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

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

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

***

Sweden’s refusal to share information about the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines is “puzzling,” and withholding the results of the investigation means that “Swedish authorities are hiding something,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

Traces of explosives were found near the sites of the explosions at the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, Sweden said in November, noting that the incident is “gross sabotage.”

Gas leaks in each of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were discovered at the end of September from the infrastructure just outside Swedish and Danish territorial waters in the Baltic Sea.

An investigation launched by the Swedish authorities concluded that the leaks were the result of detonations, likely the result of “serious sabotage”.

Sweden, Denmark, and Germany are also jointly investigating the incident with the gas pipelines built to carry Russian gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea.

Nord Stream 2 was never put into operation after Germany axed the certification process following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia, for its part, shut down Nord Stream 1 indefinitely in early September, claiming an inability to repair gas turbines because of the Western sanctions.

Today, Russia criticized Sweden’s refusal to share information about the findings of the investigation with Russia, and Zakharova said that “Russian experts in the course of an objective investigation may come to uncomfortable conclusions and, finally, reveal to the public the ugly truth about who committed these acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks,” as carried by Russian news agency TASS.

“The hiding of facts is evidence of the obvious: the Swedish authorities are hiding something,” Zakharova added.

Last year, Russia accused the UK Navy of being involved in the explosions that put the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines out of commission.

*

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.

Michael Kern is a news writer and editor at Safehaven.com and Oilprice.com.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

Israel: Tens of Thousands Protest Government in Tel Aviv

January 16th, 2023 by Middle East Eye

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

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

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

***

Tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets in central Tel Aviv on Saturday to protest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new far-right coalition government.

Police in Tel Aviv said around 80,000 protesters had gathered at and around Habima square. Protests were also taking place in Jerusalem, Haifa and other cities, as centre and left-wing parties, including the Hadash-Taal alliance – a joint list of two Arab-majority political parties – called on Israelis to reject new government policies.

The demonstrations were organised under the call of  “saving democracy”, in criticism of some hardline stances the ultra-conservative government has adopted, including planned reforms to the country’s justice system.

A main concern of opposition groups is a recently-proposed reform that would allow parliament to override decisions made by the Supreme Court. Analysts have warned that such a programme could potentially allow lawmakers to uphold any annulment of the corruption charges Netanyahu is being tried on.

An open letter published on Thursday by 11 former prosecutors said the reforms threaten to destroy Israel’s judiciary.

Retired Supreme Court President Ayala Procaccia addressed those on the streets of Tel Aviv on Saturday, warning that “a country in which judges go out to protest is a country where all lines were crossed”, Haaretz reported.

‘Fascists in the Knesset’

Itai Niger, a 37-year-old from Tel Aviv, told Middle East Eye that he had attended the protest because he hoped to help send a message against “the regime and fascism”.

“I can’t stay at home and do nothing anymore,” Niger said. “I decided to take part against what is happening now because this government is really dangerous and has the potential to change things for the worse in terms of rights.

In Israel, there is already a big problem of inequality, and there will be more abuse of power and corruption now. If there is a way to stand against that, then I will be there.”

“I really, really hope that this marks some kind of awakening in this country,” he continued.

In addition to court reforms, opposition protesters rallied against the new government’s intentions to pursue a policy of settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank and social reforms that have worried members and supporters of the LGBTQ+ community.

Signs written in Hebrew and Arabic held up by the demonstrators gathered in Habima Square on Saturday reflected the diversity of demands: “The time has come to bring down the dictator”; “government of shame”; “There is no democracy with the occupation “; “Bibi does not want democracy, we do not need fascists in the Knesset”; “Iran is here”; and “You will love the other as yourself”.

Rain started early Saturday evening, raising worries that the weather could affect attendance, but opposition leaders called on protesters to come out despite the wet conditions.

“Everyone should take an Israel flag in one hand, an umbrella in the second and come to defend democracy and the law in Israel,” former Defence Minister Benny Gantz said on Twitter on Saturday ahead of his arrival at Habima square.

Many did just that, as images show blocks of demonstrators carrying overlapping umbrellas, creating a cover that obscured the people huddled beneath them.

Netanyahu is the first sitting Israeli prime minister indicted while in office. He denies the charges against him of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. He took office late last month following his 1 November election win, heading a coalition that includes a politician who last year admitted tax evasion and a clutch of far-right personalities, including one who once kept a portrait in his home of a man who massacred scores of Palestinian worshippers.

Last week, the new national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvirordered the state’s police commissioner to enforce a directive to remove Palestinian flags from public spaces a day after one was waved at a previous anti-government protest in Tel Aviv.

Despite the order, several Palestinian flags were spotted during Saturday’s demonstration in the coastal city.

*

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: Israeli protesters demonstrate in Tel Aviv against the country’s new hard-right government JACK GUEZ via Al-Monitor

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

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

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

***

 

 

The UK has planned or executed over 40 attempts to remove foreign governments in 27 countries since the end of the Second World War, involving the intelligence agencies, covert and overt military interventions and assassinations, Declassified has found.

Probably the most well-known coup staged by British intelligence since 1945 was the overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected government in 1953 – an operation planned with the CIA. But the UK has been involved in at least 41 other attempts to overthrow governments since the end of the Second World War.

These have ranged from intelligence-led to military-led operations, both overt and covert, with some being successful from Whitehall’s standpoint, while many have failed to achieve their objectives.

Many remain little known, while others are shrouded in secrecy, with only a few details having emerged.

The year 1953 was in fact a busy one for Whitehall planners since, as well as removing Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran, they sent a gunboat to overthrow the democratically-elected government in British Guiana, led by the popular nationalist Cheddi Jagan.

At the same time, they were promoting anti-government propaganda operations in another Latin American state, Guatemala. That British campaign prepared the ground for the 1954 CIA-engineered overthrow of another nationalist, and elected government, under Jacobo Arbenz.

As if this wasn’t enough, UK covert operatives were also busy at the time planning the removal and assassination of Egypt’s president Gamal Abdel Nasser, in various schemes after Nasser took power in a 1952 nationalist revolution.

Nasser’s assumption to power challenged Britain’s position in the Middle East and the stability of the repressive, conservative monarchies – many of them near-medieval in nature – that Whitehall, then and now, was propping up, especially in the Gulf region.

Indeed, it was such nationalist forces that were the UK’s main enemies in the so-called ‘third world’ after 1945, even as mainstream journalists and academics endlessly wrote about the Soviet threat and the Cold War.

Click here to view the interactive map

Relentless planning

In the 1950s, British regime change planning was relentless, with further known operations drawn up to promote uprisings against nationalist governments in Syria in 1956 and in 1957, neither of which were fully implemented.

One plan that was put into effect, however, was the covert war instigated with the US in Indonesia – intended to stimulate an uprising against President Sukarno, beginning in the country’s myriad outer islands. It remains one of the UK’s least known covert operations, and eventually failed.

Sukarno was overthrown a decade later, however, in one of the 20th century’s worst bloodbaths, enacted by the Indonesian military under General Suharto. The declassified files show the UK backed the 1965/66 slaughters of communists, leftists and ordinary villagers, which killed hundreds of thousands of people.

The UK conducted media operations to counter Sukarno and delivered covert messages to the Generals assuring them of the UK’s acquiescence in their takeover. Suharto ruled Indonesia, often resorting to sheer brutality, for three decades.

Ruling the world?

Throughout the 1960s there was little let-up in Whitehall officials’ belief they could put in power whoever they wanted, at least in certain countries.

In 1961, evidence suggests that they had a hand in the murder of Patrice Lumumba, Congo’s first democratically-elected leader who was subject to a vicious MI6 and CIA campaign to overthrow him before he was captured and tortured.

Media operations by the Foreign Office’s notorious Information Research Department – a propaganda unit set up in 1948 – also helped overthrow Brazil’s João Goulart in 1964. His programme of ambitious land reform and extending the vote to Brazil’s illiterate population incensed the country’s political, military, and business elite – and the CIA which eventually helped remove him.

By now, Britain was making sure that Cheddi Jagan – who had made a comeback after being removed ten years earlier – could not consolidate his power in British Guiana, as officials rigged the system in a constitutional coup to ensure he could not be elected again.

The mid-1960s was also an era of palace coups in the UK’s client states in the Gulf region.

In 1964, British military officers based in Saudi Arabia, who were advising the Saudi National Guard, helped Prince Faisal remove his older brother, King Saud. The following year, the British sponsored the removal of the ruler of the emirate of Sharjah – Saqr bin Sultan al-Qasimi – in favour of another – Khalid bin Mohammed Al Kasimi.

Then in the following year, they conducted a similar exercise in another emirate, Abu Dhabi, again replacing its ruler with his brother – Zayed bin Sultan Al Nayhan, the father of the current president of the United Arab Emirates.

In 1970 came a coup in another closely-controlled British puppet state – Oman – that was organised by British officers. It put in power Sultan Qaboos, who ruled with an iron fist for a further 50 years until his death in 2020.

Click here to read the entire list

Assassinating Gaddafi – and a few others

Almost as soon as Muammar Gaddafi seized power in a military coup in Libya in 1969, nationalising British oil operations, Britain tried to remove him. First came a planneduprising and coup in 1970-71, which was not, however, carried out.

Over a decade later, the UK offered its air bases to US warplanes conducting airstrikes on Tripoli, Libya’s capital, that targeted Gaddafi’s compound, killing a few dozen people but not him.

Britain tried again 10 years later, in 1996, when MI6 secretly funded Islamist militants to assassinate Gaddafi in the city of Sirte, an operation that again killed bystanders but not the Libyan ruler.

In 2011, Britain got him, launching a major air campaign and covert support to Islamist militants on the ground to finally overthrow the regime, with Gaddafi being killed in October of that year.

However, it wasn’t only Gaddafi, Nasser and Lumumba who are believed to have been targeted for assassination, according to evidence that has emerged. Former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson alleged that MI6 drew up plans to kill Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic in 1992.

Then there is Uganda. In 1969, it has been contended that the UK planned the assassination of President Milton Obote – who Britain confronted because of his nationalist economic policies and his opposition to apartheid South Africa.

In the mid-1970s, prime minister Harold Wilson proposed assassinating the murderous Idi Amin, Obote’s successor. By the late 1970s, foreign secretary David Owen said that he also proposed assassinating Amin, who eventually lived out his days in exile in Saudi Arabia.

More coups

Throughout the decades of trying to liquidate Gaddafi and others, Britain instigated other operations to remove governments, about most of which little information has emerged and which remain murky.

While Africa, Asia and Latin America were the main chessboard for British planners, Europe was not off the agenda. In 1976, evidence points to British involvement in a coup plot to topple the government in Italy, at a time when the Italian Communist Party (PCI) looked as if it might win or influence the next government.

Reports also suggest MI6 was involved in two coups in Azerbaijan, in 1992 and 1993, to promote British – specifically BP’s – oil interests in the country. Few details are known about these episodes. One of the later media reports detailing the operations was pulled, presumably the impact of a government D-Notice, and little has emerged since.

In the past decade, UK covert operatives have remained active in attempting to remove governments. Bashar Assad of Syria has been the target of a years-long British operation to train and support the armed opposition, and to promote media and aid operations in support of regime change.

In Latin America, Declassified has revealed that the British ambassador supported the right wing coup against President Evo Morales in 2019, and that the UK’s interests in securing access to lithium played a key role.

In Venezuela, the UK, along with several other Western countries, recognised an alternative government to Nicolas Maduro in 2019, backing Juan Guaido as ‘interim president’. Britain has also recently promoted media and NGO projects to back the Venezuelan opposition.

This has joined the ranks of failed UK regime change operations, since in early 2023, Guaido was forced to quit when Venezuela’s Congress dissolved his ‘government’.

Welcoming overthrows

This list of coups and overthrows is an emerging one – further examples and details will no doubt trickle out in the future. What this list does not include are those coups that the UK welcomed but did not play a direct part in, as far as is known.

For example, the declassified files show the British government strongly welcomed the bloody coup led by General Augusto Pinochet that overthrew Chile’s democratically-elected Salvador Allende in 1973.

British officials also gave strong support to Idi Amin when he seized power in Uganda in 1971, and may have had a hand in his takeover, after long wanting to oust his predecessor, Obote.

The following decade, Margaret Thatcher’s government strongly supported the US invasion of Panama in 1989, intended to overthrow Manuel Noriega. She also – reluctantly at first – publicly backed Washington’s intervention in Grenada in 1983, which removed the government of Maurice Bishop, who was subsequently executed.

Malign, benign

Some of the British interventions have been against repressive, malign forces. In the early postwar years, the covert operations in Ukraine and the Baltic states were intended to promote uprisings against Stalin’s brutal emerging rule.

Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, another consistent British target from the 1990s, was a monster. But he began being a monster in the 1980s when the UK armed and traded with him to fight Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.

Libya’s Gaddafi was hardly benign but his tyranny, which brought development to many in Libya, might seem positive compared to the terrorism, anarchy and ongoing war following the British intervention in 2011.

But many British coups have specifically targeted progressive, popular forces – deliberately to remove them in favour of governments promoting British and Western economic interests.

Mossadeq’s nascent democracy was overthrown for the benefit of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Corporation, a forerunner of BP. Cheddi Jagan’s government was removed because his economic policies, that benefitted Guyana’s poor, threatened British sugar and bauxite interests.

Lumumba, Arbenz and Goulart were others that presented a leftist development model as an alternative to pro-corporate policies promoted in London and Washington, that offered positive prospects for the millions of poor people in the developing world.

It was largely for this reason that they became victims of British, and American, 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.

Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Britain’s 42 Coups Since 1945: Over 40 Attempts to Remove Foreign Governments in 27 Countries
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Today Judge Gerard J. Neri ruled the covid vaccine mandate for New York healthcare workers implemented by Governor Kathy Hochul is arbitrary, capricious, null & void, and cannot be enforced.

This means the Healthcare workers should be reinstated to their jobs!

However we can be pretty sure that Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Tish James will be appealing this decision which may pause the ruling from taking effect until the appeal was decided.

Judge Neri repeatedly states that the covid vaccine does not prevent transmission and therefore does not serve the purpose put forth by the state. Attorney Sujata Gibson is also my attorney, and the lead attorney in Kane v. de Blasio as well as New Yorkers for Religious Liberty (NYFRL) v. NYC. All of these cases are backed by Children’s Health Defense.

This victory is a very good sign for teachers and educators who have been fired for declining covid vaccination, as it is also a good sign for all fired frontline workers as well.

Read Judge Neri’s decision here:

Click here to read the full document.

*

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 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.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

Rampant Speculation: Uranium, Dirty Bombs and Heathrow

January 16th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

***

The dirty bomb and its purportedly famed radiation dispersal attributes has an undeserved mythology.  It serves to bloat budgets and confer grants on specious theories propounded by specious theorists. It is all rather easy to make a security threat up, and a celluloid, Hollywood scenario of a dirty bomb going off in the middle of a metropolis killing thousands is just one of those instances.  Scaring people is child’s play and often the work of the unscrupulous.

This month, it was announced that staff at London’s Heathrow airport, where the appearance of snowflakes is enough to cancel flights, encountered what was alleged to be cargo contaminated by uranium on December 29.  The Sun was the first paper to scream from the rooftops about a “Deadly shipment of uranium seized at Heathrow en route to Iranians based in UK”.  The paper went on to suggest that the material in question “can be used in a dirty bomb.”  In the narrative, all the appropriate countries were mentioned: dark origins in Pakistan; arrival on a flight from Oman; destination: UK-based nationals from Iran.

The relevant authorities were also involved.  Border Force agents “swooped and isolated the unregistered shipment in a dedicated radioactive room.”  Counter-terrorism police “were alerted and a security probe launched into who sent the cargo.” An unnamed source excitedly told The Sun that relevant security bosses “are treating this with the seriousness it deserves.  Protocol was not followed and this is now an anti-terror operation.”

The Met Police issued a statement on January 10 confirming that “officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command were contacted by Border Force colleagues at Heathrow after a very small amount of contaminated material was identified after routine screening within a package incoming to the UK on December 29.”

The Daily Mail went so far as to describe the quantity as being all uranium, running into “several kilos”.  An unspecified source told the paper that, “The package contained kilos of uranium – but it was not weapons-grade.”  Never one to be troubled by the irritations of evidence, the Mail ignored the Met Police’s own description of the seized cargo as being contaminated material of a “very small amount”. The Guardian was more conservative in its assessment: the shipment consisted of “metal bars embedded with uranium.”

That such minute quantities were involved was also confirmed by the head of the Met’s SO15 counter-terror branch, Commander Richard Smith: “I want to reassure the public that the amount of contaminated material was extremely small and has been assessed by experts as posing no threat to the public.”

Commander Smith, to his credit, was not keen to nourish the tabloid fear machine.  “Although our investigation remains ongoing, from our inquiries so far, it does not appear to be linked to any direct threat.  As the public would expect, we will continue to follow up on all available lines of enquiry to ensure this is definitely the case.”

The security experts were immediately called in to sing for their ill-deserved supper. Will Geddes suggested that this was a “dry-run” operation, despite admitting that it was “speculation” on his part.  “If you are trying to move contraband through an environment like a drug dealer would, you may courier it through certain channels to see which ones work before moving larger amounts.”

Further speculation from Geddes followed.  “If the uranium is unrefined, it would be used in a nuclear facility, if it is refined it would be more likely to be used in a dirty bomb.  If it is refined, that would indicate a malicious device of some sort.”

Former commander of the UK’s nuclear defence regiment Hamish De Bretton-Gordon was troubled.  “For the uranium to turn up on a commercial airliner from Pakistan to an Iranian address in the UK is very suspect.”  He proceeded to add fuel to the fire.  “The nuclear threat has never been higher.  Higher than it has ever been in the Cold War.”

From the corridors of speculation, The Sun managed to pinch another opinion worthy of celebration by the jingoes, this time from an unnamed “former army chief”, who claimed that the “deadly shipment could have been used for a Litvinenko-style assassination plot.”

Despite the growing compendium of concerns, a more sensible undercurrent of opinion did suggest that the uranium in question was, in all likelihood, too bulky and ineffectual to be used in the making of a bomb device.  Bahram Ghiassee of the Henry Jackson Society, a neoconservative outfit not always known for its moderate stance, was critical of the news coverage suggesting that the bomb scenario was even plausible.  “For dirty bombs, you need highly radioactive material … and uranium is not suitable at all.”

It should have been also clear to the alarmists that detecting undeclared radioactive material at transport hubs and ports of entry are not infrequent occurrences, the UK being no exception.

Since the revelation, a man in his 60s has been arrested under section 9 of the Terrorism Act of 2006, which criminalises the possession of radioactive materials with the intent of using them for terrorism purposes.  He has been released on bail pending a hearing in April.  While such legal wheels turn, the yellow press merchants will continue to do their worst, inflating unnecessary threats, while ignoring others.

*

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]

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rampant Speculation: Uranium, Dirty Bombs and Heathrow

上海的疫情清零政策——人为导致的中国经济萧条?

January 16th, 2023 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

***

The Shanghai “COVID Zero Tolerance Mandate”. Engineered Depression of China’s Economy?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 14, 2022

请将本文转发给中国读者。

***

首次发布于 2022 7 12

2022 3 月下旬开始,中国政府下令对拥有 2600 万人口的上海实施新冠疫情清零封锁:

“上海市政府发布的官方通告得到了中央政府的默许,但因其过于极端而招致许多批评的声音。从2022年3月28日起,针对新冠肺炎这种根本不存在的虚假疾病的疫情清零封锁首先在黄浦江东侧开始实施,随后在4月1日扩展到整个城市,所有公民都将接受新冠检测。据媒体报道,当时上海仅发现了 26087 例新增新冠肺炎病例,其中只有914例病例出现了症状……  伊曼纽尔·帕斯特里奇

 基于清零政策,上海开始实施封锁(几乎所有劳动力被限制在原地):“为了对抗奥密克戎变异株……来自中国各地的至少38000名医务人员被派往上海支援医疗工作……”(环球时报

奥密克戎成为流行语:奥密克戎变异株及其 BA.5 亚分支

中国卫生当局已确认核酸(即 PCR)检测是其战略的核心。中国国家卫生健康委员会主持成立了以梁万年博士为首的 Covid-19疫情应对处置工作领导小组清零政策试图实现中国击败奥密克戎变异株的目标,其措施包括使用完全没有效力的核酸检测,这种测试并不能区分新冠肺炎和季节性流感。2021 12 31 日起,核酸检测被美国疾病控制与预防中心认定为完全无效。

高福博士的角色

中国的卫生当局全盘认可了福奇盖茨的伪科学封锁共识。中国疾病预防控制中心 CCDC)由高福博士领导,他曾与安东尼·福奇等人共事

高博士参与了 2019 10 月举行的新冠病毒大流行情景201桌面模拟,当时距离2019 12 月新冠病毒在武汉“实际”爆发不到三个月。高福博士从一开始就领导着中国的新冠疫情防控工作,与美国疾病预防控制中心、福奇领导的美国国家过敏和传染病研究所( NIAID)、盖茨基金会、世界卫生组织、约翰霍普金斯大学等保持着密切的联系。

高福毕业于牛津大学。多年来,他一直是与大型制药公司有联系的惠康信托基金的成员,也是安东尼·福奇的同事和老朋友 

2020328日,中国疾病预防控制中心负责人高福收到了安东尼·福奇的电子邮件。美国封锁几天后。当福奇因处理疫情而遭受批评时,高福再次向他表示支持:我收到一些消息(希望是假的),说[]遭到了一些人的攻击。这太不合理了,希望你一切安好, 202048日写道。三天后,福奇回复并感谢他的老朋友的好意。据该报报道,福奇写道:尽管世界上有一些疯子,但我一切都很好。

安东尼·福奇博士是一位两面派

从一开始,福奇就一直警告新冠(SARS-CoV-2)病毒(包括其变异株和亚分支)的危险性和情况的紧迫性,同时他又在《新英格兰医学杂志》的同行评议文章中承认:

Covid-19新冠病毒的总体临床后果最终可能更类似于严重的季节性流感(病死率约为 0.1%)或大流行性流感(类似于1957 年和 1968 年的情况)……”(见 Covid-19 探索未知领域NEJM)

我们可以看到这一时机是经过谨慎选择的:该文章于 2020 年 3 月 26 日由 NEJM 发表,两周之前的311日,联合国对193个成员国实施了全球 Covid-19 大流行封锁。福奇博士的 NEJM 同行评议分析(几乎没有被媒体提及)与他在网络电视上的疯狂言论背道而驰,二者形成鲜明对比。2020 年 3 月 28 日(在他的同行评议文章发表后 2 天),他发表言论称“Covid 可能杀死多达 200,000 名美国人”

这与中国有关吗?

安东尼·福奇是高福的导师,他们所倡导和应用的政策框架完全相同。中国的新冠疫情清零政策完全复制了2020311日由安东尼·福奇、比尔·盖茨等人在(与世界经济论坛密切合作的)世卫组织主持下进行的(基于伪科学”的)封锁。中国的新冠清零使命是建立在恐慌运动之上的。

上海封锁对经济的破坏性影响

2022 年 7 月 10 日,中国卫生当局宣布,为了对抗“高传染性的奥密克戎BA.5 亚分支”,已指示几个主要城市实施新冠清零政策。大量劳动力被限制在众多大型工业城市中,从而导致经济和社会混乱以及经济活力的急剧下降。 据路透社报道:

“陕西省西安市辽宁省大连等城市检测到在许多其他国家迅速传播的BA.5 [亚分支] 病毒,…… 中国疾病预防控制中心表示中国在5月13日在对从乌干达飞往上海的一位病例的检测中首次发现该变异株,当月没有与该病例有关的本地感染病例。

那位来自乌干达的“病人”回国后做核酸检测了吗?变异株和亚分支在任何情况下都无法被 核酸测试检测到。(核酸检测无法检测出原始的新冠SARS-CoV-2病毒)。中国疾病预防控制中心病毒病预防控制所的研究侧重于基于核酸鼻咽拭子检测基因序列,这具有误导性。

大量城市地区已经被关闭,然而这些措施没有任何科学或公共卫生依据:

“在河南省中部,沁阳从周日开始几乎完全封锁了近70万居民,每家每户每两天允许一人外出买菜。

河南另一个城镇舞钢的当局已告知其 290000 名居民在接下来的三天内除非进行新冠病毒检测,否则一律居家不得外出。

位于中国西北部甘肃省的兰州市的四个主要地区和南部的海南省儋州海口等城市被临时封锁数日,共有600万人受到影响。

周六,拥有 630 万居民的江西省南昌市关闭了许多娱乐场所,但没有具体说明该限制措施的持续时间。

西北部的青海省西宁在周日有一人检测呈阳性后,于周一启动了大规模检测活动。

周一,南部一线城市广州的几个主要地区也开始了大规模检测。”

2022年7月11日,中国国家卫健委公布了中国大陆的以下数据:

  • 7 月 10 日共记录了352 例新增本土感染病例
  • 新增46 例有症状病例,
  • 新增无症状病例306

14.5亿人口中有46例新增有症状病例不能成为关闭中国主要城市地区的理由。

  • 这个决定近乎可笑。
  • 它没有科学依据。
  • 是否背后另有隐情?
  • 它得到中共默许了吗?
  • 中国领导层内部是否存在分歧?

