom of the sea politically.
Biden is the fox in charge of the hen house, preparing to ask congress for the biggest defense budget in history, in large part to replenish the weapons used in Ukraine. The people who are asked to accept austerity for themselves are largely ignorant of how the conflict started and why their money is used for every purpose except for those that benefit them.
The Nord Stream sabotage is not the only news story which has been deep sized. The decision to sabotage Nord Stream was very reckless, and a sign that Biden and his team are willing to risk a wider war in order to do what they cannot, weaken Russia or get Vladimir Putin out of office, or destroy Russia economically. At the very moment that people in this country need to know the hard truth, it is being kept from them.
So complete is the indoctrination that Biden’s obvious instability is never discussed, even when the public see it for themselves unfiltered. At the State of the Union address he made this odd remark, “Name me a world leader who’d change places with Xi Jinping! Name me one! Name me one!” The strange outburst was never given the attention that it deserved.
The media are behaving in a manner that violates their own ethics and that may in fact be criminal. Lest anyone forget, the post-World War II Nuremberg trials charged the German press with committing “propaganda as an instrument of war.” Now in the nuclear age the media in what is known as the “collective west” are acting in a similar fashion, covering up crimes and repeating lies as truth in the name of making and continuing war.
The Biden administration did sabotage Nord Stream whether the media say so or not. Their lack of attention doesn’t change facts, but it does disappear them and that is incredibly dangerous to the entire world.
*
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.
Featured image: “The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow water a few miles off Denmark’s Bornholm Island” (Image: Seymour Hersh Substack)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (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.
***
The meeting of the defence ministers of the Pentagon’s Ukraine Defence Contact Group in the “Ramstein” format in Brussels on January 14 failed to make any major announcement on the supply of offensive weapons to Kiev.
But the US President Joe Biden is expected in Poland early next week and may have another face-to-face meeting with Ukraine President Vladimir Zelensky. Biden probably intends to make a splash before declaring his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election.
The Biden Administration hopes to push Germany to the war front in Ukraine but the meeting in Brussels ended up inconclusively. Later, the press conference by the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin had an air of vacuity, of empty-headedness, devoid of content.
Against this murky backdrop, all that the NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg would say was that the supply of military aircraft to Ukraine is being discussed, but this is not an urgent problem. According to him, the current conflict is a “struggle of logistics” and ammunition, so the alliance needs not so much to provide Ukraine with new weapons, as to make sure that everything that has already been delivered works. Stoltenberg stressed the need to deliver on the promises regarding German Marder infantry fighting vehicles, American Bradley, as well as Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks.
The single biggest announcement by Austin on Tuesday was about a decision by the Norwegian government that it will provide 7.5 billion euros in military and civilian assistance to Ukraine over the coming five years. He called it “a very significant commitment.”
Austin pretended it never occurred to him why Norway is making such a grand gesture, which is in reality a pathetic act of atonement for destroying the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Therein hangs a tale.
Of course, the Ramstein meeting did not discuss the bombshell report by Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist with a track record of breaking major stories, on how the US reduced Germany’s Nord Stream gas pipelines to “a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea” — to borrow the immortal words of Victoria Nuland, US Undersecretary of State — as the conflict in Ukraine was raging.
According to Hersh’s source, the decision to sabotage the pipeline came directly from President Biden and the subsequent top secret debate within the US administration lasting some 9 months was on how to achieve the goal without getting caught.
Hersh’s report on February 8 disclosed wrote that it was the Norwegian navy which finally found the optimal location for blowing up the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. Thus, on September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane dropped a sonar buoy in a seemingly routine flight, triggering high-powered C4 explosives that had been planted on the pipelines.
Hersh has since explained to the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung that Norway was particularly interested in successfully pulling off the plot against the Nord Stream pipelines.
In his words,
“Norway was interested in income growth, and hence in increasing the volume of its energy supplies to the EU, to the same Germany. And what do we see after the mission? Norway has made it. It’s (energy) exports grew against the backdrop of significant hostility towards Russia.”
Norway was attracted to Biden’s sabotage project like a fly to the honeypot, since it stood to gain fabulously in financial terms if it helped the US military to destroy Nord Stream pipelines near Danish waters, and replace Russia as Germany’s principal source of piped natural gas.
To be sure, Norway has made a kill. The loot is estimated to be worth over $100 billion so far! Norway supplied 33 percent of Germany’s gas needs in 2022, making it the country’s largest supplier.
“Norway’s position as a key provider of energy to Germany is set to further increase in the years to come, including from new Arctic fields coming on line and new discoveries above the Arctic Circle… Expanded production above the Arctic Circle, arriving from the Irpa field 340 km west of Bodø scheduled to come online in 2026, as well as new discoveries in the Barents Sea including one made in 2022 adjacent to Goliat, will be key to maintaining peak production.
“With Germany largely disconnected from Russian pipeline gas, the door for Norway to further expand its market share and establish itself as the country’s primary gas supplier remains open.”
Ironically, at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in August 2022, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre claimed that “Norway delivers as much gas as possible to Germany.” Of course, what he didn’t tell Scholz was that Norway was about to execute a project to transform Germany, Europe’s largest consumer of natural gas, as a captive market for it very soon. Actually, Norway blew up the Nord Stream pipelines only a month later on September 22.
Norway is now burnishing its image as a rich country capable of the milk of human kindness, which is generously sharing a whopping 7.5 billion euros (out of the windfall profit of $100 billion from the German loot) with Ukraine. And Austin announces it as a grand gesture to thwart Russian “aggression”!
This sordid pantomime provokes an incredulous gasp. One cannot but take pity on the German nation which is saddled in these tumultuous times with a mediocre government of inexperienced, dubious politicians who dare not defend their country’s core interests against American bullying.
The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was spot on when he spoke at length for the first time about the Nord Stream pipelines and Seymour Hersh’s article at a working meeting on February 15 with heads of foreign media bureaus accredited in Russia:
“The main goal was to prevent Germany from feeling comfortable in the energy sphere and from receiving gas via these two pipelines, which were financed by companies in Russia, Germany, Austria and Italy… Germany has not simply been humiliated; it has been put in its place as a satellite of the United States…”
Norway is not squeamish about giving away a tiny portion of its loot from Germany, a NATO partner Germany. Maybe, it is indulging in an act of atonement over a fiendish crime perpetrated on a neighbour and ally. Maybe, the Biden team urged Norway to burnish its credentials as a Good Samaritan. And Austin hailed it as a solid outcome of the Ramstein meeting at Brussels.
*
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.
“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