西方媒体和中国媒体对此事都完全闭口不提。

中国国家卫健委和中国疾控中心提出的这些措施,已经使中国的供应链陷入了危机之中。严格的“清零政策”对上海的金融业及其蓬勃发展的出口经济造成了动荡,还破坏了国内运输物流和商品供应。

中国的健康

新冠清零政策带来了一场社会浩劫,给数百万人的生活造成了困难,定期实施的核酸检测及根据其结果使用绿色、黄色和红色健康码成为一种控制社会的手段。

位于华盛顿的战略与国际研究中心 (CSIS) 称赞道:

“迅速推广的线上“健康码”系统是一项巨大的成功,它可以在其他国家得到推广。这个创新性的应用程序直接通过一个人的智能手机跟踪个人的旅行记录、与他人的接触历史和生物特征数据(例如体温)。(例举重点)

 

对全球经济的影响

2022 4 月中旬(恰逢上海封城)以来,人民币(CNY)兑美元(USD)的汇率突然下跌。

进出上海港(及其他主要港口城市)的商品贸易量有所下降,这不可避免地影响到中国制造商品的全球供应。

中国制造”的商品是零售贸易的支柱,它强有力地支撑着家庭消费所包含的几乎所有主要商品类别,包括服装、鞋类、五金、电子产品、玩具、珠宝、家居用品、食品、电视机、手机等。对于美国消费者来说这张清单很长。

从中国进口是一项价值数万亿美元的利润丰厚的业务。它是美国巨大利润和财富的源泉,因为从中国低工资经济体进口的消费品,其零售价往往是出厂价的十倍以上。

批发和零售层面的全球大宗商品贸易已经陷入危机。全球基本消费品稀缺加上通胀压力,对世界所有主要地区的潜在影响是毁灭性的。这些事态发展导致中国经济疲软,也会进一步影响到中国的民族国家主权,更不用说一带一路倡议了。

在当前危机和华盛顿的重返亚洲”战略的背景下,将产生严重的地缘政治影响,直接关系到中美对抗。

*

致读者:请点击上方或下方的分享按钮。请在 Instagram Twitter 上关注我们并订阅我们的 Telegram 频道,转发和分享全球研究的文章。

 

FDA Advisers Are Angry at Moderna for Hiding Data

By Igor Chudov, January 16, 2023

It turns out that the FDA advisers approved Moderna booster shots based on “antibody counting,” a quack medicine approach called immunobridging. The reason immunobridging is medical quackery is pointed at by the “laughing emoji” above. Despite having “more antibodies,” MORE people in the bivalent group caught Covid compared to people in the monovalent (old booster) group.

Congress Must Investigate Pfizer’s Other Dangerous Boondoggle: Paxlovid

By Daniel Horowitz, January 16, 2023

Our government purchased, without question, billions of dollars’ worth of Pfizer’s new drug, Paxlovid, without any independent studies vouching for its safety, even though its ritonavir component is an AIDS drug contraindicated with 32 common drug categories taken by seniors, such as statins and steroids.

Declassified Intelligence Files Expose Inconvenient Truths of Bosnian War

By Kit Klarenberg and Tom Secker, January 16, 2023

A trove of intelligence files sent by Canadian peacekeepers expose CIA black ops, illegal weapon shipments, imported jihadist fighters, potential false flags, and stage-managed atrocities.

Russia-Ukraine War: How the US Paved the Way to Moscow’s Invasion. Jonathan Cook

By Jonathan Cook, January 16, 2023

Barely six months before Putin invaded Ukraine, President Joe Biden pulled the US military out of Afghanistan after a two-decade occupation. It was the apparent fulfilment of a pledge to end Washington’s “forever wars” that, he warned, “have cost us untold blood and treasure”.

The Stepan Bandera Memorial Nuke. “The Kremlin is claiming that Ukraine is developing nuclear weapons”

By Kurt Nimmo, January 16, 2023

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) responded by announcing a visit to two locations suspected of work on nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the USG denounced “Russia’s transparently false allegations that Ukraine is preparing to use a dirty bomb on its own territory” and characterized it “as a pretext for escalation” of the Russian SMO.

The History of Japan and China. Unspeakable Atrocities Against the Chinese People. Kishida’s “Shameful Subservience to the US”

By Kim Petersen, January 16, 2023

Japan’s current prime minister Fumio Kishida ought to consider Murayama’s advice to look squarely at Japan’s history with neighboring countries. However, before addressing Kishida’s recent demands of China, there are some pertinent questions to consider in the relationship between the two countries?

“Lay Down Your Arms!” Man Awake! “War is the glorification of violence”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, January 16, 2023

For anyone seriously thinking about how the Third World War can still be stopped and a possible “final solution of the human question” prevented, Bertha von Suttner’s novel with the stirring appeal “Lay Down Your Arms”, published in German in 1889, is to be recommended.

2023 Outlook for Ukraine. Scott Ritter

By Scott Ritter, January 16, 2023

Given the duplicitous history of the Minsk Accords, it is unlikely Russia can be diplomatically dissuaded from its military offensive. As such, 2023 appears to be shaping up as a year of continued violent confrontation.

Treachery to Some, Opportunism to Others—Horse-trading in the U.S. Congress.

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, January 16, 2023

The Left, indeed all of today’s Democrats, would do well to view as a lesson in politics, the successful far-right GOP strategy to bend House-Speaker-in-waiting McCarthy to their will. Liberal commentators watching the horse-trading on the House floor earlier this month, suggested their side could never stoop so low.

Assange: The Decisive Moment

By Berenice Galli and Manlio Dinucci, January 16, 2023

Julian Assange‘s father John Shipton announces from Australia in this interview with Berenice Galli, a novelty that could be decisive for his son’s destiny: “I feel that we will prevail and that Julian will be free. I feel it, I see it, I perceive it through the hundreds of contacts I have all over the world”.

The Plan of “Breaking up the Country”. “The Decolonization” of Russia, Fomenting Separatism and “Ethnic Nationalism”

By Prof. Yakov M. Rabkin and Prof. Samir Saul, January 15, 2023

The war in the Ukraine has revived Western plans of dismembering Russia and, in the words of the promoters of this idea, to complete the dismantlement of the Soviet Union. Active efforts, including ample funds, are being spent on fomenting ethnic nationalism among Russia’s many ethnic groups.

CIA Arrives in Libya to Manipulate Elections

By Steven Sahiounie, January 15, 2023

On January 13, special envoys from the US, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK met in Washington, DC. at the invitation of the US envoy to Libya, Richard Norland.  The western diplomats discussed setting an election deadline, staging the elections, and coercing the Libyans into agreeing with the western plans.

Is Biden Being Blackmailed to Send US Combat Troops to Ukraine?

By Mike Whitney, January 15, 2023

Billionaire elites are using their power over the media, the political class and public opinion to coerce Joe Biden into sending US troops to Ukraine to prevent a Russian victory. Idiot conservatives think the media is actually doing their job for once by accurately reporting Biden’s alleged transgressions.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: FDA Advisers Are Angry at Moderna for Hiding Data

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

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

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

***

Where is the intellectual curiosity of millions of doctors who blindly supported expensive, experimental products without circumspection, but scoffed at every cheap, safe, and long-standing approved therapeutic to treat COVID? Whether the medical community finds its spiritual catharsis or not, House Republicans need to engage in oversight of the shots, remdesivir, and Paxlovid – including their side effects, what led to their expedited approval and purchase by the federal government, and how we stop this from happening in the future.

It’s the other novel therapy that was supposed to pick up the slack for when the gene therapy shots failed. Our government purchased, without question, billions of dollars’ worth of Pfizer’s new drug, Paxlovid, without any independent studies vouching for its safety, even though its ritonavir component is an AIDS drug contraindicated with 32 common drug categories taken by seniors, such as statins and steroids. Officials also approved it while dissing ivermectin, which uses Paxlovid’s mechanism as a protease inhibitor … plus another 19 mechanisms of action.

Now, the more we discover problems with the jabs, we’re also finding out the problems with Pfizer’s Paxlovid, which is so unquestionably supported that the FDA allowed pharmacies to dispense it without a doctor’s prescription (while denying fully approved drugs prescribed by doctors). Despite the already known and questionable issues with safety and the “rebound” effect of Paxlovid, the Department of Defense paid Pfizer $2 billion in December for another 3.7 million courses of the drug ($540 per course). This is on top of the existing $10.6 billion for the original 20 million courses. Pfizer is expected to earn $22 billion from this drug on the backs of taxpayers. For some perspective, Home Depot’s net revenue in 2021 was $16.4 billion.

There is quite literally no other drug that has been accorded such status and backing, especially an experimental drug. But it’s the job of the House Oversight’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to answer the question as to why this drug is still being treated like a hero and not a zero – or worse. In December, researchers from University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics reported in a case study that a 67-year-old woman who was taking tacrolimus as part of her immunosuppressive regimen for her organ transplant suffered a severe injury to her kidney as a result of the contraindication of Paxlovid.

“The patient was started on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir due to her high risk for progression to severe disease. Four days after starting nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, she presented to the ED for slowed speech, fatigue, weakness, and loss of appetite. Upon admission she was found to have a supratherapeutic tacrolimus level of 176.4 ng/mL and an acute kidney injury. In this case, phenytoin was used as a CYP3A4 inducer to quickly decrease the tacrolimus level to within therapeutic range.”

Last year, the U.K. Daily Mail reported on a study that found Paxlovid can increase the risk of blood clots when taken with blood thinners and irregular heartbeat when taken with heart pain medications. Researchers also found it can cause liver toxicity when taken with statins. Do you really believe every doctor has made sure to take his patients off statins before prescribing this drug?

Remember, this drug is being dispensed in pharmacies without a doctor’s prescription as if it’s candy. Do we even know all its potential safety concerns? No, but we do know it’s contraindicated with many drugs. Also, keep in mind that technically Paxlovid was only accorded EUA status for high-risk patients – the very sorts of people who will largely be dependent upon drugs with such contraindications. Given the “it’s all good” attitude of pharmacies and doctors regarding Paxlovid (just like the Pfizer shots), can we really trust that these contraindications are being taken into account when prescribing? It’s become more of a religious sacrament than a choice of therapeutic.

And it would be one thing if there’s evidence the drug helps. In reality, the drug was developed for previous variants. Thankfully, most people don’t get deathly ill from Omicron, so it’s hard to even assess whether this drug helps or not, but one thing is clear: Almost every famous advocate for Pfizer who got COVID experienced the rebound effect after taking it. No, they didn’t get critically ill, but neither do people who are not on Paxlovid. Even the WHO recommends against its use for low-risk patients, but most doctors and pharmacies are handing it out to everyone who asks for it as if it’s Advil.

Also, there are questions of suboptimal, narrow mechanisms of action creating escape mutations through resistance, which mirror our concerns about the jabs. Although the prevalence is unclear, Emory University researchers did discover the E166V mutation to be “prevalent in individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections treated with Paxlovid.” Dr. Robert Malone has posited that the prevalent use of single-drug therapy against rapidly evolving RNA viruses might be responsible for people’s inability to clear the virus for several weeks and possibly results in spreading these resistant strains throughout the population.

“When a patient is immunosuppressed and doesn’t clear the virus (as seems to be happening with Paxlovid), then this evolution has a longer runway to evolve before the virus is cleared by the body,” commented Malone upon the news last year that Joe Biden experienced the infamous Paxlovid rebound. “These new strains are then spread throughout the population. So, other people can contract the escape mutant resistant lineage. A new variant is born.”

Are we really going to continue spending billions on this drug as an EUA and allow its use without a doctor’s prescription indefinitely? Then again, remdesivir, which is universally understood as unsafe and ineffective, and has been for two and a half years, is still the standard of care for inpatient COVID to this day.

This sort of dangerous and expensive irremediable corruption between Pfizer and the FDA/NIH must be a priority of the coronavirus subcommittee. It can’t just be about the origins of the virus or lockdowns. They must be willing to tackle Pfizer and the government corruption turning human beings into lab rats as the new normal in pharmacology. They must take this inquiry to wherever it leads them, even if it reveals some very disturbing facts about the drug companies we have relied on for so many years.

Exit question: What ever happened to Merck’s COVID drug molnupiravir? Can we get our $1.2 billion back for its universally panned failure, or was that the company’s prize for pulling out of the vaccine sweepstakes?

*

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 Healthline


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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

FDA Advisers Are Angry at Moderna for Hiding Data

January 16th, 2023 by Igor Chudov

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

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

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

***

The times are changing!

The FDA’s “Independent advisers” are reportedly disappointed and angry at Moderna.

We, the antivaxxers, have been disappointed and angry at Moderna for about two or three years based on mountains of data we unearthed, some of which the FDA tried to hide for 75 years. So, may we ask, what disappointed the FDA advisers so late in the game? This is what it was:

It turns out that the FDA advisers approved Moderna booster shots based on “antibody counting,” a quack medicine approach called immunobridging.

The reason immunobridging is medical quackery is pointed at by the “laughing emoji” above. Despite having “more antibodies,” MORE people in the bivalent group caught Covid compared to people in the monovalent (old booster) group.

Despite being there in larger numbers, the antibodies facilitated the infection instead of preventing it. Thus, reliance on antibody counts is medical quackery, as the real-life experimental data proves them useless at best.

FDA charlatans approved the Moderna bivalent Covid booster for millions of people based on antibodies in TEN MICE (who all got sick with Covid when challenged with the virus).

And now, the FDA advisers are “angry” that Moderna did not present real-life data showing that bivalent-boosted people are 68% (3.2/1.9) more likely to get Covid.

Why did they not get angry several months before?

The data that was not presented was available in plain sight!

Despite these imperfections, the data was included in a preprint study that was posted online in June, again in September in an FDA document and then later that month in a top medical journal – and advisers to the FDA and the CDC said the data should have been shared with them, too.

The FDA advisers are not reading the literature and top medical journals. What do they do in their spare time?

Michael Felberbaum, an FDA spokesman, told CNN in an email that “the FDA received the preprint less than a day prior to the advisory committee meeting,” and “the information was therefore not provided in an adequate timeframe for it to be included in the agency’s meeting materials, and generally the FDA only discusses data at advisory committee meetings that the agency has had the opportunity to substantively review.”

Hm. The FDA only discusses data at advisory committee meetings that the agency has had the opportunity to substantively review??? That’s a lie. The FDA approved the “Covid vaccine for babies” just TWO DAYS after receiving the submission.

The FDA was good at rubber stamping stuff while they considered themselves invincible.

Now that the public is asking pointed questions, FDA advisers are suddenly “angry” at Moderna. Are they trying to save themselves from repercussions and future prosecution?

Should we offer them “pandemic amnesty”?

*

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 LifeSiteNews


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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

The US State Department said on Thursday that the Biden administration is planning to send a delegation to Havana this month to restart US-Cuba talks on law enforcement that were suspended under former President Donald Trump.

A State Department spokesperson indicated that US concerns about counterterrorism will be among the subjects addressed.

Shortly before his term ended in January 2021, Trump placed Cuba on the so-called US list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” and the Biden administration has been reviewing this since taking office.

The meeting will be the first of its kind since the law-enforcement dialogue, which was started in 2015 under former President Barack Obama, was stopped in 2018 under Trump.

In a statement, the State Department spokesperson considered that “this type of dialogue enhances the national security of the United States through improved international law enforcement coordination, which enables the United States to better protect U.S. citizens and bring transnational criminals to justice.”

However, the official noted that “this dialogue does not impact the administration’s continued focus on critical human rights issues in Cuba.”

The spokesperson said the talks provide “a forum to raise difficult matters and convey our concerns directly to the Cuban government.”

Reuters cited a source in Washington familiar with the matter as saying that the talks were expected to take place next week and are expected to focus on combating cybercrime, terrorist threats, and drug trafficking, among other issues.

According to the source, the US delegation will have representatives from the State Department, National Security Council, and Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

US reopening visa, consular services at Havana Embassy

In early January, the US consulate in Havana resumed full immigrant visa services for Cubans. The reopening comes amid a record exodus from Cuba to the United States, mainly by undocumented migrants, as Cuba suffers its worst economic crisis in 30 years due to Washington’s harsh unlawful sanctions imposed against the Caribbean island.

The US consulate in Havana was closed under the Trump administration after diplomatic staff and their families reportedly fell ill with symptoms later nicknamed Havana Syndrome.

Since Biden replaced Trump as President in 2021, several high-level meetings have sought to find a solution to the migratory standoff. In May last year, the consulate resumed “limited” visa services.

Cuba has been under US sanctions for 60 years. After a four-year relaxation during the presidency of Barack Obama, relations deteriorated under his successor Trump, who reinforced sanctions.

Despite election promises, Biden has not reversed the measures, in fact hardening his speech following US-backed anti-government riots on the island in July 2021.

Washington has kept Cuba on its so-called list of countries deemed “sponsors of terrorism” and recently added it to another of countries “undermining religious freedom.”

The Caribbean island nation was hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic, which crippled its critical tourism sector. Remittances sent from abroad — which in 2019 reached $3.7 billion and is another vital source of income for Cubans — also largely dried up in recent years with travel blocked.

Cuban FM: US ignored UN vote to lift embargo on Cuba 29 times

It is noteworthy that during his speech at the UN General Assembly in New York in late November 2022, Cuban Foreign Minister Rodriguez Parilla decried the 60 years of US economic embargo against Cuba which he described as “vast, cruel and immoral.”

Parilla explained that “the government of the US is reinforcing pressure on banking institutions, companies, and governments throughout the world that are interested in establishing relations with Cuba, and the US continues to obsessively pursue all sources of foreign exchange coming into the country to bring about the economic collapse of the nation.”

The Cuban diplomat recalled that the UNGA had voted 29 times, with an overwhelming majority, to end the “ruthless and unilateral” embargo on Cuba, noting that the US ignored the assembly’s decision 29 times.

“Thirty years have now elapsed since the first general assembly voted against this blockade, and at this time, the US continues to ignore the almost unanimous demand from you to cease its illegal and brutal policy against Cuba,” Parilla indicated, urging the US to remove the Caribbean island from the list of “state sponsors of terrorism.”

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US, Cuba to Restart Talks on Law Enforcement: State Department
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

A trove of intelligence files sent by Canadian peacekeepers expose CIA black ops, illegal weapon shipments, imported jihadist fighters, potential false flags, and stage-managed atrocities.

The established mythos of the Bosnian War is that Serb separatists, encouraged and directed by Slobodan Milošević and his acolytes in Belgrade, sought to forcibly seize Croat and Bosniak territory in service of creating an irredentist “Greater Serbia.” Every step of the way, they purged indigenous Muslims in a concerted, deliberate genocide, while refusing to engage in constructive peace talks.

This narrative was aggressively perpetuated by the mainstream media at the time, and further legitimized by the UN-created International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) once the conflict ended. It has become axiomatic and unquestionable in Western consciousness ever since, enforcing the sense that negotiation invariably amounts to appeasement, a mentality that has enabled NATO war hawks to justify multiple military interventions over subsequent years.

However, a vast trove of intelligence cables sent by Canadian peacekeeping troops in Bosnia to Ottawa’s National Defence Headquarters, first published by Canada Declassified at the start of 2022, exposes this narrative as cynical farce.

The documents offer an unparalleled, first-hand, real-time view of the war as it developed, with the prospect of peace rapidly degrading into grinding bloodshed that ultimately caused the painful death of the multi-faith, multi-ethnic Yugoslavia.

The Canadian soldiers were part of a wider UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) dispatched to former Yugoslavia in 1992, in the vain hope tensions wouldn’t escalate to all-out-war, and an amicable settlement could be reached by all sides. They stayed until the bitter end, long past the point their mission was reduced to miserable, life-threatening failure.

The peacekeepers’ increasingly bleak analysis of the reality on the ground provides a candid perspective of the war’s history that has been largely concealed from the public. It is a story of CIA black ops, literally explosive provocations, illegal weapon shipments, imported jihadist fighters, potential false flags, and stage-managed atrocities.

Read the complete Canadian UNPROFOR cables here.

See key excerpts of the files referred to in this article here.

“Outside interference in the peace process”

It is a little-known but openly acknowledged fact that the US laid the foundations for war in Bosnia, sabotaging a peace deal negotiated by the European Community in early 1992. Under its auspices, the country would be a confederation, divided into three semi-autonomous regions along ethnic lines. While far from perfect, each side generally got what it wanted – in particular, self-governance – and at the least, enjoyed an outcome preferable to all-out conflict.

However, on March 28th, 1992, US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman met with Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, a Bosniak Muslim, to reportedly offer Washington’s recognition of the country as an independent state. He further promised unconditional support in the inevitable subsequent war, if rejected the Community proposal. Hours later, Izetbegovic went on the warpath, and fighting erupted almost immediately.

Received wisdom dictates the Americans were concerned that Brussels’ leading role in negotiations would weaken Washington’s international prestige, and assist in the soon-to-be European Union emerging as an independent power bloc following the collapse of Communism.

While such concerns were no doubt held by US officials, the UNPROFOR cables expose a much darker agenda at work. Washington wanted Yugoslavia reduced to rubble, and planned to bring the Serbs violently to heel by prolonging the war as long as possible. To the US, the Serbs were the ethnic group most determined to preserve the troublesome independent republic’s existence.

These aims were very effectively served by Washington’s absolutist assistance to the Bosniaks. It was an article of faith in the Western mainstream at the time, and remains so today, that Serb intransigence in negotiations blocked the path to peace in Bosnia. Yet, the UNPROFOR cables make repeatedly clear this was not the case.

In cables sent July – September 1993, the time of a ceasefire and renewed attempt to amicably partition the country, the Canadian peacekeepers repeatedly attribute an obstinate character to Bosniaks, not Serbs. As one representative excerpt states, the “insurmountable” goal of “satisfying Muslim demands will be the primary obstacle in any peace talks.”

Various passages also refer to how “outside interference in the peace process” did “not help the situation,” and “no peace” could be achieved “if outside parties continue to encourage the Muslims to be demanding and inflexible in negotiations.”

By “outside” assistance, UNPROFOR of course meant Washington. Its unconditional support for the Bosniaks motivated them to “[negotiate] as if they had won the war,” which they had to date “lost”.

“Encouraging Izetbegovic to hold out for further concessions,” and “clear US desires to lift the arms embargo on the Muslims and to bomb the Serbs are serious obstacles to ending the fighting in the former Yugoslavia,” the peacekeepers recorded on September 7th 1993.

The next day, they reported to headquarters that “Serbs have been the most compliant with the terms of the ceasefire.” Meanwhile, Izetbegovic was basing his negotiating position on “the popular image of the Bosnian Serbs as the bad guys.” Validating this illusion had a concomitant benefit – namely, precipitating NATO airstrikes on Serb areas. This was not lost on the peacekeepers:

“Serious talks in Geneva will not occur as long as Izetbegovic believes that airstrikes will be flown against the Serbs. These airstrikes will greatly strengthen his position and likely make him less cooperative in negotiations.”

Simultaneously, Muslim fighters were “not giving peace talks a chance, just going hell for leather,” and very much willing and able to assist in Izetbegovic’s objective. Throughout the final months of 1993, they launched countless broadsides on Serb territory throughout Bosnia, in breach of the ceasefire.

In December, when Serb forces launched a “major attack” of their own, a cable that month asserted that since early Summer, “most of the Serb activity has been defensive or in response to Muslim provocation.”

A September 13th UNPROFOR cable noted that in Sarajevo, “Muslim forces continue to infiltrate the Mount Igman area and shell BSA [Bosnian Serb Army] positions around the city daily,” the “assessed aim” being to “increase Western sympathy by provoking an incident and blaming the Serbs.”

Two days later, “provocation” of the Bosnian Serb Army (BSA) was continuing, although “the BSA is reported to be exercising restraint.” This area remained a key Bosniak target for some time afterwards. The July – September volume concludes with an ominous cable:

“BSA occupation of Mount Igman is not adversely affecting the situation in Sarajevo. It is simply an excuse for Izetbegovic to delay negotiations. His own troops have been the worst violators [emphasis added] of the [July 30th] ceasefire agreement.”

Enter the Mujahideen: “The Muslims are not above firing on their own people or UN areas”

Throughout the conflict, the Bosnian mujahideen worked ceaselessly to escalate the violence. Muslims from all over the world flooded into the country beginning in the latter half of 1992, waging jihad against the Croats and Serbs. Many had already gained experience on the Afghan battlefield through the 1980’s and early 90’s after arriving from CIA and MI6-infiltrated fundamentalist groups in Britain and the US. For them, Yugoslavia was the next recruitment ground.

The Mujahideen frequently arrived on “black flights”, along with an endless flow of weapons in breach of the UN embargo. This started off as a joint Iranian and Turkish operation, with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia, although as the volume of weapons increased the US took over, flying the deadly cargo to an airport in Tuzla using fleets of C-130 Hercules aircraft.

Estimates of the Bosnian mujahideen’s size vary vastly, but their pivotal contribution to the civil war seems clear. US Balkans negotiator Richard Holbrooke in 2001 declared that Bosniaks “wouldn’t have survived” without their help, and branded their role in the conflict a “pact with the devil” from which Sarajevo was yet to recover.

Mujahideen fighters are never explicitly mentioned in the UNPROFOR cables, and neither are Bosniaks – the term “the Muslims” is used liberally. Still, oblique references to the former are plentiful.

A Winter 1993 intelligence report observed that “the weak and decentralized command and control systems” of the three opposing sides produced “widespread proliferation of weapons and the existence of various official and unofficial paramilitary groups, who often have individual and local agendas.” Among those “unofficial” groups was the Mujahideen, of course.

More clearly, in December that year, the peacekeepers recorded how David Owen, a former British politician who served as the European Community’s lead negotiator in the former Yugoslavia, “had been condemned to death for being responsible for the deaths 0f 130,000 Muslims in Bosnia,” his sentence “passed by the ‘Honour Court of Muslims’.” It was understood that “45 people were in place all over Europe to carry out the sentence.”

Owen certainly wasn’t responsible for the deaths of 130,000 Muslims, as nowhere near that many Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs were killed over the course of the war in total. Nor were the Bosniaks religious extremists with a network of operatives across the continent, on standby to carry out fatwas passed down by an “Honour Court.”

Subsequent to this incident, which has never previously been publicly revealed, there are reports of “the Muslims” preparing false flag provocations. In January 1994, one cable observed:

“The Muslims are not above firing on their own people or UN areas and then claiming the Serbs are the guilty party in order to gain further Western sympathy. The Muslims often site their artillery extremely close to UN buildings and sensitive areas such as hospitals in the hope that Serb counter-bombardment fire will hit these sites under the gaze of the international media.”

Another cable records how “Muslim troops masquerading as UN forces” had been spotted wearing UNPROFOR’s blue helmets and “a combination of Norwegian and British combat clothing,” driving vehicles painted white and marked UN. The peacekeepers’ Director General feared that if such connivance was to become “widespread” or “be used for infiltration of Croat lines,” it would “greatly increase the prospects for legitimate UN forces to be targeted by the Croats.”

“This may be exactly what the Muslims intend, possibly to provoke further pressure for airstrikes on the Croats,” the cable adds.

That same month, UNPROFOR cables speculated “the Muslims” would target Sarajevo airport, the destination for humanitarian aid to the Bosniaks, with a false flag attack. As “the Serbs would be the obvious culprits” in such a scenario, “the Muslims would gain a great deal of propaganda value from such Serb activity,” and it was “thus very tempting for the Muslims to conduct the shelling and blame the Serbs.”

US proxy wars, then and now

Against this backdrop, cables related to the Markale Massacre take on a particularly striking character. On February 5th 1994, an explosion tore through a civilian market, causing 68 deaths and 144 casualties.

Responsibility for the attack – and the means by which it was executed – has been hotly contested ever since, with separate official investigations yielding inconclusive results. The UN at the time was unable to make an attribution, although UNPROFOR troops have since testified they suspected the Bosniak side may have been responsible.

Accordingly, cables from this time refer to “disturbing aspects” of the event, including journalists being “directed to the scene so quickly,” and “a very visible Muslim Army presence in the area.”

“We know that the Muslims have fired on their own civilians and the airfield in the past in order to gain media attention,” one concluded. A later memo observes, “Muslim forces outside of Sarajevo have, in the past, planted high explosives in their own positions and then detonated them under the gaze of the media, claiming Serb bombardment. This has then been used as a pretext for Muslim ‘counter-fire’ and attacks on the Serbs.”

Nonetheless, in its 2003 conviction of Serb general Stanislav Galić for his role in the siege of Sarajevo, the ICTY concluded the Massacre was deliberately perpetrated by Serb forces, a ruling held up on appeal.

The authors of this article make no judgment on what did or did not happen at Markale that fateful day. However, the murkiness surrounding the event foreshadowed pivotal events that justified escalations in every subsequent Western proxy war, from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine.

Since the onset of the Ukraine proxy war this February 24th, deliberate war crimes, real incidents misleadingly framed as war crimes, and potentially staged events are virtually daily occurrences, along with accompanying volleys of claims and counterclaims of culpability. In some cases, officials on one side have even gone from celebrating and claiming credit for an attack to blaming the other within days, or simply hours. Substance and spin have become inseparable, if not symbiotic.

In years to come, who did what to whom and when could well, in the manner of the ICTY, become matters decided in international courts. There are already moves to set up a similar body once the war in Ukraine is over.

Parliamentarians in the Netherlands have demanded that Vladimir Putin be tried in The Hague. France’s Foreign Ministry has called for a special tribunal to be created. Kiev-based NGO Truth Hounds is collecting evidence every day of purported Russian atrocities across the country, in service of such a tribunal.

There can be little doubt that both Kiev and Moscow’s forces have committed atrocities and killed civilians in this conflict, just as it’s indisputable all three sides in the Bosnian War were guilty of heinous acts, and massacres of innocent and/or defenseless people. It’s reasonable to assume the savagery will become ever-more merciless as the war in Ukraine grinds on, in the precise manner as Yugoslavia’s breakup.

Just how long the fighting will continue isn’t certain, although EU and NATO officials have forecast it could be several years, and Western powers clearly intend to keep the proxy war active for as long as possible. On October 11th, The Washington Post reported that the US privately conceded Kiev was incapable of “winning the war outright,” but had also “ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table.”

This highlights another myth that arose as a result of the Yugoslav wars and which endures to this day. It is the widely-held notion that negotiation and attempts to secure a peaceful settlement only emboldened Serb “aggressors.”

This dangerous myth has served as justification for all manner of destructive Western interventions. Citizens of these countries live with the consequences of those actions to this day, often as migrants after fleeing cities and towns scorched by regime change wars.

Another toxic legacy of the Balkan wars also endures: Westerners’ concern about human life is determined by which side their governments back in a given conflict. As the Canadian UNPROFOR cables demonstrate, the US and its allies have cultivated support for their wars by concealing a reality even their own militaries documented in clinical detail.

*

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.

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

Tom is a journalist, author, and podcaster, who specializes in the influence of security and intelligence services and the Pentagon on Hollywood. He is the founder of https://www.spyculture.com/

Featured image is from The Grayzone

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Declassified Intelligence Files Expose Inconvenient Truths of Bosnian War
  • Tags: ,

Biden Stoops to Conquer Brazil’s Lula

January 16th, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

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

***

The tragicomic “insurrection” in Brasilia on Sunday was destined to meet a sudden death. The universal condemnation and, in particular,  the brusqueness with which the Biden Administration distanced itself from the protestors, sealed their fate. Certainly, this revolt is no  “colour revolution,” although it is difficult to make predictions about new protests in the country.  

This is a cautionary tale for Latin America, as the “pink tide” is once again on the ascendance. As Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva returned to power last week, left-leaning leaders are in control of six of the region’s seven largest economies. Nonetheless, the pendulum has been swinging wildly and Lula won by a wafer-thin margin. 

Political polarisation is undermining democracy in Latin America, making it harder for many to respect compromise. Since the 1980s, the global model of Keynesian policies gave way to the Washington consensus and the regional states took to borrowing in dollars and liberalising their capital accounts to attract foreign investors.

The genesis of the “pink tide” lies in these lost decades when the neoliberal turn in the region saw stagnation and widespread poverty, deepening social and economic divides in what was already the world’s most unequal region, emergence of a rentier class, coups and armed conflict. The region needs a new model of development and more equitable, sustainable growth involving state-led industrialisation and regional integration. 

The Latin American economies are no longer bound to the  US and are today in a position to recast their partnerships. But it is naïveté to assume Washington is no longer the self-interested neighbour it used to be historically. Geology and geography are intertwined in the destiny of Latin America. 

A Guardian editorial recently noted that with Latin America accounting for 60% of the world’s lithium, the white gold of electric batteries, and the world’s largest oil reserves, the US carries a “big stick” — to borrow from Teddy Roosevelt’s famous phrase “speak softly, and carry a big stick” to describe the US foreign policy, in a 1901 speech. 

However, as a researcher at the Institute of Party History and Literature of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Jin Chengwei wrote in November, “In terms of geopolitics, the US views Latin America as its sphere of influence, and its influence on Latin America can be described as ubiquitous. In the 1980s, it used Latin America as a “testing ground” to promote neoliberalism. To be the alternative to neoliberalism was the driving force for the last round of wave of leftism in Latin America. They made significant achievements in promoting the integration process in Latin America and weakening the influence of the US, accumulating experience for resistance to US hegemony.The failure of neoliberalism and the negative consequences remain the fundamental motive for the formation of the current wave of leftism.”

No doubt, the crisis in US politics exposing the weaknesses of America’s liberal democracy spurred the Latin American countries to search for a non-western path. Also, the inefficient, insensitive response to Covid-19 exposed the flaws of the capitalist path of development. The Sao Paulo Forum and the World Social Forum have provided a new platform. 

In his two previous terms as president, Lula encouraged people to participate in politics, reconciled economic growth with an increase in social spending and public investment in critical sectors of the economy, introduced regulations for the domestic workforce, providing them with social assistance and higher wages, promoted social justice by expanding employment and proactively participated in the formulation of international rules. 

Lula’s biggest challenge today is the current divisions in Brazilian society between left and right and the confrontation between different social camps, apart from the need to push through reforms in a right-wing-majority Congress.

That said, he will lead the growing left-wing tide in Latin America toward a new peak, which will inevitably improve the international environment of leftist countries such as Cuba and Venezuela and enhance the autonomy of Latin American diplomacy. Lula wrote in the government plan:

“We advocate working toward the construction of a new global order committed to multilateralism, respect for the sovereignty of nations, peace, social inclusion and environmental sustainability, which takes into account the needs of developing countries.”

A fundamental change in the political landscape across the continent seems to be under way. Specifically, Lula’s first major foreign policy move — the decision to attend the Summit of Heads of State and Government of Celac in Buenos Aires on January 24 alongside the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua — sends a message to Washington that it is going to be difficult to find a fulcrum for its “differentiation-cum- disintegration” strategy in Latin America.

Significantly, the tone of President Biden’s condemnation of the rioting in Brasilia was most aggressive. Three factors are at work here. First, the politician in Biden sees that the parallel with the January 6 “Capitol riots” in the US works to his advantage as he gears up for the 2024 election. The riots in both Brazil and the US can be traced back to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual political conference attended by the world conservative activists and hosted by American Conservative Union. Clearly, whether Lula can contain the flames of the far right is not only crucial for Brazil and Latin America but also can be consequential for US politics. 

Second, Lula targeted agribusinessmen for the rioting. According o environmentalist groups, those carrying out deforestation and illegal mining in the Amazon were behind the rioting, after Lula’s 180-degree turn in environmental policy with the appointment of Ministers Marina Silva and Sônia Guajajara, a world-renowned environmentalist and an aboriginal activist, respectively. 

Lula accused agribusiness and illegal mining mafias of financing this coup. Biden’s climate programme and the tragic fate of the Amazon River are joined at the hips.

Third, Lula is expected to make official trips to China and the US in his first three months in office. There is no question that under China’s “old friend” Lula, the economic and trade cooperation is set to deepen. The left-wing regimes usually “pull away” from the US and advocate a diversified and balanced diplomacy. 

Actually, though, the deepening of China-Brazil relations follows the trend and has a strong internal driving force in terms of the complementarity between the two economies. The bilateral exchanges between China and Brazil have never been demarcated by ideology. Under Bolsonaro, China-Brazil trade still hit the record of about $164 billion in 2021 despite the pandemic. 

Nonetheless, the US will be concerned because Brazil is an international powerhouse and shares extensive common interests and responsibilities with China at a time when the left-wing wave highlights the weakening of US’s global leadership and the massive erosion in Washington’s control over Latin America. (Argentina has also sought BRICS membership.)

Lula’s victory will significantly advance the process of Latin American cooperation to explore a new alternative world order. Against this backdrop, Biden’s best hope lies in encouraging Lula to pursue a moderate diplomatic line and adopt a strategy of balance between great powers. The US feels encouraged by Lula’s previous two terms in office and his record of being a left-leaning moderate. 

*

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 teleSUR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden Stoops to Conquer Brazil’s Lula

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

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

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

***

 

Hindsight is a particularly powerful tool for analysing the Ukraine war, nearly a year after Russia’s invasion.

Last February, it sounded at least superficially plausible to characterise Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to send troops and tanks into his neighbour as nothing less than an “unprovoked act of aggression”.

Putin was either a madman or a megalomaniac, trying to revive the imperial, expansionist agenda of the Soviet Union. Were his invasion to go unchallenged, he would pose a threat to the rest of Europe.

Plucky, democratic Ukraine needed the West’s unreserved support – and a near-limitless supply of weapons – to hold the line against a rogue dictator.

But that narrative looks increasingly threadbare, at least if one reads beyond the establishment media – a media that has never sounded quite so monotone, so determined to beat the drum of war, so amnesiac and so irresponsible.

Anyone demurring from the past 11 months of relentless efforts to escalate the conflict – resulting in untold deaths and suffering, causing energy prices to skyrocket, leading to global food shortages, and ultimately risking a nuclear exchange – is viewed as betraying Ukraine, and dismissed as an apologist for Putin.

No dissent is tolerated.

Putin is Hitler, the time is 1938, and anyone seeking to turn down the heat is no different from Britain’s appeasing prime minister, Neville Chamberlain.

Or so we have been told. But context is everything.

End to ‘forever wars’

Barely six months before Putin invaded Ukraine, President Joe Biden pulled the US military out of Afghanistan after a two-decade occupation. It was the apparent fulfilment of a pledge to end Washington’s “forever wars” that, he warned, “have cost us untold blood and treasure”.

The implicit promise was that the Biden administration was going not only to bring home US troops from the Middle East “quagmires” of Afghanistan and Iraq, but also to make sure US taxes stopped flooding abroad to line the pockets of military contractors, arms makers and corrupt foreign officials. US dollars would be spent at home, on solving homegrown problems.

But since Russia’s invasion, that assumption has unravelled. Ten months on, it looks fanciful that it was ever considered Biden’s intention.

Last month, the US Congress approved a mammoth top-up of largely military “support” for Ukraine, bringing the official total to some $100bn in less than a year, with doubtless much more of the costs hidden from public view. That is far in excess of Russia’s total annual military budget of £65bn.

Washington and Europe have been pouring weapons, including ever more offensive ones, into Ukraine. Emboldened, Kyiv has been shifting the field of battle ever deeper into Russian territory.

US officials, like their Ukrainian counterparts, speak of the fight against Russia continuing until Moscow is “defeated” or Putin toppled, turning this into another “forever war” of the very kind Biden had just forsworn – this one in Europe rather than the Middle East.

At the weekend, in the Washington Post, Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates, two former US secretaries of state, called on Biden to “urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability… It is better to stop [Putin] now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO.”

Last month, the head of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned that a direct war between the western military alliance and Russia was a “real possibility“.

Days later, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was given a hero’s welcome during a “surprise” visit to Washington. The US Vice-President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unfurled a large Ukrainian flag behind their guest, like two starstruck cheerleaders, as he addressed Congress.

US legislators greeted Zelensky with a three-minute standing ovation – even longer than that awarded to that other well-known “man of peace” and defender of democracy, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. The Ukrainian president echoed the US wartime president, Franklin D Roosevelt, in calling for “absolute victory”.

All of this only underscored the fact that Biden has rapidly appropriated the Ukraine war, exploiting Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion to wage a US proxy war. Ukraine has supplied the battlefield on which Washington can revisit the unfinished business of the Cold War.

Given the timing, a cynic might wonder whether Biden pulled out of Afghanistan not to finally focus on fixing the US, but to prepare for a new arena of confrontation, to breathe new life into the same old US script of full-spectrum military dominance.

Did Afghanistan need to be “abandoned” so that Washington’s treasure could be invested in a war on Russia instead, but without the US body bags?

Hostile intent

The rejoinder, of course, is that Biden and his officials could not have known Putin was about to invade Ukraine. It was the Russian leader’s decision, not Washington’s. Except…

Senior US policymakers and experts on US-Russia relations – from George Kennan and William Burns, currently Biden’s CIA director, to John Mearsheimer and the late Stephen Cohen – had been warning for years that the US-led expansion of Nato onto Russia’s doorstep was bound to provoke a Russian military response.

Putin had warned of the dangerous consequences back in 2008, when Nato first proposed that Ukraine and Georgia – two former Soviet states on Russia’s border – were in line for membership. He left no room for doubt by almost immediately invading, if briefly, Georgia.

It was that very “unprovoked” reaction that presumably delayed Nato carrying through its plan. Nonetheless, in June 2021, the alliance reaffirmed its intention to award Ukraine Nato membership. Weeks later, the US signed separate pacts on defence and strategic partnership with Kyiv, effectively giving Ukraine many of the benefits of belonging to Nato without officially declaring it a member.

Between the two Nato declarations, in 2008 and 2021, the US repeatedly signalled its hostile intent to Moscow, and how Ukraine might assist its aggressive, geostrategic posturing in the region.

Back in 2001, shortly after Nato began expanding towards Russia’s borders, the US unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, intended to avoid an arms race between the two historic enemies.

Unencumbered by the treaty, the US then built ABM sites in Nato’s expanded zone, in Romania in 2016 and Poland in 2022. The cover story was that these were purely defensive, to intercept any missiles fired from Iran.

But Moscow could not ignore the fact that these weapons systems were capable of operating offensively too, and that nuclear-tipped Cruise missiles could for the first time be launched at short notice towards Russia.

Compounding Moscow’s concerns, in 2019 President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces. That opened the door to the US launching a potential first strike on Russia, using missiles stationed in newly admitted Nato members.

As Nato flirted once again with Ukraine in the summer of 2021, the danger of the US being able, with Kyiv’s help, to launch a preemptive strike – destroying Moscow’s ability to retaliate effectively, and upending its nuclear deterrent – must have weighed heavily on Russian policymakers’ minds.

US fingerprints

It did not end there. Post-Soviet Ukraine was deeply divided geographically and electorally over whether it should look to Russia or to Nato and the European Union for its security and trade. Close-run elections swung between these two poles. Ukraine was a country mired in permanent political crisis, as well as profound corruption.

That was the context for a coup/revolution in 2014 that overthrew a government in Kyiv elected to preserve ties with Moscow. Installed in its place was one that was openly anti-Russian. Washington’s fingerprints – disguised as “democracy promotion” – were all over the sudden change of government to one tightly aligned with US geostrategic goals in the region.

Many Russian-speaking communities in Ukraine – concentrated in the east, south and the Crimea peninsula – were incensed by this takeover. Worried that the new hostile government in Kyiv would try to sever its historic control of Crimea and Russia’s only warm-water naval port, Moscow annexed the peninsula.

According to a subsequent referendum, the local population overwhelmingly backed the move. Western media widely reported the result as fraudulent, but later western polling suggested Crimeans believed it fairly represented their will.

But it was the eastern Donbas region that would serve as the touch-paper for Russia’s invasion last February. A civil war quickly erupted in 2014 that pitted Russian-speaking communities there against ultra-nationalist, anti-Russian fighters mostly from western Ukraine, including unabashed neo-Nazis. Many thousands died in the eight years of fighting.

While Germany and France brokered the so-called Minsk accords, with Russia’s help, to stop the slaughter in the Donbas by promising the region greater autonomy, Washington looked to be incentivising the bloodshed.

It poured money and arms into Ukraine. It gave Ukraine’s ultra-nationalist forces training, and worked to integrate the Ukrainian military into Nato through what it termed “interoperability”. In July 2021, as tensions heightened, the US held a joint naval exercise with Ukraine in the Black Sea, Operation Sea Breeze, that led to Russia firing warning shots at a British naval destroyer that entered Crimea’s territorial waters.

By winter 2021, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted, Moscow had “reached our boiling point”. Russian troops massed on Ukraine’s border in unprecedented numbers – in an unmistakable sign that Moscow’s patience was running out over Ukraine’s collusion with these US-engineered provocations.

President Zelensky, who had been elected on a promise to make peace in the Donbas but appeared to be unable to subdue the far-right elements within his own military, pushed in precisely the opposite direction.

Ultra-nationalist Ukrainian forces intensified the shelling of the Donbas in the weeks before the invasion. At the same time, Zelensky shuttered critical media outlets, and would soon be banning opposition political parties and requiring Ukrainian media to implement a “unified information policy”. As tensions mounted, the Ukrainian president threatened to develop nuclear weapons and seek a fast-track Nato membership that would further mire the West in the slaughter in the Donbas and risk engagement with Russia directly.

Turning off the lights

It was then, after 14 years of US meddling on Russia’s borders, that Moscow sent in its soldiers – “unprovoked”.

Putin’s initial goal, whatever the western media narrative said, appeared to be as light a touch as possible given Russia was launching an illegal invasion. From the outset, Russia could have carried out its current, devastating attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, closing transport links and turning the lights off in much of the country. But it appeared to consciously avoid a US-style shock-and-awe campaign.

Instead it initially concentrated on a show of force. Moscow mistakenly seems to have assumed Zelensky would accept Kyiv had overplayed its hand, realise that the US – thousands of miles away – could not serve as a guarantor of its security, and be pressured into disarming the ultra-nationalists who had been targeting Russian communities in the east for eight years.

That is not how things played out. Seen from Moscow’s perspective, Putin’s error looks less like he launched an unprovoked war against Ukraine than that he delayed too long in invading. Ukraine’s military “interoperability” with Nato was far more advanced than Russian planners seem to have appreciated.

In a recent interview, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who oversaw the Minsk negotiations to end the Donbas slaughter, appeared – if inadvertently – to echo this view: the talks had provided cover while Nato readied Ukraine for a war against Russia.

Rather than a quick victory and an agreement on new regional security arrangements, Russia is now engaged in a protracted proxy war against the US and Nato, with Ukrainians serving as cannon fodder. The fighting, and killing, could continue indefinitely.

With the West resolved against peacemaking, and shipping in armaments as fast as they can be made, the outcome looks bleak: either a further grinding, bloody territorial division of Ukraine into pro-Russia and anti-Russia blocs through force of arms, or escalation to a nuclear confrontation.

Without prolonged US intervention, the reality is that Ukraine would have had to come to an accommodation many years ago with its much larger, stronger neighbour – just as Mexico and Canada have had to do with the US. Invasion would have been avoided. Now Ukraine’s fate is largely out of its hands. It has become another pawn on the chessboard of superpower intrigues.

Washington cares less about Ukraine’s future than it does about depleting Russia’s military strength and isolating it from China, apparently the next target in US sights as it seeks to achieve full-spectrum dominance.

At the same, Washington has scored a wider goal, smashing apart any hope of a security accommodation between Europe and Russia; deepening European dependency on the US, both militarily and economically; and driving Europe into colluding with its new “forever wars” against Russia and China.

Much more treasure will be spent, and more blood spilled. There will be no winners apart from the neoconservative foreign policy hawks who dominate Washington and the war industry lobbyists who profit from the West’s endless military adventures.

*

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.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net

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

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

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

***

The latest release of Twitter Files from Matt Taibbi shows that Democratic leaders like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) were aware that they were pushing a likely false story of “Russian bots” to discredit a report on FBI abuses. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) are also mentioned by Twitter as part of what staff called “congressional trolls” who did not seem to care if the allegations were true and only wanted Twitter to say they were true. Schiff and Blumenthal have been two of most outspoken advocates for censorship on the social media, often using “conspiracy theories” by Republicans to justify limits on free speech.

Some of the communications deal with a classified memo prepared by former Rep. Devin Nunes to the House Intelligence Committee on FBI abuses in the use of the FISA courts. That memo turned out to be well based, including the long-denied surveillance of Trump, his campaign, and campaign associates. It also highlighted how the Steele Dossier was discredited by U.S. intelligence officials despite being pushed by figures like Schiff.

We discussed earlier the files showing that Schiff was secretly pushing for censoring critics, including a columnist, while publicly denying that he supported any form of censorship.

Now the disclosures show that Schiff and others pushed Twitter to support their unsupported claims that “Russian bots” were pushing the Nunes report and other criticism. Twitter staff detail efforts to try to satisfy the Democratic members despite the lack of evidence supporting their claims. They referred to it as “feeding congressional trolls.”

Taibbi wrote that “Twitter warned politicians and media the[y] not only lacked evidence, but had evidence the accounts weren’t Russian – and were roundly ignored.”

At the time, Yoel Roth, the former head of Trust & Safety, wrote

“I just reviewed the accounts that posted the first 50 tweets with #releasethememo and… none of them show any signs of affiliation to Russia. We investigated, found that engagement as overwhelmingly organic, and driven by [Very Important Tweeters] VITs.”

Blumenthal did not appear to care if the claim was true or not. After being told that there was no evidence that the story was being propelled by Russian bots and trolls, Blumenthal responded with a letter declaring that “we find it reprehensible that Russian agents have so eagerly manipulated innocent Americans.”

So, after being told that this was an unsupported conspiracy theory, Blumenthal continued to push the claim. One official wrote “Blumenthal isn’t looking for real and nuanced solutions” but “just wants to get credit for pushing us further.”

Twitter officials compared Blumenthal and Schiff to the mouse in the children’s story  “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.” In other words, by trying to appease them, they demanded more confirmation of false claims.

Blumenthal has long demanded censorship to combat Republican “conspiracy theories.”

As previously discussed, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey appeared at a key hearing in which he followed up his apology for censoring the Hunter Biden story by pledging more censorship.

Notably, Dorsey starts with the same argument made by free speech advocates:

“Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively.” However, instead of then raising concerns over censoring views and comments on the basis for such an amorphous category, Democratic senators pressed for an expansion of the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism”

Senator Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:

“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”

While the media ran with the false claims of Schiff and Blumenthal during the Russian collusion investigation, there is little attention to these files and the fact that they were told that these these claims lacked support by Twitter.

*

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: Adam Schiff (Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Congressional Trolls”: Democratic Leaders Pushed Refuted Russian Troll Claims
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

In October, Russia accused the post-coup government of Ukraine of developing a radiological dirty bomb that would be detonated somewhere in Ukraine and blamed on Russia.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) responded by announcing a visit to two locations suspected of work on nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the USG denounced “Russia’s transparently false allegations that Ukraine is preparing to use a dirty bomb on its own territory” and characterized it “as a pretext for escalation” of the Russian SMO.

In the war propaganda-saturated West, a number of claims have been put forth arguing that the prospect of a Ukrainian nuclear weapon is a conspiracy theory.

“The Kremlin is claiming that Ukraine is developing nuclear weapons. Like most of Russia’s other pretexts for invading Ukraine, this is dangerous nonsense,” writes the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

It should be noted, however, the Bulletin is hardly above politics. In addition to helping fund the Bulletin, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation have granted millions of dollars to political organizations, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Hudson Institute (both are neocon advocacy groups), the Brookings Institute (“liberal” neocons), in addition to a raft of progressive organizations, according to InfluenceWatch.

Omitted from the Bulletin post is the discovery of a widespread bio lab program in Ukraine. The corporate war propaganda media, including Wikipedia, have declared this discovery to be a conspiracy theory, never mind the Pentagon has admitted to funding research facilities in Ukraine over the last 20 years. In June, the USG “defense” department released a statement indicating as much, although it window dressed its effort as “threat reduction efforts.”

While the Bulletin, and the corporate war propaganda media in general, have thrown cold water on the Russian concern about the prospect of Ukraine building and using a nuclear weapon, the president of post-coup Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has argued that the Budapest Memorandum is null and void.

The Budapest Memorandum, an agreement signed in 1994 by the US, the UK, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, provided security guarantees to the latter three countries on their acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

After the Fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had more than 200 intercontinental ballistic missiles and a fleet of 38 heavy strategic bombers in its possession.

This arsenal made Ukraine de facto the world’s third most powerful nuclear weapons state, with enough firepower to singlehandedly wipe out the planet. But Kiev didn’t have the launch codes to the nukes, which were controlled via the Russian equivalent of the US ‘nuclear football’ by President Yeltsin. (Emphasis added.)

The deal finalized 29 years ago on Saturday provided Ukraine with security assurances upon its “accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” according to a memorandum signed on 5 December 1994.

“Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reduction in nuclear forces,” the memorandum begins, and continues with the parties agreeing to

reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the Principles of the CSCE [Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe] Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to her own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty…

Following Russia’s SMO, Ukraine argued the move nullified the agreement and Ukraine was now free to develop nuclear weapons.

“I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum,” Zelenskyy said. “The minister of foreign affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and that all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt,” Zelenskyy warned.

However, there is a major problem with this. Ukraine’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation is codified in its Declaration of State Sovereignty, put into place in July 1990, which holds the government in Kyiv shall not “accept, produce, or acquire nuclear weapons,” and will follow a policy of neutrality.

After Ukraine’s 2005 “Orange Revolution,” then-President Viktor Yushchenko signed a constitutional amendment committing the country to NATO and European Union membership. After the USG-orchestrated coup and the overthrow of Yushchenko in 2014, the constitution was once again amended to include Ukraine in NATO’s military bloc and indicated it planned to join the EU’s “strategic course,” in other words, allowing NATO to use Ukraine as a staging ground and permit it to place missiles on the Russian border, a major national security red line for Russia.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists argues Ukraine does not have the ability to build a nuke, primarily because,

1) it does not possess highly enriched uranium, which was removed during an Obama administration nuclear security summit,

2) the expertise to build nuclear weapons and the technicians required are lacking,

3) there are no delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons (this omits the possibility of a land-based explosion of a “dirty bomb”) and,

4) it would be difficult to build a secret nuke, as its facilities are allegedly under IAEA inspection.

The IAEA dismissed the possibility of a Ukrainian nuke, stating it had inspected three sites and reportedly found nothing suspicious. “Based on the evaluations of the available results and the information provided to Ukraine, the agency found no indications of undeclared nuclear activities or materials at these locations,” said the Vienna-based organization.

“However, the sites were opened for inspection by Ukrainian authorities themselves for ‘safeguards checks,’ and are just a fraction of Ukraine’s overall nuclear facilities—which include three research institutes, four nuclear power plants, waste storage sites and a sprinkling of uranium mines situated in the central Ukrainian region of Kirovograd,” Sputnik International counters.

On Friday, however, the IAEA announced it will send Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi to Ukraine this week “to establish a continuous presence of nuclear safety and security experts at all the country’s nuclear power facilities,” according to the International Atomic Energy Agency website.

The IAEA’s role in the Iran nuclear deal demonstrates its double standards. Despite intelligence agencies stating Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon, the former deputy director of the organization, Olli Heinonen, declared back in 2015 Iran was cheating on verification.

“Heinonen, now a fellow at the Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, has long had a personal interest in portraying Iran as carrying out covert nuclear weapon work,” writes Gareth Porter.

In any case, Heinonen’s premise that Iran is waiting for the opportunity to manufacture nuclear weapons parts is contradicted by Iran’s behavior for the last several years, during which it could have enriched uranium sufficiently for a bomb, but has instead chosen to limit its enrichment and then agreed to reduce it sharply.

According to the USG, IAEA, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the war propaganda media, it would be difficult, if not virtually impossible, for Ukraine to acquire the materials and expertise to build a nuclear bomb.

However, the argument is flipped and takes on a propagandistic hue when we are talking about official enemies of the USG, for instance, Saddam Hussein. In 2002, we were fed a boatload of nonsense, later roundly debunked, that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction,” nukes, and chemical weapons, and these were an imminent threat not only to the national security of America but the entire world.

Now the enemy, the New Satan or Hitler, is Vladimir Putin. It doesn’t matter that Putin said Russia would only use nukes if it faced an existential threat. Putin never said Russia would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Reading corporate war propaganda media headlines from late February onward, though, gives the distinct impression Putin is a madman, suffering from cancer, fanatically determined to not only gobble up Ukraine but probably Europe and beyond as well.

Finally, it should be noted the Ternopil Regional Council, which was dominated by Oleg Tianibok’s neo-Nazi Svoboda Party, demanded in 2009 that Ukraine’s president, prime minister, and head of the Verkhovna Rada “terminate the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and restore Ukraine’s nuclear status.”

The Patriot of Ukraine organization, established by Andrey Biletsky and based on the ideology of the Azov Battalion, demanded in the foreign policy section of its military doctrine that Ukraine’s nuclear weapons be returned. The same document declares the “ultimate goal of Ukrainian foreign policy is world domination.”

In 2014, the same year as the Maidan coup, Ukrainian MP Pavel Rizanenko, a member of the UDAR Party, during an interview with USA Today, said agreeing to the Budapest Memorandum and Ukraine surrendering its hold on Soviet-era nukes was a “big mistake… If you have nuclear weapons people don’t invade you.”

Also in 2014, “the Batkivshchyna party, headed by ex-Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko, and UDAR, headed by Kiev’s current mayor, Vitaly Klitschko, including the secretary of the parliamentary Committee on National Security and Defense, Sergey Kaplin, submitted a bill on withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty.”

Kaplin claimed that Ukraine could create nuclear weapons in just two years because it already had almost everything necessary: The fissile materials, equipment (except centrifuges), technology, specialists, and even means of delivery. In September of the same year, Ukraine’s minister of defense, Valery Geletey, also expressed the desire to develop nuclear weapons. (Emphasis added.)

Prior to Russia’s SMO, in 2018, the former representative of the Ukrainian mission to NATO, Major General Petro Garashchuk, said Ukraine “has the intellectual, organizational and financial capabilities to create nuclear weapons,” according to a report posted at Gazeta.ru.

The report also mentions a statement by Valeriy Heletey, the head of Ukraine’s defense ministry. He said his country does not rule out claiming nuclear status if the Ukrainian military “cannot defend the country,” in other words, if it cannot force out Russia, maintain its attack on Donbas, and successfully restart an effort to take back Crimea, the southern peninsula that voted in referenda, along with Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, to escape the brutality of the neo-Nazi ultranats.

Now that the ground is frozen in Ukraine, the Russian army will complete its SMO, taking out the neo-Nazis and the remainder of Ukraine’s military threat against ethnic Russians, and finally, put an end to the possibility of Ukrainian neo-Nazis acquiring a Stepan Bandera Memorial Nuke and using it against innocent civilians in Russia proper.

*

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 author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Stepan Bandera Memorial Nuke. “The Kremlin is claiming that Ukraine is developing nuclear weapons”
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Premier David Eby, et al,

Your stubborn refusal to face the reality that the Covid-19 scamdemic is DEAD and over with has to end. Your government’s unwarranted mis-treatment of our dedicated nurses who the NDP kicked out of the hospitals for refusing to take the killer jab also MUST end and these trained professionals be reinstated and compensated for loss of wages plus all the concomitant negative results of your government’s ill-conceived actions. Such treatment of BC’s nursing profession by you and your cohorts is more akin to the actions of communist nations like China not so-called Democratic nations like Canada.

Given all your past credits for having been the Executive Director of the BC Civil Liberties Association and an award-winning human rights lawyer all of those accomplishments fly in the face of such draconian, mean-spirited treatment of the nurses here in B.C.

I was personally in communication with you a few years back when the Ontario Civil Liberties Association was standing up for me during my own litigation over the issue of freedom of speech in Canada when we were requesting support from the BC Civil Liberties Association. As I recall trying to get you onboard was like pulling teeth with vice-grips.

For all the rhetoric and fanfare that the office of Premier provides you none of that matters in the long run. What truly matters is that you get your shit together and accept the fact that this heinous scamdemic you, Horgan, Henry, Hix and the rest of the NDP party have been colluding in with the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, Fauci and all the rest of the global elite psychopaths has to cease and common sense once again guide you all.

The party’s over David. The world is on to your scheming on behalf of those who want to murder the majority of humanity and turn the rest into genetically modified organism. Best you make things right and reinstating the unemployed nurses would be a good first step on the road back to justice and freedom.

For Truth and Justice,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
Cariboosentinel.ca

*

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 licensed under CC BY 2.0


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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

Japan’s actions in a certain period of the past not only claimed numerous victims here in Japan but also left the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere with scars that are painful even today. I am thus taking this opportunity to state my belief, based on my profound remorse for these acts of aggression, colonial rule, and the like that caused such unbearable suffering and sorrow for so many people, that Japan’s future path should be one of making every effort to build world peace in line with my no-war commitment. It is imperative for us Japanese to look squarely to our history with the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere…[emphasis added] — Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama, “Peace, Friendship, and Exchange Initiative

When considering the state of affairs between two nation states, understanding the history of the relationship is critical.

Japan’s current prime minister Fumio Kishida ought to consider Murayama’s advice to look squarely at Japan’s history with neighboring countries. However, before addressing Kishida’s recent demands of China, there are some pertinent questions to consider in the relationship between the two countries?

Has China ever invaded Japan? Sort of. It was back in the 13th century CE, and it was the Mongol Dynasty (aka the Yuan Dynasty) and its Mongolian Emperor, Kublai Khan — the grandson of Genghis Khan, that twice attempted to invade Japan, in 1274 and 1281. The weather gods, however, were aligned against the Mongol Empire as typhoons, known as the kamikaze (divine winds), scuppered both invasion attempts. China was an ally of the US in World War II, a fact that seems to hold negligible currency with the US, as it prefers its defeated enemy, Japan.

Has Japan ever invaded and occupied China? Yes, Japan has invaded and occupied China and committed unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese people. Among the atrocities are the Nanking Massacre (unwrapped by Iris Chang in The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, 1997) and the cruel biological and chemical weapons experiments carried out on Chinese by Unit 731 in Harbin, China.

Has Japan ever apologized for its war crimes? Murayama’s prolix non-apology speaks to the evasions of several Japanese politicians whereby Japan as a nation has abjectly failed to take the necessary first step toward atonement for past national crimes. Individual prime ministers have often expressed remorse, regret, sorrow — weasel words that evade saying sorry, which has seldom been meaningfully spoken. What does this mean in a country where apologizing on an individual level is deeply entrenched in the culture? Japan is a society where people profusely apologize for the slightest indiscretion. But on a national level, it is another story. It seems an apology by the Japanese Diet, rather than cleansing the national consciousness, is considered to sully the national image. Thus, the Diet has never officially apologized to the people and nations it victimized during WWII and before. Instead the Japanese government evades any obligation to apologize.

There is, in fact, no serious will among collective Japanese politicians to apologize. This is clear on many levels. Japanese leaders, to the consternation of aggrieved nations, still visit the Yasukuni Shrine which houses the kami of Japanese war criminals. History is sanitized. Japanese students are taught a history that elides Japan’s crimes. Japan has even lobbied other governments to remove statues of a comfort woman erected in their jurisdiction — stark reminders of the crimes of the Japanese military.

And what has this historical revisionism wrought? There is pressure from the US — contrary to the pacifist American-drafted constitution imposed on Japan — to beef up Japan’s military and even gang up on a formerly victimized country, China.

“It is absolutely imperative for Japan, the United States and Europe to stand united in managing our respective relationship with China,” said Kishida. This is portrayed as “enhancing Tokyo’s U.S. alliance in the face of growing challenges from Beijing.” Given the history, one wonders how it is that China is presented as a “growing challenge” to Japan?

According to Kishida, China is also a central challenge to the United States. This raises another pertinent question:

Have the US and Europe ever invaded China? Chinese remember how the US, Europeans, Russians, and Japanese effected the Century of Humiliation for China. Britain would impose the first of the unequal treaties on China following the First Opium War and assume control over Hong Kong. Other unequal treaties forced China to make concessions to the Portuguese, French, Germans, Russians, Americans, and Japanese. With this history in mind, why is it that China is presented as a threat by the victimizing countries? What are astute thinkers to conclude about the current propaganda targeting China by the western-allied bloc?

Kishida posited, “The international community is at a historical turning point: the free, open and stable international order that we have dedicated ourselves to upholding is now in grave danger.” These weasel words are easily parsed. What is meant by “international community” given that Kishida only calls for a united front with the US and Europe? What about Asia, Africa, and Latin America? Are they not part of the international community? And what kind of order is the “international order”? Why is the “international order” in grave danger, and for who is this a danger? Arguably, the “international order” as Kishida envisions it ought to be abandoned in favor of a world that is truly “free, open and stable.” Wouldn’t that be preferable to a world split between a so-called developed world and developing world or, as it is more euphemistically framed, as between the West and the Global South.

US president Joe Biden is on side with the alarmist tone of Kishida, and he commended Japan’s recently announced “historic” defense build up.

China’s vision for the international order differs from the views of Japan and the United States in some ways that the allies “can never accept,” said Kishida. This seems puzzling because China calls for multipolarity. The international order for Japan, however, is not about reducing power asymmetry among nations.

Japan’s acquiescence to a lower ordered rank is revealed by never having rid itself of the lingering vestiges of occupation — a stark reminder of its defeat in WWII. Seventy-seven years later, US military bases are still situated throughout Japan, especially in Okinawa much to the chagrin of Okinawans.

Depending on which source one trusts, the US has 750 to 900 military bases around the world. This is the international order that Kishida speaks of, an order that adduces US hegemony. China, on the other hand, rejects hegemonic status.

Kishida complains of China’s rejection of unipolarity. “China needs to make a strategic decision that it will abide by established international rules and that it cannot and will not change the international order in ways that are contrary to these rules.”

Kishida’s “shameful subservience to the US” (as Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, put it, according to the Guardian) is odd considering that the US is the country that firebombed Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yet, one can deduce from Kishida’s words that Japan accepts being a vassal of the hegemon.

Nonetheless, the tides of history have begun to erode the “international order.” China, Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, and other countries are no longer willing to exist as second-class nation 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.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The History of Japan and China. Unspeakable Atrocities against the Chinese People. Kishida’s “shameful subservience to the US”
  • Tags:

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.

Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.

Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

Wer ernsthaft darüber nachdenkt, wie der Dritte Weltkrieg noch gestoppt und eine mögliche „Endlösung der Menschheitsfrage“ verhindert werden kann, dem sei Bertha von Suttners 1889 in Deutsch erschienener Roman mit dem aufrüttelnden Appell „Die Waffen nieder“ zu empfehlen. An ihren Gedanken, Hinweisen und Anregungen kann man sich noch heute orientieren. Allein die Frage, wieso die Kinder der Menschen von Herrschenden immer wieder auf Schlachtfelder befohlen werden, diesen Befehlen gehorsam folgen und dort „geschlachtet“ werden, konnte sich zu jener Zeit noch niemand hinreichend erklären. Diese Frage wurde erst durch die Erkenntnisse der psychologischen Forschung beantwortet.

„Der Weltfrieden ist keine Frage der Möglichkeit, sondern der Notwendigkeit.“

„Bertha von Suttner hat ihren Roman ‘Die Waffen nieder‘ zu einer Zeit geschrieben, da Europas Völker zwar die beiden Weltkriege noch vor sich hatten, aber in eine Reihe von blutigen Auseinandersetzungen verstrickt waren (…). Schon als junge Frau hat Bertha von Suttner sich selbst und anderen die Frage gestellt, ob die Menschen nicht zu Besserem fähig seien, als sich gegenseitig umzubringen. Diese Fragen nach dem Warum des Leiden-Zufügens und Leiden-Erduldens endet bei Bertha von Suttner in dem aufrüttelnden Appell ‚Die Waffen nieder!‘ – aber es bleibt nicht beim Appell.“ (1)

Das sind die Worte des ehemaligen deutschen Bundeskanzlers Willy Brandt am 1. Juni 1977 im Geleitwort der zweiten Ausgabe des Buches.

Bertha von Suttners Leitmotiv ihres Lebenskampfes für den Frieden lautete:

„Der Weltfrieden ist keine Frage der Möglichkeit, sondern der Notwendigkeit. (…) Die Höherentwicklung der Welt muß auf dem Weltfrieden basieren.“ (2)

Dieses Zitat ist der Einführung des österreichischen Kulturhistorikers Friedrich Heer zur zweiten Ausgabe des Buches entnommen. Es gilt noch heute.

Ende 1889 erschien die erste Auflage des Buches „Die Waffen nieder!“. Es wurde in fast alle europäischen Sprachen übersetzt. Der große russische Dichter Leo Tolstoi, Prophet der Gewaltlosigkeit und Anreger von Mahatma Gandhi, schrieb laut Friedrich Heer in einem Brief an Bertha von Suttner: „Die Abschaffung der Sklaverei war das berühmte Werk einer Frau, H. Beecher-Stowe, vorausgegangen. Gott möge es so fügen, dass die Abschaffung des Krieges Ihrem Werke folge.“ (3)

Am 10. Dezember 1905 erhielt Bertha von Suttner als erste Frau den von ihr selbst angeregten Friedensnobelpreis. Alle ihre Bücher haben das moderne europäische Bewusstsein mitgeprägt.

Krieg ist die Glorifizierung der Gewalt

Bertha von Suttner war der festen Überzeugung, dass Krieg eine aus den Zeiten des Barbarismus überkommene Institution sei, welche durch die Zivilisation beseitigt werden müsse. Das wahre Gesicht des Krieges sei das Gesicht „sinnloser, brutaler Zerstörung und Vernichtung“. Er war für sie Barbarei, Kannibalismus, Menschenopfer und „die Vorbereitung zur ‚Endlösung‘ der Menschheitsfrage“ (4). Dem ist nichts hinzuzufügen.

In ihrem Buch zitiert Bertha von Suttner einen Gesprächspartner mit folgender Aussage:

„Jeder Krieg – was immer dessen Ausgang sei – enthält unweigerlich den Keim eines folgenden Krieges in sich. Ganz natürlich: ein Gewaltakt verletzt immer irgend ein Recht. Dieses erhebt über kurz oder lang seine Ansprüche und der neue Konflikt bricht aus – wird dann von neuem durch unrechtsschwangere Gewalt zum Austrag gebracht – und so ins Unendliche.“ (5)

Zum Verhältnis der Kirche zum Krieg ergänzt der linkskatholische Intellektuelle Friedrich Heer:

„Die bedeutendste Anregung, die Bertha von Suttner im Westen, in Paris zunächst, erhält, kommt von der englischen und amerikanischen Friedensbewegung her. Während die europäischen Großkirchen bis zum heutigen Tage an dem ‚Gott der Heerscharen‘, an dem Bündnis von ‚Thron und Altar‘, an der Billigung des Krieges (wobei j e d e r Krieg als ‚Verteidigungskrieg‘ ausgegeben werden kann) festhalten, hat sich im amerikanischen und englischen religiösen Nonkonformismus, in evangelischen Freikirchen, vor allem aber bei den Quäkern vom 16. und 17. Jahrhundert her eine Tradition eines religiös fundierten Pazifismus

Entwickelt: der Mensch ist verpflichtet, dem Menschen ein ‚Frieder‘ zu sein (…): ein Mensch, der Frieden gibt, Frieden macht, Frieden stiftet.“ (6)

Ursachen des Krieges 

Siegmund Freud führte zwischen den beiden Weltkriegen mit dem Todestrieb einen sehr umstrittenen Begriff in die Theorie der Psychoanalyse ein. Albert Camus sprach daraufhin in seiner Dankesrede für die Verleihung des Nobelpreises von einem verdeckte Todes- und Selbstmorddrang der damaligen Gesellschaft.

Bertha von Suttner durchschaute nach Auffassung Friedrich Heers die „Lebensschwäche“ vieler Männer und Zeitgenossen. Er schreibt:

„Diese Lebensschwäche ist mit Denkschwäche und Liebesschwäche eng verbunden, und produziert jenen unheimlichen Fatalismus des ‚Gehen-Lassens‘, der Feigheit vor der Verantwortung für die Hütung des Lebens. (…) Die meisten denken nicht.“ (7)

Im Geleitwort sagt Willy Brandt:

„In den von ihr aufgezeichneten Gesprächen mit dem Vater, dem Mann und vielen Freunden, mit Geistlichen, Ministern und hohen Offizieren spiegelt sich das Denken jener Epoche so eindringlich wider, dass man auch jetzt noch nacherleben kann, was die Menschen damals bewegte. Da finden wir jene, die meinen, Krieg sei die Wurzel alles Hehren, Großen und Schönen. Wir erleben die anderen, die in dumpfer Ergebenheit oder weil sie so erzogen wurden, überhaupt nicht darüber nachdenken, warum erwachsene Männer, die sich nie etwas getan haben, plötzlich wie wilde Tiere aufeinander losschlagen und sich töten. Und da finden wir die Gedanken jener, die eine friedliche Lösung der Konflikte unter den Völkern anstreben.“ (8)

Auch wenn die erwähnten Erklärungsansätze nicht falsch sind und das Erziehungsproblem bereits erwähnt wurde, klären erst die Erkenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie darüber auf, dass die Menschen keine genetisch determinierten Todes-, Selbstmord- oder Aggressionstriebe besitzen und es deshalb nicht ihrer Natur entspricht, sich selbst oder die Mitmenschen umzubringen.

Tatsache ist, dass Kriege für die Herrschenden und ihre Politiker ein gutes Geschäft sind und die Menschen jeden Alters leider nicht in der Lage sind, dem Aufruf dieser „Autoritäten“ zum Völkermord nicht zu folgen. Die autoritäre Erziehung hat so auf ihr Gefühlsleben eingewirkt, dass sie gehen müssen. Dieses Gefühl des absoluten Gehorsams aus der Kindheit tragen sie bis ins hohe Alter mit, ist ihnen aber nicht bewusst. Deshalb können und dürfen wir sie nicht verurteilen. Doch dieser unbewussten Gefühlsanteile können sie sich bewusstwerden und ihr Verhalten ändern.

Charakter (Persönlichkeit), Verhalten und intellektuelle Fähigkeiten entwickeln sich auch im Rahmen des soziokulturellen Milieus

Wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass der Mensch in der Erziehung „wird“, dann ist das menschliche Gefühlsleben nicht allein als Resultat der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung, der Stellung in der Geschwisterreihe und anderen familiären Konstellationen zu verstehen. Entscheidend sind die in einer Kultur vorherrschenden Werte und die mit ihnen korrespondierenden Gefühle, als deren Vermittler Eltern, Lehrer und Erzieher täglich an das Kind herantreten.

Bertha von Suttner ist zum Beispiel in einer Familie von Offizieren aufgewachsen, die es als großes Glück empfanden, für ihren Fürsten auf dem Felde der Ehre kämpfen und sterben zu dürfen. Obwohl sie von diesem soziokulturellen Milieu geprägt worden war, hat sie den Kampf gegen die lebensfeigen Mitmenschen, die durch eine falsche Erziehung fehlgeleitet sind, mutig aufgenommen.

Nach der Devise, dass nicht der Mensch krank sei, sondern die Gesellschaft, müsste auch heute von den aufgeklärten Zeitgenossen alles unternommen werden, um eine allen Menschen entsprechende Sozialordnung zu schaffen. Die Welt wird nur genesen und die Menschheit weiterkommen, wenn sich die Menschen in absoluter Freiwilligkeit und Gewaltlosigkeit zusammenschließen (assoziieren) und überlegen, wie sie ihre Probleme gemeinsam lösen können. Auch hierzu kann Bertha von Suttner aus Ihrer Lebenserfahrung einiges beisteuern.

Wie die öffentliche Meinung ändern?

Von der bereits erwähnten westlichen Friedensbewegung ausgehend, erarbeitete sich Bertha von Suttner die Leitlinien ihres eigenen Kampfes für den Frieden. Diese lassen sich nach Auffassung Friedrich Heers etwa so zusammenfassen:

„Wer für den Frieden kämpfen will, muss die politischen, wirtschaftlichen, gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse in jedem Falle, der zum Kriegsfalle werden kann, studieren. Wer die öffentliche Meinung ändern will, muß sich mit einem tausendjährigen Fatalismus, gepredigt durch die Kirchen, mit einer tausendjährigen Heiligung des Kriegs durch Theologen, auseinandersetzen. Wer für den Frieden kämpfen will, muß sowohl die Massen ansprechen – die Suttner wurde eine hervorragende Rednerin, die sich jeweils auf das seelische Klima sehr gut einstellen konnte – sei es in Frankreich, in Deutschland oder in Amerika – und er muß sich bemühen, an die Verantwortlichen heranzukommen, an die Staatsmänner, an die führenden Politiker, an

einflussreiche Männer der Wirtschaft, der Gesellschaft, der Presse. Das alles nimmt Bertha von Suttner auf sich: eine Frau, die es mit der Lethargie, dem stumpfen Sinn der Massen, mit der anerzogenen Kriegsgläubigkeit der Frauen, gerade auch der Frauen in den führenden Gesellschaftsschichten, mit dem Konformismus von Männern, aufnimmt, die oft gegen besseres Wissen ‚mitmachen‘.“ (9)

Mensch erwache – zu deiner Menschenpflicht

Auf diesen Appell von Immanuel Kant, dem größten Denker des Friedens in Deutschland, beruft sich auch Bertha von Suttner. Hierzu schreibt Friedrich Heer am Ende seiner Einführung:

„Der Ruf ‚Mensch erwache‘, erhoben von Bertha von Suttner zwischen 1889 und 1914, wird nicht mehr verstummen und wird sich nähren und kräftigen an der Denkkraft und Tatkraft der Frau, die 1899 dies zu erklären wagte: ‚Das 20. Jahrhundert wird nicht zu Ende gehen, ohne dass die menschliche Gesellschaft die größte Geisel, den Krieg, als legale Institution abgeschafft haben wird‘.“ (10)

Wenige Wochen vor Beginn des Ersten Weltkriegs, vor dem sie wiederholt gewarnt hatte, verstarb die große österreichische Pazifistin, Friedensforscherin und Schriftstellerin.

Gemäß eines überlieferten Nachrufs waren ihre letzten Worte:

„Die Waffen nieder! – – sag‘s vielen – – vielen.“ (11)

*

Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen. 

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Schul-Rektor, Erziehungswissenschaftler (Dr. paed.) und Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Nach seinen Universitätsstudien wurde er wissenschaftlicher Lehrer (Professor) in der Erwachsenenbildung: unter anderem Leiter eines freien Schul-Modell-Versuchs und Fortbildner bayerischer Beratungslehrkräfte und Schulpsychologen. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. Bei einer Öffentlichen Anhörung zur Jugendkriminalität im Europa-Parlament war er Berichterstatter für Deutschland. In seinen Büchern und Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Für seine Verdienste um Serbien bekam er 2021 von den Universitäten Belgrad und Novi Sad den Republik-Preis „Kapitän Misa Anastasijevic“ verliehen.

Noten

1. Suttner, Bertha von (1977). Die Waffen nieder! Mit einem Geleitwort von Willy Brandt und einer Einführung von Friedrich Heer. Hildesheim, S. V

2. O., S. XVII

3. O., S. XIV

4. O., S. VII

5. O., S. 123

6. O., S. XIII

7. O., S, XI

8. O., S. V

9. O., S. XIIIf.

10. O., S. XXI

11. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_von _Suttner

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on „Die Waffen nieder!“ Mensch erwache! „Krieg ist die Glorifizierung der Gewalt”

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

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

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

***

For anyone seriously thinking about how the Third World War can still be stopped and a possible “final solution of the human question” prevented, Bertha von Suttner’s novel with the stirring appeal “Lay Down Your Arms”, published in German in 1889, is to be recommended. Her thoughts, hints and suggestions can still be used as a guide today. At that time, no one could adequately explain why the children of mankind were repeatedly ordered to battlefields by rulers, why they obediently followed these orders and why they were “slaughtered” there. This question was only answered by the findings of psychological research.

“World peace is not a question of possibility, but of necessity.”

“Bertha von Suttner wrote her novel ‘Lay Down Your Arms’ at a time when Europe’s peoples, although still facing the two world wars, were embroiled in a series of bloody conflicts (…). Even as a young woman, Bertha von Suttner asked herself and others whether people were not capable of better things than killing each other. These questions about why people inflict and tolerate suffering end with Bertha von Suttner’s stirring appeal ‘Lay down your arms’ – but it does not stop there.” (1)

These are the words of former German Chancellor Willy Brandt on 1 June 1977 in the preface to the second edition of the book.

Bertha von Suttner’s leitmotif of her life struggle for peace was:

“World peace is not a question of possibility, but of necessity. (…) The higher development of the world must be based on world peace.” (2)

This quote is taken from the introduction to the second edition of the book by the Austrian cultural historian Friedrich Heer. It is still valid today.

The first edition of the book “Die Waffen nieder!” appeared at the end of 1889. It was translated into almost all European languages. According to Friedrich Heer, the great Russian poet Leo Tolstoy, prophet of non-violence and inspirer of Mahatma Gandhi, wrote in a letter to Bertha von Suttner: “The abolition of slavery was preceded by the famous work of a woman, H. Beecher-Stowe. God grant that the abolition of war may follow her work.” (3)

On 10 December 1905, Bertha von Suttner became the first woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, which she herself had suggested. All her books have helped shape modern European consciousness.

War is the glorification of violence

Bertha von Suttner was firmly convinced that war was an institution inherited from the times of barbarism, which had to be eliminated by civilisation. The true face of war was the face of “senseless, brutal destruction and annihilation”. For them it was barbarism, cannibalism, human sacrifice and “the preparation for the ‘final solution’ of the human question” (4). There is nothing to add to this.

In her book, Bertha von Suttner quotes an interlocutor with the following statement:

“Every war – whatever its outcome – inevitably contains within itself the germ of a subsequent war. Quite naturally, an act of violence always violates some right. Sooner or later this right makes its claims and the new conflict breaks out – is then brought to a head anew by violence pregnant with injustice – and so on into infinity.” (5)

On the relationship of the Church to war, the left-wing Catholic intellectual Friedrich Heer adds:

“The most significant stimulus Bertha von Suttner received in the West, in Paris at first, came from the English and American peace movements. While the mainstream European churches still cling to the ‘God of Hosts’, to the alliance of ‘throne and altar’, to the approval of war (whereby any war can be passed off as a ‘defensive war’), a tradition of religiously based pacifism has developed in American and English religious non-conformism, in Protestant free churches, but above all among the Quakers from the 16th and 17th centuries.

Man is obliged to be a ‘peacemaker’ to man (…): a man who gives peace, makes peace, establishes peace.” (6)

Causes of the war

Siegmund Freud introduced a very controversial concept into the theory of psychoanalysis between the two world wars: the death drive. Albert Camus then spoke in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize of a hidden death and suicide urge in the society of the time.

In Friedrich Heer’s view, Bertha von Suttner saw through the “weakness of life” of many men and contemporaries. He writes:

“This weakness of life is closely connected with weakness of thought and weakness of love, and produces that uncanny fatalism of ‘letting go’, of cowardice before the responsibility of guarding life. (…) Most do not think.”(7)

In the foreword Willy Brandt states:

“In the conversations she recorded with her father, husband and many friends, with clergymen, ministers and high officers, the thinking of that epoch is reflected so vividly that even now one can relive what moved people at that time. We find those who believe that war is the root of all that is noble, great and beautiful. We see others who, in dull devotion or because they were brought up that way, do not think at all about why grown men who have never done anything to each other suddenly lash out at each other like wild animals and kill each other. And there we find the thoughts of those who seek a peaceful solution to the conflicts among nations.” (8)

Even if the explanatory approaches mentioned are not wrong and the educational problem has already been mentioned, it is only the findings of scientific psychology that clarify the fact that human beings do not possess genetically determined death, suicide or aggression instincts and that it is therefore not in their nature to kill themselves or their fellow human beings.

The fact is that wars are good business for the rulers and their politicians and people of all ages are unfortunately unable not to heed the call of these “authorities” to genocide. The authoritarian upbringing has so affected their emotional life that they have to leave. They carry this feeling of absolute obedience from childhood with them into old age, but they are not aware of it. Therefore, we cannot and must not condemn them. But they can become aware of these unconscious emotional parts and change their behaviour.

Character (personality), behaviour and intellectual abilities also develop within the framework of the socio-cultural milieu.

If we assume that the human being “becomes” in upbringing, then human emotional life is not to be understood solely as the result of the parent-child relationship, the position in the sibling line and other family constellations. What is decisive are the values prevailing in a culture and the feelings corresponding to them, as whose mediators parents, teachers and educators approach the child on a daily basis.

Bertha von Suttner, for example, grew up in a family of officers who considered it great luck to be allowed to fight and die for their prince on the field of honour. Although she had been influenced by this socio-cultural milieu, she courageously took up the fight against her fellow human beings who were misguided by a wrong upbringing.

According to the motto that it is not the human being who is ill, but society, everything should be done today by enlightened contemporaries to create a social order that corresponds to all human beings. The world will only recover and humanity will only progress if people unite (associate) in absolute voluntariness and non-violence and consider how they can solve their problems together. Bertha von Suttner can also contribute something to this from her life experience.

How to change public opinion?

Taking the aforementioned Western peace movement as a starting point, Bertha von Suttner worked out the guidelines of her own struggle for peace. According to Friedrich Heer, these can be summarised roughly as follows:

“Whoever wants to fight for peace must study the political, economic, social conditions in every case that can become a case of war. Whoever wants to change public opinion must come to terms with a thousand years of fatalism preached by the churches, with a thousand years of sanctification of war by theologians. Whoever wants to fight for peace must appeal to the masses – Suttner became an excellent speaker who was able to adapt very well to the emotional climate – be it in France, in Germany or in America – and he must make an effort to approach those responsible, the statesmen, the leading politicians, the influential men in business, society, the press. Bertha von Suttner takes all this on herself: a woman who takes on the lethargy, the dull sense of the masses, the inbred belief in war of women, especially of women in the leading strata of society, the conformism of men, who often ‘go along’ against their better judgement.” (9)

Man awake – to your human duty

This appeal by Immanuel Kant, the greatest thinker of peace in Germany, is also invoked by Bertha von Suttner. On this, Friedrich Heer writes at the end of his introduction:

“The call ‘Man awake’, raised by Bertha von Suttner between 1889 and 1914, will no longer be silenced and will be nourished and strengthened by the thinking power and drive of the woman who dared to declare this in 1899: ‘The 20th century will not end without human society having abolished the greatest hostage, war, as a legal institution’.” (10)

A few weeks before the start of the First World War, of which she had repeatedly warned, the great Austrian pacifist, peace researcher and writer died. According to a surviving obituary, her last words were:

“Lay down your arms! – – tell it to many – – many.” (11)

*

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. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a school rector, educationalist (Dr. paed.) and psychologist (Dipl.-Psych.). After his university studies, he became an academic teacher (professor) in adult education: among other things, he was head of an independent school model experiment and in-service trainer of Bavarian counselling teachers and school psychologists. As a retiree, he worked as a psychotherapist in private practice. He was rapporteur for Germany at a public hearing on juvenile delinquency in the European Parliament. In his books and articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education and an education for public spirit and peace. For his services to Serbia, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad in 2021.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) Suttner, Bertha von (1977). Die Waffen nieder! With a foreword by Willy Brandt and an introduction by Friedrich Heer. Hildesheim, p. V

(2) op. cit., p. XVII

(3) op. cit., p. XIV

(4) op. cit., p. VII

(5) op. cit., p. 123

(6) op. cit., p. XIII

(7) op. cit., p. XI

(8) op. cit., p. V

(9) op. cit., p. XIIIf.

(10) op. cit., p. XXI

(11) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_von _Suttner

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Lay Down Your Arms!” Man Awake! “War is the glorification of violence”

2023 Outlook for Ukraine. Scott Ritter

January 16th, 2023 by Scott Ritter

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

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

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

***

Given the duplicitous history of the Minsk Accords, it is unlikely Russia can be diplomatically dissuaded from its military offensive. As such, 2023 appears to be shaping up as a year of continued violent confrontation.

After almost a year of dramatic action, where initial Russian advances were met with impressive Ukrainian counteroffensives, the frontlines in the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict have stabilized, with both sides engaged in bloody positional warfare, grinding each other down in a brutal attritional contest while awaiting the next major initiative from either side.

As the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine approaches, the fact that Ukraine has made it this far into the conflict represents both a moral and, to a lesser extent, a military victory.

From the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff to the director of the C.I.A., most senior military and intelligence officials in the West assessed in early 2022 that a major Russian military offensive against Ukraine would result in a rapid, decisive Russian victory.

The resilience and fortitude of the Ukrainian military surprised everyone, including the Russians, whose initial plan of action, inclusive of forces allocated to the task, proved inadequate to the tasks assigned. This perception of a Ukrainian victory, however, is misleading.

The Death of Diplomacy

As the dust settles on the battlefield, a pattern has emerged regarding the strategic vision behind Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. While the mainstream Western narrative continues to paint the Russian action as a precipitous act of unprovoked aggression, a pattern of facts has emerged which suggests that the Russian case for preemptive collective self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter may have merit.

Recent admissions on the part of the officials responsible for the adoption of the Minsk Accords of both 2014 and 2015 (former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, former French President Francois Hollande and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel) show that the goal of the Minsk agreements for the promotion of a peaceful resolution to the post-2014 conflict in the Donbass between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian separatists was a lie.

Feb. 12, 2015: Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at the Normandy format talks in Minsk, Belarus. (Kremlin)

Instead, the Minsk Accords, according to this troika, were little more than a means to buy Ukraine time to build a military, with the assistance of NATO, capable of bringing the Donbass to heel and driving Russia out of Crimea.

Seen in this light, the establishment of a permanent training facility by the U.S. and NATO in western Ukraine — which between 2015 and 2022 trained some 30,000 Ukrainian troops to NATO standards for the sole purpose of confronting Russia in eastern Ukraine — takes on a whole new perspective.

The admitted duplicity of Ukraine, France and Germany contrasts with Russia’s repeated insistence prior to its Feb. 24, 2022, decision to invade Ukraine that the Minsk Accords be implemented in full.

In 2008,  former U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns, the current C.I.A. director, warned that any effort by NATO to bring Ukraine into its fold would be viewed by Russia as a threat to its national security and, if pursued, would provoke a Russian military intervention. That memo by Burns provides much-needed context to the Dec. 17, 2021, initiatives by Russia to create a new European security framework that would keep Ukraine out of NATO.

Simply put, the trajectory of Russian diplomacy was conflict avoidance. The same cannot be said of either Ukraine or its Western partners, who were pursuing a policy of NATO expansion linked to the resolution of the Donbass/Crimea crises through military means.

Game Changer, Not Game Winner

The reaction of the Russian government to the failure on the part of the Russian military to defeat Ukraine in the opening phases of the conflict provides important insight into the mindset of the Russian leadership regarding its goals and objectives.

Denied a decisive victory, the Russians seemed prepared to accept an outcome which limited Russian territorial gains to the Donbass and Crimea and an agreement by Ukraine not to join NATO. Indeed, Russia and Ukraine were on the cusp of formalizing an agreement along these lines in negotiations scheduled to take place in Istanbul in early April 2022.

This negotiation, however, was scuttled following the intervention of then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who linked the continued provision of military assistance to Ukraine to the willingness of Ukraine to force a conclusion to the conflict on the battlefield, as opposed to negotiations. Johnson’s intervention was motivated by an assessment on the part of NATO that the initial Russian military failures were indicative of Russian weakness.

April 9, 2022: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky takes U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson on walk around Kiev. (President of Ukraine, Public domain)

The mood in NATO, reflected in the public statements of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (“If [Russian President Vladimir] Putin wins, that is not only a big defeat for the Ukrainians, but it will be the defeat, and dangerous, for all of us”) and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin (“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”) was to use the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as a proxy war designed to weaken Russia to the point that it would never again seek to undertake a Ukraine-like military adventure. [Coupled with an ill-fated economic war, it was also designed to bring down the Russian government, as President Joe Biden admitted last spring.]

This policy served as the impetus for the injection of what would amount to well over $100 billion worth of assistance, including tens of billions of dollars of advanced military equipment, to Ukraine.

This massive infusion of aid was a game-changing event, allowing Ukraine to transition from a primarily defensive posture to one that saw a reconstituted Ukrainian military, trained, equipped and organized to NATO standards, launching large-scale counterattacks that succeeded in driving Russian forces from large swaths of Ukraine. It was not, however, a game winning strategy — far from it.

Military Math

The impressive Ukrainian military accomplishments that were facilitated through the provision of military aid by NATO came at a huge cost in lives and material. While the exact calculation of casualties suffered by either side is difficult to come by, there is widespread acknowledgement, even among the Ukrainian government, that Ukrainian losses have been heavy.

With the battle-lines currently stabilized, the question of where the war goes from here comes down to basic military math — in short, a causal relationship between two basic equations revolving around burn rates (how quickly losses are sustained) versus replenishment rates (how quickly such losses can be replaced.) The calculus bodes ill for Ukraine.

Neither NATO nor the United States appear able to sustain the quantity of weapons that have been delivered to Ukraine, which enabled the successful fall counteroffensives against the Russians.

This equipment has largely been destroyed, and despite Ukraine’s insistence on its need for more tanks, armored fighting vehicles, artillery and air defense, and while new military aid appears to be forthcoming, it will be late to the battle and in insufficient quantities to have a game-winning impact on the battlefield.

Likewise, the casualty rates sustained by Ukraine, which at times reach more than 1,000 men per day, far exceed its ability to mobilize and train replacements.

President Joe Biden delivering “stand with Ukraine” remarks on May 3, 2022, at the Lockheed Martin facility in Troy, Alabama. (White House, Adam Schultz)

Russia, on the other hand, is in the process of finalizing a mobilization of more than 300,000 men who appear to be equipped with the most advanced weapons systems in the Russian arsenal.

When these forces arrive in full on the battlefield, sometime by the end of January, Ukraine will have no response. This harsh reality, when coupled with the annexation by Russia of more than 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory and infrastructure damage approaching $1 trillion, bodes ill for the future of Ukraine.

There is an old Russian saying, “A Russian harnesses slowly but rides fast.” This appears to be what is transpiring regarding the Russian-Ukraine conflict.

Both Ukraine and its Western partners are struggling to sustain the conflict they initiated when they rejected a possible peace settlement in April 2022. Russia, after starting off on its back feet, has largely regrouped, and appears poised to resume large-scale offensive operations which neither Ukraine nor its Western partners have an adequate answer for.

Moreover, given the duplicitous history of the Minsk Accords, it is unlikely Russia can be dissuaded from undertaking its military offensive through diplomacy. As such, 2023 appears to be shaping up as a year of continued violent confrontation leading to a decisive Russian military victory.

How Russia leverages such a military victory into a sustainable political settlement that manifests itself in regional peace and security is yet to be seen.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin observing military exercises in the eastern Primorsky Krai region, September 2022. (Kremlin)

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

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

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

***

Jacobin author Neal Meyer has pointed out what I too was thinking. The Left, indeed all of today’s Democrats, would do well to view as a lesson in politics, the successful far-right GOP strategy to bend House-Speaker-in-waiting McCarthy to their will. Liberal commentators watching the horse-trading on the House floor earlier this month, suggested their side could never stoop so low. But, if Democrats might not cheer that process, at least they ought not to regard it as unreasonable or irrational. As Meyer advises, “the Left should take note” and understand that this is politics and is neither illegal nor immoral. 

A “carnival of folly,” a “theater of the absurd”, cries our respected colleague Chris Hedges commenting on the Freedom Caucus’  withholding votes for McCarthy until its demands were met. Why such rancor from him and other liberal commentators? However eloquent Hedges’ indignation, that raucous lobbying we witnessed on the Hill is a display of a legitimate process. Vote-trading usually happens less publicly within a party. If conducted between parties, it’s generally viewed favorably.

We can’t recall seeing former Speaker Nancy Pelosi engaged in an undignified display of that kind? Maybe that’s because she was a more skillful party whip. Perhaps also because Democrats are unduly concerned with decorum; they equate good behavior with higher morality.

As Meyer points out in the January 7th Jacobin piece: “If we’re going to triumph over the forces of reaction and win these changes and more (reforms important to the left), we’re going to need to learn to fight harder and smarter.” His unpopular reprimand to the Left is now endorsed by Black Agenda Report senior columnist Margaret Kimberly. “Republicans’ deal-making was democracy in action,” she rightly points out.

What the liberal press decried was a very public lobbying effort by members of the GOP to press their agenda on a leadership which they knew was desperate for a handful of critical votes. McCarthy hadn’t sufficient backing to begin his tenure; he had to form a kind of coalition with the extremists of his party. To win their votes, he accepted certain far-right terms. Doesn’t this happen elsewhere? Especially in nations with a preponderance of small parties, fringe leaders hope to be courted by other party leaders they normally oppose. In Italy and Israel (whose current coalition is now one of its most extreme) such arrangements are frequent. It happens in Germany and other European countries too.

It’s rare in the U.S. because we lack minority parties with sufficiently strong leaders who might wield influence; this in both the Democratic and the Republican Party. In a closely contested American election, it’s winner takes all.

It’s not as if political vote-trading, or ‘horse-trading’ as it’s known in the U.S., is unfamiliar to Democrats. Speaker Pelosi, regarded as a shrewd politician, was said to engage in this, however decorously, on a regular basis. We should not forget how effectively she rebuffed the left fringe of the party in recent years. The Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus, now numbering almost 100 members, should be a formidable force in policy formation. Led by Pramila Jayapal, they had seemed determined to hold the line on the vote to fund both 2021 infrastructure bills. The first part of that plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed. But its partner bill which was designed to expand Medicare and child tax relief, and fund essential social services as well climate initiatives was put aside. The Progressive Caucus insisted it would support infrastructure funding only if both parts were tied and voted on together. They collapsed and voted for the first while the second bill was sidelined. When that bill was reduced and reworked as Build Back Better, not the Progressives but two rightist Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema held firm until Democratic Senate whip Schumer accepted their terms.

More recently, the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party (some may call it extreme) dared to suggest that the U.S. administration might, just possibly, open negotiations to end the Ukraine-Russia war. They were rebuffed before the letter could be delivered to the president, let alone presented as a bill to Congress. In the end, their noble appeal melted away, barely noticed by the press; we heard no indignation from liberal moralists, and no apologies or proposals for compromise from Pelosi or Biden, both leading supporters of that war. If horse-trading doesn’t work there, it’s because, regrettably, Progressives have insufficient trading clout. (Although their numbers have grown in recent years.)

Kimberly, in the same Consortium News article, calls out the Progressives for their immaturity.

There was a lot of finger-pointing and snobbery about the Republicans, but there was far too little analysis. Delving into the story in a truthful way would have meant dredging up the progressive Democrats’ shameful behavior two years ago and exposing them to the level of critique that Boebert and Gaetz received. Not only did Democratic progressives run for cover when their leadership dropped the hammer, but they lied in order to hide their cowardice.”

Referring to forthcoming memorials for Martin Luther King Jr., Kimberly concludes: “The progressives of today possess none of his courage and go along with their party’s oligarchy when ordered to do so. The right wingers on the other side of the aisle seem to have far more conviction.”

As much as I still have hope for The Squad (with its numbers gradually increasing) and other progressives in the U.S. Congress, I concur.

*

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.

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from rouzer.house.gov


“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.

Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.

This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.

After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.

Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Treachery to Some, Opportunism to Others—Horse-trading in the U.S. Congress.
  • Tags:

Massive Clot Burden Days after Taking Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine

January 16th, 2023 by Dr. Peter McCullough

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

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

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

***

Throughout the disastrous COVID-19 injection campaign, desperate patients have often asked me which is the safest vaccine? It is odd that two years into mass vaccination there is no declared “best in class” vaccine. Entities that mandate the vaccine don’t care which vaccine is administered, only that a student, athlete, employee, or soldier has been marked by one of them any time in the past—often without any regard to its six month efficacy window. Many thought initially that the Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) product would be safer since it was just one shot of an adenoviral vector vaccine (not mRNA).

Unfortunately before COVID-19 it was known that the vector itself was thrombogenic. So combined with the genetic code for the Spike protein which is known to damage blood vessels and cause blood clots, the Janssen vaccine was expected to cause thromboembolism in patients from the very date of its release.

Woo et al from the FDA in a report has described thousands (N=3790, 11% fatal) of patients with blood clots and their description of what happens in the human body is nothing short of “blood curdling.” Clots going from the ankle to the groin, shooting to both lungs, and killing the victim is a description out of a science fiction horror movie yet in this report produced by our own government gives no apologies nor raises a sense of alarm for the public.

Woo EJ, Mba-Jonas A, Thomas A, Baer B, Day B, Kim Y, Gomez-Lorenzo M, Nair N. Thromboembolic events after Ad.26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine: Reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2022 Nov;31(11):1174-1181. doi: 10.1002/pds.5523. Epub 2022 Sep 5. PMID: 36065046; PMCID: PMC9538147.

I wonder if a similar analysis for the mRNA vaccines would find the same degree of clot burden. In my clinical experience the mRNA and adenoviral vaccines are equally dangerous. As in the Woo report, the events with Janssen appear occur in a shorter time window (median 12 days) in proximity to the injection whereas the long lasting mRNA can drive catastrophic events months later. One thing is clear, for COVID-19 it is “buyer beware” however the weary public is not doing the buying, rather they are having the ill-fated products effectively forced into their bodies with terrible consequences.

If you find “Courageous Discourse” enjoyable and useful to your endeavors, please subscribe as a paying or founder member to support our efforts in helping you engage in these discussions with family, friends, and your extended circles.

*

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.

Source

Woo EJ, Mba-Jonas A, Thomas A, Baer B, Day B, Kim Y, Gomez-Lorenzo M, Nair N. Thromboembolic events after Ad.26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine: Reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2022 Nov;31(11):1174-1181. doi: 10.1002/pds.5523. Epub 2022 Sep 5. PMID: 36065046; PMCID: PMC9538147.

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.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

Assange: The Decisive Moment

January 16th, 2023 by Berenice Galli

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

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

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

***

Julian Assange‘s father John Shipton announces from Australia in this interview with Berenice Galli, a novelty that could be decisive for his son’s destiny: “I feel that we will prevail and that Julian will be free. I feel it, I see it, I perceive it through the hundreds of contacts I have all over the world”.

Decisive — John Shipton underlines — is that “in Australia, we have the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, the Labor Party in government, 60 members of Parliament in support of Julian, as well as all the newspapers, trade unions, non-governmental organizations. Since Julian is an Australian citizen, the Australian Government is the only one who can speak for Julian in confrontation with the United States, because he is an Australian citizen. As a result, this global movement has focused on Australia and the Australian Government has raised grievances with the United States. In Australian TV news, international news director John Lyons said he had heard from his sources on his Cabinet that Julian will be unconditionally released within two months.

John declares that he has no faith in British justice, which has subjected Julian Assange to a “show trial, a political persecution” and that “the solution is not found in the law but in politics“. He then recalls that

“the circumstances have not improved since Professor Niels Melzer, the United Nations rapporteur on torture, presented in 2019 the exhaustive account of the visit he had made to Julian in Belmarsh prison together with two specialist doctors. In his statement, he wrote that Julian was suffering the effects of seven and a half years of psychological torture. Julian is allowed a ten-minute international phone call, and phone calls are granted to him using a certain credit: during the Christmas days we used everything he was allowed to, so I’ll have to wait a week or more to be able to talk again”.

On Grandangolo special night show: The crimes Julian Assange brought to light

This documentary film shows what Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks organization has brought to light. We report, as an example, the revelations made in 2010.

Afghanistan War Logs. In 2010 WikiLeaks published a collection of over 90,000 documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. They cover a period from January 2004 to December 2009. These classified documents – which have been released to the Guardian, New York Times, and Der Spiegel – reveal the killing of civilians by US and British troops.

Iraq War Logs. Also in 2010, WikiLeaks released a video showing the killing of Iraqi civilians, and two Reuters journalists in an attack carried out by two US Apache helicopters. In the same year, a US Army analyst, Chelsea Manning, was arrested on charges of having disclosed the video and hundreds of thousands of other confidential documents. WikiLeaks released over 300,000 documents revealing abuse, torture, and violence by US forces in Iraq. The documents also revealed the deaths of more than 15,000 civilians in unknown circumstances and numerous cases of torture by the Iraqi military under US command.

Cablegate. In the same year, WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of confidential documents on Washington’s actions around the world. These are documents containing confidential information sent by 274 US embassies to the State Department in Washington. The documents contain assessments, often very negative, of the public and private behavior of European Heads of State and Government, including Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi and Vladimir Putin.

*

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.

This article was originally published on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

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

***

A leading Ukrainian government official has admitted that a demilitarized zone to divide the battlefield, protect the Russian east of the country from the U.S. and NATO long-range assault, and partition Ukraine is in negotiation.

“’We are currently being offered the Korean scenario,” Alexei Danilov announced on January 8.

Danilov, a native of Lugansk, is the deputy chairman of the National Security and Defence Council, and second in rank to President Vladimir Zelensky. “[This is] the so-called conditional ’38th parallel,’” he told local reporters. “Here are Ukrainians, but there Ukrainians are not like that. The Russians will now invent anything. I know for sure that one of the options they can offer us is the ’38th parallel.’”

Danilov claimed one of the sources for the proposal is Dmitry Kozak. Officially, he is a deputy head of the presidential staff. In 2020-21 he was the Kremlin’s chief negotiator on the Minsk accords with the Kyiv regime and in the Normandy format with Germany and France; for Kozak’s detailed record of those negotiations, read this.

Danilov now says Kozak “meets with former politicians in Europe and conveys through them the message that the Russians are ready to make concessions in order to fix the current status quo and force Ukraine to a truce.”

Danilov did not say that he, Zelensky and the Ukrainian-U.S. general staff have rejected the idea.

Instead, he claimed the Korean DMZ has proven to be a mistake:

“Danilov said that during a recent meeting, Korean representatives noted that establishing the division of the Korean peninsula into two parts along the 38th parallel was a mistake as the concessions made in the 1950s after the end of the war between North Korea and South Korea are currently leading to problems.”

It is unclear what meeting Danilov was referring to, if any. U.S. press reporting has identified the mistake of Vice President Kamala Harris last September in misnaming the “Republic of North Korea.”

Moscow sources suspect Danilov is attempting to relieve the pressure now growing on the Ukrainian generals from the U.S. and the NATO command to consider an armistice before the Russians launch their anticipated general winter offensive.

By exposing and trying to sandbag the Americans, Danilov’s remark is a signal that the real U.S. assessment is that a much bigger loss of military capacity, territory and viable economy will be the outcome of the Russian offensive—unless the Ukrainians buy time with a ceasefire and protracted armistice talks to commence.

The reaction of the Stavka to that has been President Vladmir Putin’s explicit condemnation of the buying-time tactic after former German chancellor Angela Merkel revealed it last month, and ex-French President Francois Hollande repeated it on December 28.

“The West lied to us about peace,” Putin said in his New Year address on December 31, “while preparing for aggression, and today, they no longer hesitate to openly admit it and to cynically use Ukraine and its people as a means to weaken and divide Russia. We have never allowed anyone to do this and we will not allow it now.”

Putin also confirmed the message with a Korean gloss. “Russian servicemen, militiamen and volunteers are now fighting for their homeland, for truth and justice, for reliable guarantees of peace and Russia’s security.” The narrow 4-kilometre depth and short 240-km length of the Korean DMZ are not, Putin implied, “reliable guarantees of security.”

Korean DMZ

Source: worldatlas.com

Danilov’s disclosure has been altogether missed by the mainstream western media, by the alternative media, and by U.S. think-tankers claiming to favour negotiations.

Moscow sources believe Danilov’s signal indicates anxiety in Kyiv, not only at the collapse of their front at Soledar and Bakhmut, but at the prospect of the following Russian offensive striking simultaneously north from Sumy to Kharkov and Poltava; in the centre around the E50 highway into Dniepropetrovsk; and in the south to blockade Odessa.

“I have not seen a serious discussion in Moscow about a DMZ at all,” according to a Moscow source and Donbass sources. They believe Danilov is reporting what the Americans are telling Kyiv.

“Kozak has been de-activated in Moscow since last July,” according to another source. “That’s why it makes all the more sense [for the Ukrainians] to refer to him and not to genuine negotiators, not to a credible Russian figure. Danilov is attempting to refuse a proposal from a non-person. He and Zelensky are putting the Pentagon at that level—in other words, they are sending a message to [Secretary of State Antony] Blinken, [Deputy Secretary Wendy] Sherman and [Under Secretary Victoria] Nuland, or whoever the Ukrainians think will save them from the U.S. military pressure now.”

The Russian sources note there has been no other public acknowledgement of the change in U.S. thinking; they interpret press reporting of promises of U.S. armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), German and British tank deliveries to mean the reverse of the appearances. “Time will have run out for the delivery of the Strykers and Bradleys, Leopards and Challengers in the east. So these press promises of delivery are for the last-ditch fortification of the western lines defending the regime between Lvov and Kyiv. That’s between Zhitomyr and Vinnitsa, then Rivne and Chernopil.

A North American veteran source urges patience. “The Bradleys may be rushed, so the question now is whether everything the Ukrainians throw into their fight west of the Artemovsk-Soledar- Seversk line to Dniepropetrovsk, including the press-ganging of civilians in Kharkov city, is just a rearguard action to hold up the Russians and create time for the reinforcements to arrive.”

A Canadian military source says that Ontario-made Strykers “have already been delivered to the eastern lines. They know the danger of a breakthrough and are determined to at least stall it. They cannot do that without AFVs.” Russian sources published sighting one on December 31.

A Canadian press reporter took a week before acknowledging that 39 Canadian APVs had been delivered, most of them to “rear-area units for training and familiarization,” and then, after they were revealed in the local media, “in thick mud at an unidentified section of the Ukrainian front.”

A veteran of NATO tank operations in Afghanistan adds: “By necessity, the tanks come later. It takes much longer to train their crews, let alone maintenance cells. Setting up the logistics will be much harder too. In Afghanistan it took a lot to support tanks—even just a squadron of them.”

A Moscow source adds strategy: “The Pentagon might want to fend off a general Russian operation with a DMZ but the Ukrainians, the Germans and the State Department want to see the rearguard action because they believe they can exact a heavy loss of life on the Russians. I’m convinced they don’t want a DMZ until the Russians fight their way to the borders of the regions they have already incorporated. Their perception is that the Russians will be too weak to take any more. They won’t mind another meat-grinder like Bakhmut. It’s not their children dying. At worst, the Ukrainians think a DMZ would be inside or at the limit of the Russian zone. That would free them to start preparing for the next big war in a few years.”

The consensus of the Russians sources is: “These are all lose-lose propositions for us and that is why we have not heard this being discussed seriously. What’s needed is Ukrainian capitulation. This is why most Russians see armistice as a Russian surrender because it means none of the stated goals of the operation has been achieved. More than at Minsk in 2015, the Ukraine will be re-armed and prepared for the next big fight.”

Danilov’s disclosure puts into quite different context Putin’s Orthodox Christmas truce between January 6 and 7. “Upon consideration of the address from His Holiness Patriarch Kirill,” the president said, “I instruct the Defence Minister of the Russian Federation to introduce a ceasefire along the entire line of contact in Ukraine from 12.00 on January 6, 2023 to 24.00 on January 7, 2023. As a large number of Orthodox Christians reside in the area of hostilities, we call on the Ukrainian side to declare a ceasefire to allow them to attend church services on Christmas Eve as well as on Christmas Day.”

For the text of Kirill’s message, which avoided a recommendation of this kind, click to read.

In retrospect, the truce was dismissed by Kyiv, and the Russian side recorded numerous violations, including the movement of heavy artillery into range of Lugansk and Donetsk region targets. “Pigs have no faith,” Dmitry Medvedev, the ex-president and now deputy head of the Security Council, responded. “and no innate sense of gratitude. They understand only brute force.”

Following the fall of Soledar on the evening of January 10, there are signs that the Ukrainian General Staff will not continue following the orders from either Washington or Zelensky and Danilov to continue the meat-grinder defence of the eastern front, at least not until a “second line of defence” can be formed, according to the leak.

The evidence of the battlefield map is that the Russian General Staff has decided to leave open the corridors for NATO troops and arms to be resupplied from Poland, and to let Ukrainian refugees leave. However, the rail and road junctions, warehouses, vehicle lagers, electric grid units, and fuel and other storages are being hit repeatedly, west and east of Kiev.

Ukraine Map—Battlefield Targets After Christmas Truce

When Russian and western analysts map the economic and military capabilities of the Ukrainian territory which would lie to the west of the Dnieper River demilitarized zone (UMZ)—it becomes clear the rump state will have lost the capacity to feed itself; and will lack the river or sea ports to export corn, wheat, sunflower products or rapeseed without Russian and Turkish agreement.

Source: johnhelmer.net

Lacking seaports and airfields, the western Ukrainian territory, without the farms, mines and smelters to produce food or metals for trade, will be reduced to a gun platform dependent on imported cash and arms for the state’s sole remaining export—permanent war against Russia.

Source: fas.usda.gov

To date, US, Canadian, German, and British politicians have been emphatic that they have the parliament votes and will neutralize domestic opposition to their whatever-the-cost war policy.

Russian sources add there is no evidence that in planning the conversion of the special military operation to the general military operation, the Kremlin, the Stavka, and the General Staff are not taking this into account. What this means, said one source, is that the de-Nazification objective of February 24, 2022, is now practically impossible. “The DMZ is impossible for us because it will leave the Ukrainian nazis to keep rearming, exactly as Merkel and Hollande have said. This means there can be no demilitarized zone—there must be Ukrainian capitulation and surrender.”

A NATO source speculates about the mentality of his counterparts in Washington:

“The DMZ needs to be big and deep no matter what the structure of the forces that create and maintain it. The question that looms larger in my mind is how to get the U.S. and NATO to understand that continuing to push their Ukrainian checker will come at a cost on the checkerboard they aren’t prepared to pay?”

The evidence from the daily reports of the Polish Border Guard confirms the Russian strategy is to leave the corridor open for the exit of Ukrainian civilians and then strike after the incoming foreign troops and their equipment are deployed at their rear assembly areas.

The highlighted figures for Ukrainian movement to Poland indicate refugees responding to the Russian electric war and the onset of winter. The corresponding, highlighted figures of movement from Poland to the Ukraine include Polish and other foreign troops moving under civilian shield. [Source: twitter.com]

Moscow sources comment. “The Russians will not tolerate half-measures. Not like the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, not like Yeltsin in Serbia. Not like Nord Stream or the Crimean Bridge. Not now. Read Putin’s lips.”

This is a reference to Putin’s speech to the enlarged Defence Ministry and military staffs on December 21. “We will not repeat the mistakes of the past, when we harmed our economy to boost our defence capabilities, regardless of whether it was warranted or not. We are not going to militarise our country or militarise the economy, primarily because we have no need to do it at the current level of development and with the structure of the economy that we have. Again—we do not intend to, and we will not do things we do not really need, to the detriment of our people and the economy, the social sphere. We will improve the Russian Armed Forces and the entire military component. We will do it calmly, routinely and consistently, without haste. We will attain our objectives to strengthen our defence capability in general as well as meeting the goals of the special military operation.”

“The big part of the NATO equation,” comments the North American veteran, “ought to be the Russian message—‘keep on coming. You will all be destroyed.”

*

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 Helmer has been a longtime correspondent working in Moscow. His many books include: The Lie That Shot Down MH17; and Skirpal in Prison. John can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Alexei Danilov with map of potential demilitarized zone. [Source: johnhelmer.net]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kyiv Shows Signs of Desperation. “The Ukrainian Demilitarized Negotiations Start at Dead End”
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

The war in the Ukraine has revived Western plans of dismembering Russia and, in the words of the promoters of this idea, to complete the dismantlement of the Soviet Union.

Active efforts, including ample funds, are being spent on fomenting ethnic nationalism among Russia’s many ethnic groups.

Meetings are convened outside Russia in order to stimulate separatism along ethnic lines.

The plan of breaking up the country is sometimes labelled “decolonization of Russia”. Since most fervent opposition to Russia is articulated by political groups that consider themselves progressive (such as the Democratic Party in the United States or the Green Party in Germany) the concept of decolonization makes this idea appear anti-imperialist and progressive.

 

But within Russia, another kind of decolonization is underway. Intellectuals, artists, and politicians argue for the liberation of the country not only from economic and technological dependence on the West, but also from cultural colonization that has triumphed since the days of perestroika. The dismantlement of the Soviet Union was not only ”a geopolitical catastrophe”, as Putin once said. It was also a psychological blow to millions of Soviet citizens, not only Russians. All the sacrifices to build a qualitatively different society and to raise the country from two horrifically costly world wars suddenly appeared to have been made in vain.

The population endured a profound loss of self-confidence and self-respect. It fell into a sort of collective depression as the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s plunged the majority into abject poverty.

Russia was on her knees, in the grip of the kind of stunned inertia and mental enslavement that people colonized by Western empires had experienced before. Russia was well on its way to becoming a true colony of the West. While Putin was the first foreign leader to call Washington after the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, he was floating the idea of Russia joining NATO.

Intellectual concepts, artistic tastes, business practices and government policies were uncritically imported and proclaimed superior simply because they were coming from the West.

The language absorbed a heavy dose of often superfluous Americanisms. Historical continuity was snubbed in favour of imitation. Pro-Western reformers consciously destroyed much of the technological and industrial potential of the country with the avowed ideological goal of uprooting all traces of socialism.

Aeroflot, formerly the world’s largest airline, used to fly exclusively Soviet-made planes. Within a few years of post-Soviet reforms, it switched to Western-made planes, most of which are currently grounded due to Western sanctions. Nowadays, belated efforts are being made to revive the local civilian aircraft industry.

For over three decades, a powerful “comprador bourgeoisie” headed by neoliberal oligarchs took root in the country and its corridors of power. These people viewed the West as a reliable and generous chum. They developed infinite trust in globalization that promised uninterrupted supply of consumer goods, industrial equipment, and electronic components. Western banks were used not only for deposits of private funds but even to hold Russia’s sovereign reserves.

Most of these are now frozen and may be expropriated altogether. Yet, many true believers in the “rules-based order” under Washington’s aegis continue to wield influence in Moscow. They hope against hope that once the war is over everything will return to business as usual.

But a struggle is underway to free the country from the colonial dependence these intellectuals, politicians, businessmen and financiers promoted and benefited from for decades.

Russian television and film industries absorbed American influence with a gusto. While serials may be locally made, they follow plot lines and fashions taken from elsewhere. Whether or not one appreciates Soviet films and literature, there is little doubt they were authentic and original. Much of current Russian cultural production is derivative and imitative. Cheap entertainment has invaded most TV studios, leaving one channel, Kultura, as a kind of nature reserve for quality programmes, often consisting of films made in the USSR.

The education system has promoted egoism, competition, and unbridled striving for money.

Ayn Rand’s books became the gospel for millions of confused ex-Soviets. Individual consumption was to replace socialist values, and even minimal community concerns. An erstwhile education minister openly argued for producing educated consumers, rather than scientists, engineers, or intellectuals.

There is little wonder that a lot of young men fled the country when mobilization to the armed forces was declared last Fall. Patriotism had long become a dirty word among the sophisticated urban elites. Albeit clumsy, efforts are being made to change these educational policies, and time will tell how effective these will be.

Russia is awakening from the spell of submission to the West, glorification of its ideology and adulation of its models. Disdain and barely concealed efforts to bring Russia to heel on the part of the United States, have gone a long way to contribute to that trend. Much as the colonized world rose to throw off the shackles of colonial rule, Russia is breaking free from the mental straitjacket of the past thirty years. Patriotism, volunteering, and social concerns are making a comeback.

The conflict in Ukraine has catalyzed that epochal transition. Decolonization has touched Russia’s foreign policy discourse. Putin and Lavrov no longer refer to “our Western partners” since there is active warfare going on between Russia and NATO, something that Russian, Ukrainian and Western officials now openly admit.

However much Russian leaders criticize their Soviet predecessors, they face similar, possibly more formidable, challenges. As they try to consolidate alliances and seek new ones, they invoke the Soviet heritage of support for anticolonialism. Many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America have long harboured aspirations for national sovereignty and a multipolar world.

Now Russia encourages them to resume their struggle against Western hegemony. These countries have not joined Western sanctions against Russia and are watching closely how she is standing up to the collective West. Thus, Russia’s attempts at mental and economic decolonization are bound to encourage decolonization elsewhere.

*

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 Pressenza.

Professor Yakov M. Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Montreal, co-editor of Demodernization: A Future in the Past (Columbia University Press). He is a longstanding contributor to Global Research. 

Samir Saul is Professor of History.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The Plan of “Breaking up the Country”. “The Decolonization” of Russia, Fomenting Separatism and “Ethnic Nationalism”
  • Tags: ,

UK Support of the Illegal Annexation of Palestinian Lands

January 15th, 2023 by Hans Stehling

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

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

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

***

There are more than 270,000 Jews in U.K., the majority of whom are members of their local synagogue. Every year, on the eve of the Yom Kippur festival, a majority donates a sum of money to be sent to Israel or the Israeli government – although it is unclear for what these many millions of tax exempt pounds are used:  this information not being available through the Charities Commission website.

It is entirely possible that it, or part of it, is used by the extreme Right wing government to support the IDF, I.e. the brutal military force that carries out house demolitions, the razing of Arab villages and the illegal annexation of Palestinian land, not to mention the deliberate killing of a highly respected, Palestinian-American, female journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, last year by a hidden Israeli sniper . 

For more than two decades, journalist Shireen Abu Akleh covered human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territory. All meant nothing to the IDF sniper. On a Wednesday morning local time, she was shot and killed while doing her job, reporting on a raid of the West Bank city of Jenin by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

Nobody knows for sure what happens to these substantial, tax-free monies from Britain.   All of which probably explains the stance on campus that most Jewish students are active Zionists supporting an extremist government that ignores UNSC resolution 2334 that demands the scrapping of all illegal settlements with all settlers being returned to their homes in Israel.

That the British government colludes in this matter by offering tax relief on such monies prior to transfer to Israel, is unconscionable, could possibly be viewed as criminal, and should be discontinued forthwith.

Zionism is a political movement, not a religion, and should not be supported by U.K. tax relief on political donations.  There are 2597 registered British charities that are assumed to have some connection with Israel. Why is there no restriction on sending tax free sums to foreign armies?

The plain fact is that there is nothing remotely untoward about being Jewish – one should be proud, but there is everything wrong, in fact, vile, with being a Zionist occupier of indigenous Arab land.

In effect, the only neo-colonial, allegedly democratic country in the world i.e Israel, is a  Middle Eastern state, friendly towards Russia and with over a million Russian speaking citizens, supported by Britain, notwithstanding Britain’s signature and support for UNSC resolution 2334 of 23 December, 2016. Passed by a vote of 14-0.

*

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.

Hans Stehling (a pen name) is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

The film “Anecdotals” provides a glimpse into the lives of people who have suffered significant adverse reactions from COVID-19 shots

Those who spoke out about their shot-related injuries have been shamed, ridiculed and labeled unethical

Those injured by the shots have been largely abandoned by the mainstream medical community; their medical issues have been politicized, while society provides no empathy

With no programs in place to help those injured by COVID-19 shots, and many doctors afraid to even acknowledge the shot’s connection to patients’ symptoms, many of those harmed have nowhere to turn for help

The film calls for an open dialogue and a movement from humanity to acknowledge the risks of COVID-19 shots, as well as those who are suffering due to them

*

People who have been harmed by COVID-19 shots have suffered a range of medical issues — everything from death and permanent disability to pericarditis, nerve damage and overwhelming fatigue. While their symptoms vary, they share several common themes:

  • Abandonment — Those injured by COVID-19 jabs have been largely abandoned by the mainstream medical community and government.
  • Shame — Those who spoke out about their injuries have been shamed, ridiculed and labeled unethical; their medical issues have been politicized, while society provides no empathy.
  • Hopelessness — With no programs in place to help those injured by COVID-19 shots, and many doctors afraid to even acknowledge the shot’s connection to patients’ symptoms, many of those harmed feel lost and don’t know where to turn for help.

Bringing attention to the issue — and to the people whose lives have changed drastically since receiving a COVID-19 shot — is the first step to recovery. The film “Anecdotals” does just that, providing a glimpse into the lives of people who have suffered significant adverse reactions from COVID-19 shots.1

Many of them have been told their stories don’t matter. After all, they’re just anecdotes. But as you’ll see in the film, their journeys need to be heard, not only so they can access much-needed medical care but also so society becomes aware of the real risks of COVID-19 shots that have been covered up and censored.

Secrets From the Trials

One case involves Maddie de Garay, who was a healthy 12-year-old when she signed up for Pfizer’s COVID-19 trial for 12- to 15-year-olds. She suffered a severe systemic adverse reaction to her second dose of the shot, however, and struggled through 11 ER visits and four hospital admissions in the year and a half that followed.

Injuries from the shot have left her unable to walk or eat — she receives her nutrition via a feeding tube — and suffering from constant pain, vision problems, tinnitus, allergic reactions and lack of neck control.2

As though the physical trauma weren’t enough, Maddie and her family were continually dismissed by the medical professionals put in place to help, ignored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and denied the care needed to help Maddie. But the first red flag, Maddie’s mother Stephanie said at a hearing, was the way the trial was set up in the first place.3

Participants were given access to the TrialMax app to record side effects, like a swollen arm, but de Garay was surprised at the format it used. There wasn’t space for open-ended comments, only direct questions with “yes” or “no” options for answers, or check boxes to signify a set of predetermined potential effects.4 She explained:5

“I just want to give everybody a little better idea of what happened in our trial, because I did not know when you enter the trial, everybody uses a trial app. The app only allows you to record solicited adverse events — fever, redness, mild, moderate.

There’s no free form to fill in any other reaction that you have. What you have to do, if you have any other type of adverse event, is you have to call this study doctor. This leaves a lot of room for human error and concern of reporting bias coming from the principal investigator.”

In Pfizer’s April 2021 disclosure of Maddie’s case to the FDA, it’s stated only that she had abdominal pain:6

“One participant experienced an SAE [serious adverse event] reported as generalized neuralgia, and also reported 3 concurrent non-serious AEs (abdominal pain, abscess, gastritis) and 1 concurrent SAE (constipation) within the same week. The participant was eventually diagnosed with functional abdominal pain. The event was reported as ongoing at the time of the cutoff date.”

Then, a day before Pfizer submitted their request for emergency approval of the COVID-19 shot for 12- to 15-year-olds to the FDA, they added functional neurological disorder as a diagnosis in Maddie’s chart.7 Her mother noted in the film:8

“By the data cut off for the trial, Maddie experienced over 35 adverse events. None of these were mentioned … Maddie was in the hospital when the EUA [emergency use authorization] was approved. I thought that Maddie would be in the best hands possible in the rare chance she has a severe reaction. That was not the case. They did everything in their power to hide everything. Neither Pfizer, the FDA or the CDC has ever talked to us.”

Pfizer Trial ‘Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’

While health agencies continue to assure the public that COVID-19 shots are safe, those working closely on the trials had a different take. “I was working on Pfizer’s trial,” Brooke Jackson, a regional director formerly employed by Pfizer subcontractor Ventavia Research Group, which was testing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, said in the film.9 “What I saw was like nothing I’ve ever seen before.”

She witnessed falsified data, unblinded patients, inadequately trained vaccinators and lack of proper follow-up on adverse events that were reported. After notifying Ventavia about her concerns repeatedly, she made a complaint to the FDA directly — and was fired the same day.10 In her words:11

“The speed in which they were enrolling in the study — four to five coordinators pushing through 40, 50, 60 patients a day. We were not storing the vaccine at its appropriate temperature, the failures in reporting serious adverse events. We had so many reports of adverse events … we just could not keep up. The study doctor signed a physical exam when he wasn’t even in clinic.

Then Ventavia had unblinded every patient that was randomized in the trial. When we brought it to their attention, that’s what we were instructed to do — remove the evidence and destroy it. Emails about mislabeled blood specimens per Pfizer’s protocol, we should have immediately stopped enrolling, but they never told Pfizer.

I would bring the concerns to my managers and it was, ‘We’re understaffed.’ The FDA, they only see what Pfizer gives them. So I was documenting all of this. And on the 25th of September, I went directly to the FDA, and about six and a half hours later, I lost my job. I was fired.”

The FDA and Pfizer attempted to hide the COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years, but the FDA was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to release redacted versions of trial documents on a much faster schedule. As part of the court order, 80,000 pages of documents related to the FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots were released June 1, 2022.12

Among those documents were case report forms (CRFs) revealing that deaths and severe adverse events took place during Phase 3 trials, but, as reported by Children’s Health Defense, Pfizer had “a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”13 Journalist Naomi Wolf explained:14

“We’ve got these amazing 2,500 volunteers — highly credentialed medical researchers, doctors and nurses — pouring over these 55,000 documents that a court order forced Pfizer and the FDA to release.

Well, they’re finding that there were horrible harms — deaths, spontaneous abortions, neurological problems, fainting, heart damage, debilitating muscle pain, debilitating joint pain — that were concealed by Pfizer and the FDA from the American people.”

Adverse Reactions — Real, Not Rare

The film details adverse reactions that have stolen careers, independence and the ability to function normally in daily life from countless people. Dr. Joel Wallskog, a former orthopedic surgeon, shared his story after getting the shot:15

“My life has dramatically changed after this adverse reaction. My career of 19 years, that I took almost 14 years to train for, is likely over. I’m just not safe to work as an orthopedic surgeon. Assuming the FDA and the CDC would be alarmed at my diagnosis, I expected to be contacted soon after my VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] submission. No phone call, no contact.”

Kellai Rodriguez also detailed her struggles since receiving a COVID-19 shot:16

“I lost my ability to speak naturally. I have become unable to walk without a walker, and never know if or when the tremors will come or go. I can no longer cook, clean or even pick up and hold my baby for too long, before my body begins to shake uncontrollably or is thrown into excruciating amounts of pain.

I’ve seen countless ER doctors as well as two neurologists who have given me no diagnosis, no further testing besides regular bloodwork, CT scans, ECGs, EKGs and an MRI, all of which the doctors told me came back normal.”

At a rally for those injured by the shots, hundreds came together to share their experiences, with striking similarities. Many suffered from tremors that left them unable to walk, with onsets within days of receiving the shots. In the hospital, nurses shared that other patients were experiencing similar symptoms, but doctors refused to label the conditions shot-related. Jennifer Bridges, a former nurse with Houston Methodist Hospital, who was fired for not getting the shot, explained:17

“I’ve seen emails, where hospitals threatened their doctors — you cannot sign medical exemptions, you cannot talk about, you cannot report adverse reactions to these vaccines. And if somebody was actually brave enough to do that in writing, there were other people higher up to erase those. I have the proof, and I have the people that have shown me these things.”

Stories Censored and Silenced

Those injured by the shots were left abandoned during shot mandates. The film’s director, Jennifer Sharp, is among those who suffered from debilitating symptoms after the shot, including facial numbness, electric shock-like feelings and muscle weakness. She opted to not get a second dose of the shot after experiencing the serious adverse events after the first dose, and lost her job as a result:18

“In January 2022, I lost a job because I wasn’t vaccinated. I had a VAX card showing one shot, I had a blood test showing that I still had antibodies and a doctor’s exemption. And I was willing to get tested every day. They didn’t care. I couldn’t go to restaurants, gyms, malls, events.

So when the anti-mandate rally came to Los Angeles, I attended it to represent those of us who were suddenly societal outcasts just for doing what the government asked us to do. Even if you fundamentally disagree with someone else’s stance, does that justify the lack of compassion for them losing their livelihoods?”

Yet, when those affected tried to speak out about their experiences, they were silenced and shunned. One woman who was injured by the shots shared:19

“We are being so censored that we can’t get the message out that we’re even being censored, because if it’s through social media, they are one of the platforms that is censoring us. And even if it’s not outwardly, we’re being shadow banned …

So you could share something, but nobody acknowledges it. And you’re thinking, ‘Oh, I’m isolated, I’m alone,’ but they’re probably not seeing it. It’s been moved to the bottom of the timeline or it’s not in existence. You literally cannot post on social media about having a vaccine reaction without it being censored.”

When Sharp decided to film “Anecdotals,” she made a pitch video that she shared privately on the platform Vimeo. It described her reaction to the shot and the need for compassion. “It was removed for misinformation. They said they don’t allow content that goes against the CDC recommendations. I am not allowed to tell my own story,” she said.20

Suicides Due to COVID-19 Shot Reactions

Brianne Dressen, cofounder of React10, a nonprofit offering financial and other support to those suffering from long-term adverse events from COVID-19 shots, detailed several suicides among victims suffering from electric shocks, neuropathy, tinnitus, tremors and other effects from the shots. She also considered suicide due to adverse effects she suffered after participating in the AstraZeneca trial:21

“I don’t think people realize how debilitating the symptoms are. My husband couldn’t leave me alone for months. He’d leave the house and he didn’t know if he was going to come home to a wife that was alive. He was afraid, every moment of every day, and it seeps into our kids’ lives.

Six months, I was not mom, I was not a human. I was just going to drive down to the lake. And I was going to carbon monoxide my car. And I was gonna put AstraZeneca did this on a sign in the window. And I was too sick to do it. So only reason I’m alive is because I was too sick to do it. And I would like to finish with a letter from a friend, Bree:

‘I cannot take this any longer. This has taken everything away from me, my career, my family, my life, my body will not stop attacking itself. And this is beyond the worst amount of torture. Please accept my apologies. I must bid farewell to this world. Please make sure the world knows the cruelty that has been imposed upon us. Goodbye, my dear friend, I will see you on the flip side.’

Rochelle Walensky. Janet Woodcock, Peter Marks, Anthony Fauci, you erased her and the many others like her, their blood is on your hands. You cannot bring my friends back. But you can save others from their fate. If you finally just tell the truth.”

The film calls for an open dialogue and a movement from humanity to ask the difficult questions and acknowledge those who are suffering due to COVID-19 shots. “We must be seen, believed and helped,” Sharp said. “Our stories are anecdotal, but in a situation where the science is changing, the studies are flawed and political agendas regulate, anecdotes could quite possibly be the most reliable data that we have. Yes, we are anecdotal. And these are our stories.”22

*

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.

Notes

1 Anecdotals Movie

2, 7 Life Funder, Help Maddie de Garay get essential medical care

3, 5 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 6:46

4 The Highwire, Rigged: Maddie’s Story August 13, 2022

6 The Highwire, Rigged: Maddie’s Story August 13, 2022, 1:04

8 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 8:00

9, 11 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 12:01

10 BMJ 2021;375:n2635

12 Children’s Health Defense, The Defender, February 7, 2022

13 Children’s Health Defense, The Defender, June 21, 2022

14 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 14:24

15 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 19:00

16 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 16:17

17 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 26:00

18 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 43:11

19 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 55:21

20 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 56:37

21 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 1:15

22 YouTube, Anecdotals Movie December 11, 2022, 1:20

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

 

In her recent work, “Imagining Palestine”, Tahrir Hamdi has made an intriguing, thought provoking, and challenging discussion on the idea and reality of Palestine. Imagining Palestine is the ongoing process of remembering and living the ongoing tragedies of the nakba – and keeping alive the culture, geography, and ideals of the Palestinian people.  There are two main themes that stand out throughout the ‘imagining’ process: the ideas of exile and the necessity of violent resistance.

Exile

Throughout the discussions of the various Palestinian writers and artists is the recurring theme of exile.  Two other terms are used frequently – of dispossession and of dispersion.  This refers to the physical/geographical displacement of the refugees, internal and external, in the many refugee camps in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan as well as the refugees living farther abroad in many countries around the world.  Internal exile includes the many apartheid bantustans, the hundreds of checkpoints, the ‘wall’, and all other Israeli initiatives to limit travel of any kind – medical or agricultural or family – within occupied Palestine (being the whole).

Exile also includes the culture and ideas creating a Palestinian narrative – the attempt by the colonial settler Zionists to eliminate the elements of Palestinian life ranging from the destruction of libraries, the expropriation of agriculture, to the destruction of the olive trees.  Many of the latter are over one thousand years old and represent family, the past, and the future; they highlight both ecological and cultural violence against the Palestinians – a bitter leaf with life giving properties.

Behind the idea of exile is of course the right of return

The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”[2]

The symbols of Palestinians right of return are characterized by the deeds to land and the keys to houses stolen or destroyed by the Israeli military during the 1948 nakba.   Until all Palestinians are free to return home, those few that do, as discussed by Tahrir, are not truly returnees, but remain in exile within their homeland.

Violent resistance

As recognized by the writers reviewed in Imagining Palestine the idea of resistance is paramount, “the colonized must liberate themselves by ‘use of all means, and that of force first and foremost.’”.   International law allows for an occupied people/territory to legally resist the occupying/colonizing power.  For those imagining Palestine, culture comes first then the resistance struggle – signifying a unity of purpose, an inclusiveness and not a mixture of individualized ideals.

In other words, by dividing the Palestinian people into apartheid regions, into different ‘terrorist’ organizations, into different levels of control superseded by the Palestinian Authority acting as security police for Israel, the Israelis – and factions within Palestine itself – preclude an organizing, organic whole necessary for successful resistance against an occupying force.  A “collective national identity” is necessary first before a resistance can be successfully implemented.

As expressed by Tahrir,

The living heritage of Palestine has been focussed and repurposed for the aim of creating a culture of resistance.  To imagine Palestine does not mean to contrive something that was not there, but rather to make possible the very idea of resistance, victory, and liberation…an enabling idea.”

Subthemes

Several other themes occur through Tahrir’s analysis of those Imagining Palestine.

The complicity of Arab regimes is reiterated frequently and although not dwelt upon, it is recognition that the ‘regime’, the leaders of the Arab countries, are more concerned about their own survival than the problems faced by the Palestinians.  Platitudes are made, peace treaties are made, official recognition of Israel is given, and still the Palestinians are ignored.  Except….

Except as shown by the recent Football World Cup in Qatar (after the publication of this book), the Arab street is still very much aligned with the Palestinians regardless of their separate governments attitudes and actions. [3]  Farther abroad from Ireland and Scotland to Argentina and others, solidarity with Palestine is strong at the level of international football – not the organizers, but the fans and the players.

Another subtheme, related to all above, is the vast amount of US support for the Israeli government as well as the influence the US carries over many of the Arab states.  Capitalism thrives in this environment:  three companies “and others thrive on the ‘always war’ policy of the world capitalist system, which gave birth to slavery and the colonialist enterprise.”  A strong (im)moral component enters into this support as well with the combination of the evangelical right wishing for the end times and the antiterrorist rhetoric used mainly to reinforce US attempts at global hegemony (via military support for the US$).

Indigenous rights is another subtheme mentioned throughout the book.  In particular the rights of Indigenous North Americans and South Africans are used in comparison in their similarities to the colonial settler regime in Israel.   African Americans, while not ‘colonized’ in the strictest sense, are a product of the capitalist-colonial mindset where the ‘other’ is at best property to be bought and sold, and when not useful, to be eliminated in one fashion or another.

Resistance

The recreation and remembering of Palestinian culture in all its forms, and the bringing together a collective national identity, a living heritage creates an imagined future Palestine as a unitary democratic and peaceful society.  The will to resist is alive in many forms and an Imagined Palestine exists, anticipating its liberation as a free, independent country.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] (Subtitle) see also: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/imagining-palestine-cultures-of-exile-and-national-identity-book-review/

[2]  https://www.unrwa.org/content/resolution-194

[3] A listing of articles on this topic: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/?s=qatar+football

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Imagining Palestine”: A Strongly Presented ‘Ideation’ of Palestine

CIA Arrives in Libya to Manipulate Elections

January 15th, 2023 by Steven Sahiounie

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

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

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

***

William Burns, CIA director, arrived in Libya on January 12 and met with Libyan Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibe in Tripoli, and others.  The meeting marked the highest-ranked US official to visit Libya since President Joe Biden took office.

Dbeibe’s government began in February 2021 and was tasked with holding elections under the auspices of the UN-appointed Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LDPF). However, he failed to stabilize the country and organize national elections.

On January 13, special envoys from the US, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK met in Washington, DC. at the invitation of the US envoy to Libya, Richard Norland.  The western diplomats discussed setting an election deadline, staging the elections, and coercing the Libyans into agreeing with the western plans.

“We may have to stop hoping we can persuade these people to agree to elections and instead find a way to work around them,” said one diplomat.

The murder of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011 and the US-NATO attack on Libya for regime change divided the country, and left Libya destroyed and unable to recover either politically, socially, or economically.

The Tripoli group is headed by Dbeibe, head of the Government of National Unity, recognized by the UN, and tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Tobruk group is headed by Fathi Bashagha, prime minister of the Government of National Stability, and recognized by the Parliament.

“Libya again finds itself with two governments, neither of which has been elected or chosen by Libyans, but both of which are the product of continuous misdirection by corrupt politicians unwilling to let go of their positions of power,” said Libyan activist Asma Khalifa.

UN-sponsored agreements have established a lasting ceasefire, but have failed at resolving the political stalemate, in a situation comparable to Syria which also suffers from UN and western meddling, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The two sides made some progress, but failed to set an election date or deadline, and failed to resolve issues that would affect the candidacies of Dbeibe and General Haftar.

UN-imposed government aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood

The head of the Tripoli-based High Council of State (HCS), Khalid al-Mishri, was elected for his fifth term in August 2022.  Al-Mishri is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is linked with both Qatar and Turkey, who both support the Islamist leaders in the UN-backed Tripoli administration.

Al-Mishri recently met with a rival, President of the House of Representatives (HoR) Aqila Saleh to discuss ways to reach an agreement to hold elections.

CIA involvement in the Libyan regime change 2011

The CIA was on the ground in Libya before President Obama signed an order in mid-March 2011 authorizing the secret US support of armed anti-Gaddafi militias.  According to former CIA agent Bob Baer, the CIA was in Libya assessing who could be turned into a military unit against Gaddafi.

What the CIA found as partners in Libya in 2011 were Radical Islamic terrorists, such as Mehdi al-Harati.  Fierce fighters who were Al Qaeda followers and some would later morph into ISIS.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Republican chairwoman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in 2011, said: “My constituents are asking me: Just who are we helping and are we sure they are true allies who won’t turn and work against us?”

In the book, The Arab Spring Ruse: How the Muslim Brotherhood Duped Washington in Libya and Syria, counter-terrorism expert John Rossomando explains how Obama used the Muslim Brotherhood as a US partner in the Middle East during and after the 2011 Arab Spring.

“The decision to engage the Muslim Brotherhood marked a historic change in American foreign policy, created a new paradigm in the Middle East, and set into motion a series of events that had catastrophic results: the Muslim Brotherhood’s resurgence, the overthrow of at least two governments, Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s transformation into the ISIS [the Islamic State group] caliphate, failed governments in Syria and Iraq, millions of refugees and displaced individuals, and the resulting destabilizing migration flows,” Rossomando wrote.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: President of Libya?

In an article in the New York Times in July 2021, Saif made it clear he wanted to lead Libya.  He enjoys support from officials, clans, and communities who had supported his late father, but the question of Saif’s role in the 2011 revolution hangs over his candidacy.

The head of the Supreme Council of Tribes and Cities in the southwest region of the country, Sheikh Ali Mesbah Abu Sbeiha, stated that Saif could stand as a candidate.

In November 2022, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, called on Libyan authorities to hand over Saif, and days later the US echoed the demand. However, Saif remains elusive due to his security concerns.

The Libyan ruling elite is corrupt

The Libyan political elite has failed to agree on holding the elections, while they continue robbing the public coffers for their benefit. The situation reminds us of Lebanon, where social services, security, and basic needs have deteriorated to the point of leaving the people hopeless.

Stephanie Williams, a former UN Special Envoy for Libya, explained

“A transactional ruling class, part of whose network can be traced back to the days of the old regime, uses Libya’s state and sovereign institutions as cash cows in what might be described as a ‘redistributive kleptocracy’, regularly bringing enough of their compatriots into their circles to sustain the system. “

“Divisions within the international community, political maneuvering by Libyan actors, and a lack of urgency linked to the low intensity of the conflict contribute to the current stalemate,” said Riccardo Fabiani, North Africa project director at the International Crisis Group.  He added, “There is little pressure on Libyan officials to get their act together and finally agree to hold elections and, unfortunately, for the time being, it looks like the crisis will continue as it is”.

Khalifa Hafter

Burns also met with a rival of the Tripoli group, General Commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA), Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar in Benghazi.

According to Haftar,

“The people must rely on their national strength to deal with corruption and build our state according to free will. The Libyan National Army, for its part, “has remained steadfast despite all the pressure and political attempts to subjugate it,” Haftar said and explained that the LNA “has no other supreme leader other than the one directly elected by the people”.

The CIA arrived in Libya in 2011, and CIA director Burns has just left Libya.  Can the Vice President under Obama, now President Biden, and his CIA director manipulate the political situation in Libya once again?  The words of the Republican congresswoman in 2011 come back to haunt us.  It appears Washington is still supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.  Perhaps it is time Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas were to re-float his bill to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

*

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.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CIA Arrives in Libya to Manipulate Elections
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

There’s no denying the accuracy of the official assessment shared by Turkish President Erdogan’s foreign policy advisor Ibrahim Kalin that the Ukrainian Conflict has reached a stalemate, which is “politically incorrect” to talk about since it contradicts the Golden Billion’s “official narrative” and thus proves how futile further arms shipments are. The fact of the matter is that Russia has successfully held its own throughout the course of its nearly year-long special operation in the face of slightly less than three dozen of its NATO opponents fighting it by proxy there.

The US-led West’s Golden Billion and its proxies in Kiev continue to claim that they’re on the brink of winning the Ukrainian Conflict, yet this assessment was just officially contradicted by Turkish President Erdogan’s foreign policy advisor Ibrahim Kalin. According to him, “Neither party is in a position to win the war militarily, on the ground”, ergo why Ankara proposed helping them negotiate “local ceasefires and small localised de-escalations” with a view towards ultimately reviving last spring’s peace process.

For as well-intended as this suggestion may be, it’s unlikely to bear any fruit considering that “Kiev Rejected Russia’s Orthodox Christmas Truce On False Pretexts” earlier this month. Furthermore, that former Soviet Republic’s Western overlords plan to continue exploiting it as their de facto New Cold War bloc’s proxies for fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian in a desperate attempt to delay the decline of the US’ unipolar hegemony. Nobody should therefore get their hopes up about a series of ceasefires.

Nevertheless, there’s also no denying the accuracy of Kalin’s assessment that the Ukrainian Conflict has reached a stalemate, which is “politically incorrect” to talk about since it contradicts the Golden Billion’s “official narrative” and thus proves how futile further arms shipments are. The fact of the matter is that Russia has successfully held its own throughout the course of its nearly year-long special operation in the face of slightly less than three dozen of its NATO opponents fighting it by proxy there.

That’s beyond impressive even if one acknowledges the possibility that it’s received some clandestine military support from Iran and possibly also North Korea, which would have in any case paled in comparison to that which Kiev has received from NATO and its partners across the world. For Russia to have brought the conflict to a stalemate in spite of the military odds being drastically aligned against it this entire time speaks both to the professionalism of its forces as well as its foes’ lack thereof.

With this objectively existing and easily verifiable reality in mind, which was just extended credence by the top foreign policy advisor to the same leader who commands NATO’s second-largest military, it can therefore be concluded that further arms shipments to Kiev won’t make much of a difference. All that such moves will do is artificially perpetuate the conflict at the cost of countless more lives, including those civilians that are caught in the crossfire upon Kiev exploiting them as human shields like usual.

Those top Ukrainian and former US officials who’ve been lobbying for even more military aid and thus implying that the approximately $100 billion that Kiev already received isn’t enough are likely connected in one way or another to the military-industrial complex (MIC) and thus stand to profit from such shipments. The problem is that Biden’s Naval chief just confirmed his country’s MIC crisis whereby it might soon be forced to choose between meeting its own minimum national security needs or Kiev’s.

Soledar’s liberation late last week could in theory serve as the pretext for the US to coerce Kiev into freezing the LOC via Turkish mediation in order to avert more inevitable on-the-ground losses in the coming future, but the powerful anti-Russian lobby will likely succeed in suppressing such pragmatic voices and thus artificially perpetuate the conflict due to their financial and ideological stakes in that outcome. Be that as it may, their efforts aren’t expected to resolve the present stalemate.

That almost certainly being the case, then “Russia Will Still Strategically Win Even In The Scenario Of A Military Stalemate In Ukraine” since the larger dynamics of the global systemic transition to multiplexity are in its favor and not the Golden Billion’s. The longer that Moscow holds its own, the faster that the aforesaid transition will accelerate towards its final form of complex multipolarity, which will result in a more democratic, equal, just, and predictable world order wherein the West’s influence is weakened.

Turkiye wisely foresaw this outcome long ago and that’s why it’s practiced such a pragmatic policy towards this proxy war by attempting to balance between the two conflicting sides, which also includes their partners by obvious extension. While nowhere near as perfect as India’s multi-alignment, which set the global standard in this respect, it’s still worthy of praise when remembering that this geostrategically positioned state is formally a NATO member and commands its second-largest military.

This explains Kalin’s assessment that the Ukrainian Conflict is at a stalemate, which can be interpreted as Turkiye’s official conclusion by dint of his position as President Erdogan’s foreign policy advisor. Looking forward, Turkiye will continue multi-aligning between all pertinent players in this proxy war, which is expected to solidify its position as an increasingly independent pole of influence in the emerging Multipolar World Order much more so than having any tangible effect in brokering peace.

*

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.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s Erdogan Government: The Ukrainian Conflict “Has Reached a Stalemate”
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Billionaire elites are using their power over the media, the political class and public opinion to coerce Joe Biden into sending US troops to Ukraine to prevent a Russian victory. Idiot conservatives think the media is actually doing their job for once by accurately reporting Biden’s alleged transgressions. But, the fact is, the media is simply showing that it can switch sides at any time in order to pursue the elitist agenda.

No one should be surprised that Joe Biden’s ‘classified documents problem’ has emerged at the same time a key city in Ukraine (Soledar) has been liberated by Russian troops.

All of the recent reports from the frontlines indicate that the Russian army is steadily seizing more territory in the eastern part of the country while inflicting heavy casualties on the over-matched Ukrainian forces.

In short, the Ukrainian army is being beaten badly forcing US war planners to rethink their approach. What the US needs to do to prevail in its proxy-war with Russia, is to enlist a coalition of nations (US, Poland, Romania, and UK) that are willing to commit combat troops to the conflict with the tacit understanding that NATO will not directly participate in any ground war with Russia.

Biden previously rejected the idea of sending troops to Ukraine acknowledging that it would be tantamount to launching a Third World War.

But as the ‘classified documents’ scandal gains momentum, the malleable president will likely fall-in-line and do whatever the hawkish foreign policy establishment demands of him.

In short, the documents flap is being used by behind-the-scenes powerbrokers who are blackmailing the president to pursue their own narrow interests. They have Brandon over-a-barrel.

Most readers will recall that Hunter Biden’s laptop contains an abundance of information related to the Biden family’s vast influence peddling operation. All of this information was deliberately suppressed in the mainstream media in order to pave the way for Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. So why—we wonder—has this new scandal become headline news while the laptop story was completely buried?

And why are the most hawkish neocons in the senate, like Lindsey Graham, calling for a “special counsel” when they made no such effort to reveal the sordid details of the laptop? This is from an article at Zero Hedge:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday called for Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate the handling of classified documents by President Biden while he served as vice president…

“I think if you believe a special counsel is necessary to assure the public about the handling of classified documents by Donald Trump, you should apply a special counsel to the mishandling of classified documents by President Biden when he was vice president,” Graham said during an interview with Martha MacCallum on Fox News…

“Garland, if you’re listening, if you thought it was necessary to appoint a special counsel regarding President Trump, then you need to do the exact same thing regarding President Biden when it comes to handling classified information,” Graham said.” (“Sen. Graham Demands Special Counsel Probe As Biden Breaks Silence Over Classified Docs”, Zero Hedge)

So, now Lindsey Graham is a champion of truth and transparency?

Don’t make me laugh.

I assure you, if Biden announced the deployment of US combat troops to Ukraine tomorrow, Graham would withdraw his request for a special counsel immediately.This is about Ukraine, not classified documents or potentially unlawful presidential behavior. And—whatever you think of Biden—he doesn’t want to be the president who starts WW3. Unfortunately, the elites who control the media, the politicians and most of the nation’s wealth—are determined to widen the conflict which is why the narrative in the media has dramatically changed in the last week. Take a look at this short clip from an article at CNN that—until now—had been promoting the “Ukraine is winning” meme nonstop for the last 11 months.

“The situation is critical. Difficult. We are holding on to the last,” said the soldier said.

The soldier is from the 46th air mobile brigade, which is leading Ukraine’s fight to hold onto Soledar in the face of a massive assault from Russian troops and Wagner mercenaries…. The soldier said that he believed Ukraine’s military leaders would eventually abandon the fight for Soledar and questioned why they hadn’t done this yet.

“Everyone understands that the city will be abandoned. Everyone understands this,” he said. “I just want to understand what the point [in fighting house to house] is. Why die, if we are going to leave it anyway today or tomorrow?”…“No one will tell you how many dead and wounded there are. Because no one knows for sure. Not a single person,” he said. “Not at the headquarters. Not anywhere. Positions are being taken and re-taken constantly. What was our house today, becomes Wagner’s the next day.”

“In Soledar, no one counts the dead,” he added.” “The situation is critical. Difficult. We are holding on to the last,” said the soldier said.” (“Situation in eastern Ukrainian Town is Critical”, CNN)

Can you see the difference in the coverage? No more stories about the ‘plucky’ Ukrainians beating back the ghoulish Russian Orcs. No. Instead, it’s the cold bitter truth: Ukraine is losing and losing hard. But how do we explain this sudden ‘narrative shift’?

And why has the Washington Post provided a platform for two dyed-in-the-wool warhawks from the George W Bush administration to make an impassioned plea for emergency military support to stave off Russia’s winter offensive. Here’s former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates making a desperate, last-ditch appeal for immediate assistance to prevent the collapse of the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas:

“When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue….although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control.

Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. .. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability—sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south….

NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months….The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now.” (“Time Is Not On Ukraine’s Side”, Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates, WVNews)

Normally, elder members of the political establishment are more restrained in their pronouncements, but not here. This is pure, unabashed desperation. Rice and Gates declare in no uncertain terms that Ukraine is in dire straits, their economy and infrastructure is in a shambles, millions have fled the country and most of the nation’s natural wealth is under Russian control.

It’s a disaster; and it’s a disaster that Gates and Rice want to address by pumping more weapons into a failed state that has zero prospects of winning the war. Does that make sense?

As we speak, the Ukrainian frontlines are crumbling just as the illusion that wars are determined by the proficiency of one’s propaganda services, is crumbling. What’s left is the looming prospect that the Russians are essentially on the verge of prevailing in this war’s bloodiest and most consequential conflagration, Bakhmut, the eastern transportation hub that will likely be the turning point in the broader campaign. When Bakhmut falls, the Ukrainians will be forced to retreat to their third and forth lines of defense pushing the war closer and closer towards the Dnieper and then onwards to Kiev. The checkered flag is gradually coming into sight. But don’t take my word for it; here it is from the horse’s mouth. This is an excerpt from an interview with General Valery Zaluzhny, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine:

“Russian mobilisation has worked,” says General Zaluzhny….“The enemy shouldn’t be discounted. They are not weak…and they have very great potential in terms of manpower.” … Mobilisation has also allowed Russia to rotate its forces on and off the front lines more frequently, he says, allowing them to rest and recuperate. “In this regard, they have an advantage.”

Therefore, everything really depends on the amount of supplies, and this determines the success of the battle in many cases.” General Zaluzhny, who is raising a new army corps, reels off a wishlist. “I know that I can beat this enemy,” he says. “But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs [infantry fighting vehicles], 500 Howitzers.” The incremental arsenal he is seeking is bigger than the total armoured forces of most European armies….

In private, however, Ukrainian and Western officials admit there may be other outcomes. “We can and should take a lot more territory,” General Zaluzhny insists. But he obliquely acknowledges the possibility that Russian advances might prove stronger than expected, or Ukrainian ones weaker…

“It seems to me we are on the edge,” warns General Zaluzhny… “I have no doubt they will have another go at Kyiv.” children start freezing,” he says. “What kind of mood will the fighters be in? Without water, light and heat, can we talk about preparing reserves to keep fighting?” (“Volodymyr Zelensky and his generals explain why the war hangs in the balance”, The Economist)

Does that sound like a general that is confident in his prospects for success or a military leader who is fatalistically resigned to defeat?

What Zaluzhny is saying is that he needs an entirely new army to even compete with the Russians. (“I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs, 500 Howitzers.”) And, even if his requests are met, the Ukrainian people will be left “freezing” in the dark “without water, light or heat.” This is why—according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)—8 million Ukrainians have already fled into Europe while another 3 million have escaped to Russia. (Tass)

Washington’s war on Russia has transformed the country into an uninhabitable wasteland supported entirely by foreign charity in exchange for a resolute commitment to the globalist agenda. In truth, “I Stand with Ukraine” means ‘I support the summary obliteration of a thriving civilization so that Washington can achieve its pernicious ambitions’. That’s what it really means.

We’re not criticizing Zaluzhny who is just doing his job. We’re criticizing the US warhawks and neocons who provoked this war but never anticipated the catastrophe they were creating. They never expected that there’d come a day when Ukraine’s highest-ranking Officer would demand an entirely new army in order to beat the Russians.

They never expected that the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever levied on a country would backfire and only hurt our closest allies in Europe. They never expected that those same sanctions would serve to enrich Russia and strengthen its ties with countries that are strategic rivals of the United States.

They never expected that China and India would thumb their noses at US sanctions and take full advantage of Russia’s cheap gas and oil to grow their economies leaving Europe to languish in a permanent slump brought on by their irrational attachment to the United States. They never expected any of these things which leads us to conclude that the Ukraine gambit is probably the most poorly-planned foreign policy debacle of all-time leading to the greatest strategic disaster in American history.

For people who have followed events in Ukraine closely, much of what I’m saying will seem obvious. For those who believe the media’s reports, well, we think they are going to be very surprised by upcoming events. The outcome of combined-arms ground wars is not decided by the fiction writers at the New York Times. The war in Ukraine is going to end in favor of the side that is the most powerful; that much is certain. Take a look at this brief summary by combat veteran U.S. Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin who worked as a modeling and simulations officer in NATO and U.S. Army concept development and experimentation:

Wars of attrition are won through careful husbandry of one’s own resources while destroying the enemy’s. Russia entered the war with vast materiel superiority and a greater industrial base to sustain and replace losses. They have carefully preserved their resources, withdrawing every time the tactical situation turned against them. Ukraine started the war with a smaller resource pool and relied on the Western coalition to sustain its war effort. This dependency pressured Ukraine into a series of tactically successful offensives, which consumed strategic resources that Ukraine will struggle to replace in full, in my view. The real question isn’t whether Ukraine can regain all its territory, but whether it can inflict sufficient losses on Russian mobilized reservists to undermine Russia’s domestic unity, forcing it to the negotiation table on Ukrainian terms, or will Russian’ attrition strategy work to annex an even larger portion of Ukraine.” (“What’s Ahead in the War in Ukraine”, Alex Vershini, Russia Matters)

The question of whether Russia made mistakes in the beginning of their military operation helps to shape our understanding of what is happening now. Think about it. Putin called up an additional 300,000 reservists in September. That is an admission that he miscalculated how many combat troops he needed to fulfill the mission. But now he has corrected that mistake. Why else would he call up 300,000 reservists and put the war on hold until they had joined their units and were ready for offensive operations?

The point we’re trying to make is simple: Putin has now assembled the army he needs to finish the job through military force. In simple terms, he’s ready to roll. In fact, his army is already making significant headway in the east where a key city was liberated on Tuesday. (Soledar) We expect that these regional victories will continue throughout the winter and into the spring. We do not think that the provision of tanks, armored vehicles, javelins, Patriots or other weapons-systems will make a significant difference in the outcome of the war.

The only way Washington can prevent a humiliating defeat in Ukraine is by leading a coalition of countries that are willing to commit combat troops and air-power to fight the Russian army. In other words, we are fast approaching the ‘moment of truth’ that many had anticipated from the very beginning; a direct clash between the United States and Russia.

This is the war the fanatical neocons want and, this is why, they are using the ‘classified documents’ to coerce Biden’s support. It’s blackmail.

*

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). 

All images in this article are from TUR

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

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

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

***

“In the last three years, the common people’s exclusion from what is still sold as a democratic process has reached a pinnacle.” — Peter Koenig

As former senior economist for the World Bank and the World Health Organization, Peter Koenig has inside information.  He shares it with us here. 

First, ask yourself how Klaus Schwab’s organization, WEF, and Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and Big Pharma’s organization, WHO, got the word “world” in their name.  The only organization on a world level is the United Nations.  As it name implies, it is an organization of independent nations. The nations speak, not the world, much less a private organization like the WEF and a privately funded organization like WHO.  

Globalists who speak in the name of the world have already pulled a fast one on us by appropriating a name that suggests that two private organizations speak for the world.  Both of these organizations are in the process of acquiring this private authority over humanity. The WEF has been at it for 53 years, and the WHO since 1948 when it was founded by Rockefeller. In this current year, WHO has a big push underway to acquire authority over the health policies of every country. If WHO succeeds, this privately funded organization will be independent of governments and have no political accountability to people.  The same organization who lied and deceived with its assurance that the Covid jab was “safe and effective” is grasping for the power to impose worldwide whatever diktat it wishes.  Are you happy with this?  

Both the WEF and WHO operate by inventing  threats and controlling their explanations, such as human-caused global warming and pandemics, the solution to which is the centralization of power and erosion of national sovereignty and accountability to the people.  

For 53 years WEF has worked diligently to create the image of itself as the top club to which to belong.  They groom up-and-coming political, professional, and business leaders.  An invitation to attend a meeting makes the recipient feel special.  Those without invitations yearn for them. This works to create certainty about the rightness of the WEF agenda.  Attendees hear addresses that they have no capability of challenging and accept the ideas as they come from big names. After 53 years of this, the WEF has a large and influential following.

WHO has gone further into becoming an official world government organization by being brought into the United Nations system. If WHO succeeds in getting control over every country’s health policy, it will be the end of independent science in medicine.  Except for nuclear war, it is difficult to imagine a more disastrous development.

Imagine that you are a US Senator or a House committee chairman and you comprehend that these organizations’ agenda is to terminate national sovereignty.  What can you do about it?  If you begin speaking against them, exposing them, they use their vast network to cut off your political campaign contributions and to demonize you as a reactionary standing in the way of solutions to the world’s pressing problems. 

The independence of people and countries has been moved far along the path to their demise.

Second, ask yourself how it can be that these two organizations that hyped the Covid narrative to the hilt can have any credibility now afterwards when every government’s official data show a massive increase in unexplained excess deaths following the Covid vaccination?  It is the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated, who are suddenly dying and developing illnesses.  Doctors also report a surge in cancer and a drop in fertility following the vaccination campaign. 

Thousands of medical scientists and doctors have concluded from the evidence that the mRNA vaccines are deadly to many and cause a wide range of serious and permanent health injuries to many more.  Some of the most prestigious medical scientists and doctors in the world have called for the immediate halt to mRNA injections.  Yet, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved the injections for infants, and many parents remain so ignorant that they participate in the murder and health injury of their own children.

It is an honest question to ask how such insouciant, gullible, and trusting people can withstand the WEF/WHO onslaught.

*

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. 

Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The World Economic Forum & the World Health Organization Are Elevating Themselves Above the World’s Governments
  • Tags: ,

ExxonMobil, Suppressing Science and Climate Change

January 15th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

***

Villains often have the best tunes. In some cases, they also have the best evidence.  The tendency in the latter is to suppress or distort that evidence if it is contrary to their interests. Exxon, now ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil and gas company, has revealed, much like tobacco companies of the past, that excellent research that might prove costly to profits is best suppressed.  Destroying ecological systems and ravaging mother nature are secondary considerations. 

In the 1970s, it was already engaged in research of farsighted worth.  As a co-authored study published this month in Science shows, the scientists in the employ of Exxon between 1977 and 2003 correctly predicted the rate of temperature rises as a result of carbon emissions, accurately predicted that anthropogenic global warming would be detectable by 2000 (within a 5 year margin) and even went so far as to throw in reasonable estimates as to how much carbon dioxide would lead to dangerous levels of warming.

In 2015, internal documents revealed that the company was already chewing over the issue of climate change in the latter part of the 1970s.  In July 1977, senior scientist James Black stated that there was “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from burning of fossil fuels.”  What followed was ominous.  The current state of thinking held “that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”

The documents also showed that, between the 1970s and 1980s, scientists were brought in to participate in a research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and modelled climate change impacts.  Exxon even went so far as to fork out $1 million on a tanker project to assess the absorption rates of carbon dioxide in oceans.

At the time of these revelations, the company, now ExxonMobil, unleashed its public relations battalions to douse the fires.  “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they [the investigators of InsideClimate News] suggest,” complained ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers to Scientific American.  “The thing that shocks me most is that we’ve been saying this for years, and that we have been involved in climate research.”  Shocking indeed.

Jeffers went on to blame those cheeky investigators for going down and pulling “some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and selective use of materials.”  The insinuation here: the company was being punished for its transparency and hounded by those nasty cherry-picking greenies and gossips.

ExxonMobil can hardly dispute the latest assessment of its quantitative climate change projections by Geoffrey Supran of Harvard University, along with his colleagues.  Supran and his co-authors, on examining the documents, found that accuracy, in terms of predicting rates of global warming, was in the order of 63 to 83 per cent.  They even go so far as to regard such predictions as skilful.

As Supran describes it, the projections were so accurate they proved “consistent with subsequent observations” and on par with independent models.  Admiration is expressed for the scientific fraternity.  “Excellent scientists modelled and predicted global warming with shocking skill and accuracy, only for the company to spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”  Supran is silent on the moral culpability for those same scientists who continued to benefit from the employ of the company, raking in benefits yet publicly muzzled.

Parallel universes thereby functioned in the laboratory and in the company boardroom.  The lab results were troubling, even disconcerting, though Supran is overly generous in suggesting that those working there “contributed quietly to climate science.”  The boardroom grew increasingly belligerent in denying the broader implications of the research.  All were compromised.

The public face of the endeavour was typified by a strategy that simultaneously spoke about positive efforts being made to mitigate climate change effects while claiming that the science on the issue was not settled.  In April 2000, Exxon published a number of Op Eds across the United States with such titles as “Do No Harm”, “Unsettled Science”, “The Promise of Technology” and “The Path Forward on Climate Change.”

In his introduction to a booklet outlining the pieces, then CEO and Chairman Lee R. Raymond sums up the hedging mood.  “As you will read, we believe that climate change may pose a legitimate long-term risk and that much more needs to be learned about it.  We believe that enough is known to address climate change through responsible actions now, but not enough to impose unworkable short-term agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, which would adversely affect the well being of people everywhere in the world.”

The following year, an ExxonMobil press release pursued the lack of consensus theme, suggesting that “during the 1970’s [sic], people were concerned about global cooling.”  In 2003, US Senator James Inhofe revealed the influence of the fossil fuel lobby – he had received to date $2.3 million in campaign contributions, including from ExxonMobil – by parroting the idea that the science on anthropogenic global warming was “far from settled”.

Now, as in 2015, ExxonMobil’s response is nothing but disingenuous.  “Those who suggest ‘we knew’ are wrong,” yet another spokesperson claimed in a statement.  “Some have sought to misrepresent facts and ExxonMobil’s position on climate science, and its support for effective policy solutions, by recasting well intended, internal policy debates as an attempted company disinformation campaign.”

The denial flies in the face of knowledge across the entire fossil fuel industry, including other companies such as electric utilities and the motor companies GM and Ford.  The approach there is sly and dissimulating.  Our scientists told us one thing, but our communications team prefers to tell you something else.

What Supran and his colleagues have shown us is that the very companies responsible for carbon emissions can be hoisted by their own petard.  As they put it, “bringing quantitative techniques from the physical sciences to bear on a discipline traditionally dominated by qualitative journalistic and historical approaches offers one path to remedying this blind spot [regarding climate lobbying and propaganda by fossil fuel interests].”  Ignorance was never a good defence, but it has now been entirely scuppered.

*

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]

ASSANGE: Il momento decisivo

January 14th, 2023 by Berenice Galli

Il padre di Julian Assange, John Shipton, annuncia dall’Australia, in questa intervista a Berenice Galli, una novità che potrebbe essere decisiva per la sorte del figlio: “Sento che prevarremo e che Julian sarà libero. Lo sento, lo vedo, lo percepisco attraverso le centinaia di contatti che ho in tutto il mondo”. 

Decisivo – sottolinea John – è che “abbiamo in Australia il Primo ministro, il Consiglio dei ministri, il Partito laburista al governo, 60 membri del Parlamento a sostegno di Julian, come anche tutti i giornali, i sindacati, le organizzazioni non governative. Dal momento che Julian è un cittadino australiano, il Governo australiano è il solo che possa parlare per Julian nel confronto con gli Stati Uniti, perché lui è un cittadino australiano. Di conseguenza questo movimento globale si è focalizzato sull’Australia ed il Governo australiano ha manifestato delle rimostranze agli Stati Uniti. Nel notiziario della TV australiana, il direttore delle news internazionali, John Lyons, ha detto di aver sentito dalle sue fonti nel Consiglio dei ministri che Julian sarà liberato incondizionatamente entro due mesi”.

John dichiara di non avere alcuna fiducia nella Giustizia britannica, che ha sottoposto Julian Assange a un “processo show, una persecuzione politica” e che “la soluzione non si trova nella legge ma nella politica”. Ricorda quindi che “le circostanze non sono migliorate da quando il professor Niels Melzer, il relatore delle Nazioni Unite sulla tortura, ha presentato nel 2019 l’esauriente resoconto della visita che aveva fatto a Julian nella prigione di Belmarsh assieme a due medici specialisti.  Nella sua dichiarazione ha scritto che Julian stava soffrendo gli effetti di sette anni e mezzo di tortura psicologica. A Julian è permessa una telefonata internazionale di dieci minuti, e le telefonate gli sono concesse utilizzando un certo credito: durante i giorni di Natale abbiamo utilizzato tutto ciò che gli era concesso, dunque per poterci riparlare dovrò aspettare una settimana o più”.

 

I crimini che Julian Assange ha portato alla luce

Questo docufilm mostra ciò che l’organizzazione WikiLeaks di Julian Assange ha portato alla luce. Riportiamo, a titolo di esempio, le rivelazioni fatte nel 2010.

Afghanistan war logs. Nel 2010 WikiLeaks pubblica una raccolta di oltre 90 mila documenti relativi alla guerra in Afghanistan. Essi ricoprono un periodo che va dal gennaio 2004 al dicembre 2009. Tali documenti riservati – che vengono rilasciati al Guardian, New York Times e Der Spiegel – rivelano l’uccisione di civili da parte di truppe statunitensi e britanniche.

Iraq War Logs. Sempre nel 2010 WikiLeaks diffonde un video che mostra l’uccisione di civili iracheni e di due giornalisti della Reuters in un attacco effettuato da due elicotteri Apache statunitensi. Nello stesso anno una analista dell’Esercito USA, Chelsea Manning, viene arrestata con l’accusa di aver divulgato il video e altre centinaia di migliaia di documenti riservati. WikiLeaks diffonde oltre 300 mila documenti che rivelano abusi, torture e violenze delle forze USA in Iraq.  I documenti rivelano anche la morte di oltre 15.000 civili in circostanze sconosciute e numerosi casi di torture da parte di militari iracheni sotto comando USA.

Cablegate. Nello stesso anno WikiLeaks pubblica centinaia di migliaia di documenti riservati sull’operato di Washington nel mondo. Si tratta di documenti contenenti informazioni confidenziali inviate da 274 ambasciate USA al Dipartimento di Stato a Washington. I documenti contengono valutazioni, spesso molto negative, sul comportamento pubblico e privato di capi di Stato e di governo europei, Fra questi il presidente del consiglio italiano Berlusconi e il presidente russo Putin.

Video : 

https://www.byoblu.com/2023/01/13/assange-il-momento-decisivo-grandangolo-pangea/

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.a

a

***

“January 6th and the lies that led to insurrection have put two and a half centuries of constitutional democracy at risk. The world is watching what we do here.”

– U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson [1]

“The most important point today from January 6th is: this was a setup. This was a psychological operation, in my opinion, meant to execute this larger thing we just discussed.”

  • Ryan Cristian, from this week’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
During a speech at the White House marking the second anniversary of the chaos that engulfed the U.S. Capitol, President Joe Biden remarked that “our democracy was attacked!”

“A violent mob of insurrectionists assaulted law enforcement, vandalized sacred halls, hunted down elected officials, all for the purpose of an attempt to overthrow the will of the people, and usurp the peaceful transfer of power. All of it fuelled by lies about the 2020 election.” [2]

He also mentioned and honoured the valiant efforts of police and election workers on this brand new “Day of Remembrance.”

“What would you think Mr President if tomorrow you woke up and you had a headline in the press saying that in the British Parliament you had a mob had come down the hall, broken down the doors to the House of Commons, police officers were killed or died, the place was vandalized in order to overthrow the election of a speaker of the House, a Prime Minister’s election. Think about it!” [3]

It was importantly also a big media event. The dramatic event broadcast live on all major news stations would be difficult for average citizens with access to any media to ignore. As with 9/11, the “threats, the violence, the savageness” accentuated by mainstream punditry helped craft the peril of this moment of profound partisan discord into a threat. But not from Islamic extremists or dangerous leaders of authoritarian countries. From Domestic Terrorists!

The enemy within.

The riot itself was triggered by the elections of 2020 which saw power slide away from Donald Trump toward Joe Biden. Trump, a number of electoral analysts, and millions of voters, staring at unusual election activities, and said the election was rigged against the Republicans. In other words, the REAL coup against democracy was executed not by a “mob,” but quietly beforehand when the power of the people at the voting booth was robbed by special interests.

The prominent media claimed Trump was repeating “false election fraud claims” before launching the thousands of upset supporters off on Washington. [4]

With a similar looking eruption of (righteous) outrage taking place in Brazil with Bolsonaro supporters ransacking buildings in Brasilia, including the Supreme Court, Congress, and the presidential palace, the January 6 event in the United States potentially has international as well as domestic repercussions. That’s why this week on the Global Research News Hour, we will examine the riot and its spillover with greater attention.

In our first half hour, the journalist and author Joachim Hagopian joins us to explain why exactly there was more to Trump’s loss than negative public reaction to his policies. He also shares how similar acts of rigging were in play during the Mid-Term elections. We also speak to a pioneer of electoral forensics, Jonathan Simon, who is of the view based on his own analysis, that most of the evidence of foul play points actually to the Republicans and about how Americans should and must work to get those red thumbs off the electoral scales.

In our second half hour, we have a long discussion with Ryan Cristian of The Last American Vagabond. He will discuss how the January 6 event was largely staged and that the repercussions included not just a “War on Domestic Terrorists,” but a pre-staged implication of Russians well before their attack on Ukraine this past year.

Joachim Hagopian is a journalist and commentator. He is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Jonathan D Simon is the former executive director of Election Defense Alliance (2006-16) and author of CODE RED: Computerized Elections and The War on American Democracy: Election 2020 Edition.

Ryan Cristian is the Founder and Editor of The Last American Vagabond, an independent media critic, and recipient of the Serena Shim Award For Uncompromising Integrity In Journalism.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 375)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript of Ryan Cristian, January 6, 2023

Global Research: It is a real treat for me right now to introduce Ryan Cristian to the stage. He is the founder and editor of The Last American Vagabond and he is a committed analyst of news. His work earned him the Serena Shim Award for uncompromising integrity in journalism. He has done amazing work exposing – exploring the Covid-19 situation, surveillance technology, and American foreign policy, among other subjects. But considering the date we are having this interview is January 6th, I thought it would be a good idea to explore what he has revealed about the famous riot on this date, taking place on Capitol Hill in Washington. He has definitely found evidence that there was more to it than a bunch of grumpy Trump supporters staging an insurgency because they are wicked. Rather, this event set the stage for events outside the theatre of political partisanship, to build up not only the fight against supposed domestic terrorism, but in support of prevailing narratives about Russia, and much, much more. Ryan Cristian, thank you for joining us on the Global Research News Hour. We are looking forward to the gems of investigation you are willing to share with our listeners.

Ryan Cristian: Well, thank you, Michael. It’s an honour to be here. I’m looking forward to it. I definitely think this is – I mean, it’s almost hard to say from a – people won’t – I think it’s more important than most people realize, put it that way. And which I mean, it’s hard to say that, because most people see that there’s something that’s very important. But even then, it ties to so many more things than I think we’ve – a lot of people have patched together like you were touching on there in regards to foreign policy connections and even – honestly even ties to the Great Reset and Covid-19 and a lot of different things. So, thank you for having me on to talk about it, it’s important. And on the day, on the anniversary of this gigantic psychological operation.

GR: Yeah, happy annniversary. The riot was an event where people were contesting the vote turnout, alleging voter fraud, or election rigging. There have been accusations in the past that the election was turned against Democrats in the past. Now they’re turned against Republicans. But we saw people wanting to change, to charge forward. The courts were not contesting the election. But people charged forward. Remind our listeners, if you could, what particular anomalies were there in the media coverage of the riots that you felt seemed, in certain ways, untruthful or offside with what was known at that time.

RC: Hm, yeah. That’s a gigantic – from my perspective, just about —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — literally everything that they did that day or ongoing from before or since then. But I think the important points to make —

GR: If you could just pick out – yeah.

RC: I’m sorry?

GR: Just pick out maybe a few, just a few highlights because we don’t want it to dominate the discussion.

RC: Oh, right. Of course, of course. Yeah, but I would like to say first that I think it’s important to note that, you know, anybody engaging in – even if they’re wrong, by the way – questioning the outcome, the government’s decisions, the statement by the media around an election, it’s valid and important to be able to do that and that’s something that’s being shut down and it goes both ways. Historically speaking, I think are always – I view – to make it clear from the beginning – I view all this as a uni-party, as the government manipulating the people. Left-right paradigm stuff, I think, is what keeps people from seeing the full picture here.

Now, on the concept of the media and the coverage, I mean, from top-to-bottom – and again, I mean this in just about every topic we could point at today, but specifically focusing on January 6th – it was framed – like, the way I look at it, is it seems as if there was a narrative set about the way this was supposed to go, and the way it was supposed to be perceived, that very quickly did not pan out for any number of reasons we could get into, whether people were armed and they were – you know, being pressured to be armed. They didn’t show up with any weapons, or whether they were being violent or not. And they had the narrative that it was supposed to look like. And it was almost as if the media and the government just stuck to the narrative and talking points, even as it quickly fleshed out to not be the way it was being presented as.

And so, the media was very quick to frame this as, ‘Racist and misogynistic,’ or whatever else, just as some kind of an insurgency active – activity. Right? That they were going there to take violent action against politicians. I mean, Pelosi was kind of insinuating it outright, saying this from the beginning, especially as it got more intense. And the way that they covered this was so inherently dishonest, and I think we see this in every aspect. And it was just about the way that they either were told to cover it, or the way that they were perceiving it, regardless of what was actually happening.

I mean, you can talk about the way that the engagement of the police that were on the ground and whether they were supposed to be called in, and they were turned down. And you know, all these things were ignored. Or whether they called it an “Armed insurrection,” or “violence –” I mean, you know, there’s all these examples that aren’t just about the media coverage, but the way that it was ongoing since then. Right?

But I get it. I think from top-to-bottom, it was clearly dishonest, all the way to this very point. Even from a congressional standpoint, to call it something that it wasn’t.

GR: Mm-hmm.

RC: Now, if you you’d like me to get into the things that —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — I do think were also wrong, I mean like – I’m not – there were things that were done there, whether allowed to happen or not, that need to be pointed out, you know. The crimes that were committed, even if I do think they were minor, that were valid to point out, you know. The violence taken against people in authority – in a police position, or breaking windows, let’s say, which is destruction of property, you know, these are things which should be pointed out. So, it’s not to say that there was no – nothing that was done there that should be held accountable for. But it was represented as something so exponentially more serious than that, all the way to this point.

GR: Yeah. Well, there was also the images, because they’re a series of different images and I mean, you saw them recycling over and over again, the people breaking into a window or something like that. And then, on the other hand, they were showing people walking down the main line as they entered, and they were walking, they weren’t raiding it like a bunch of hooligans. They were staying within the lines of the – you know, as you enter, you —

RC: Yeah, —

GR: — know. And there are the – go ahead.

RC: I was just going to add to that, and that these are people that are being still framed on that same kind of, you know, over-the-top, hyperbolic statement about what they’re supposed to be trying to accomplish. But you can very clearly tell that, by and large, a lot of these people were just kind of going along with the flow, not even realizing – like, I always often point out, if you were to come up to this after this has all begun and walked in, not realizing that things had already been kind of – like, I argue right there that even though they broke through the barriers after weirdly – when you talk about Ray Epps and how that seems to influence that. But break through these barriers, and then seemingly people were just allowed to keep coming in. Like, why wasn’t there more people put in place to stop that? So, people wandered in essentially and were taking pictures and, you know, walking, staying between the velvet ropes and you know. So, at the very least, you could tell a lot of people weren’t even aware, in and of themselves, that there was a problem and something happening that was perceived as violent. So, it just – it’s kind of impossible to frame everybody there as violent attackers when half of them clearly didn’t even realize what they were involved in. You know? It just – it screams psychological operation.

GR: Yeah. Could you talk about Ray Epps? Because, I mean, he was someone who was, I guess, appeared to be directing things.

RC: Even himself, I went over the transcript of the weirdly redacted and controlled release of the engagement of this committee. But Ray Epps on the record, said he did – he used his own word “orchestrate,” ‘that I helped orchestrate or that I orchestrated this.’ And then, he walks it back later in the conversation. But either way, you can clearly see on video him doing things that his own testimony seems to contradict. That was the first thing that stood out to be: the timing of it, whether or not he was telling – like, he was saying ‘We’re going to go inside the Capitol.’ And people pushed back on that, even called him a Fed, you know, chanting, “Fed, Fed.” And all these videos have been seen, weirdly absent from the conversation of the January 6th committee, and also acting like they didn’t even know who he was, despite being one of the main people put on the list by the FBI. All these weird omissions and things that don’t make sense. But Ray Epps himself, was the most important point was there chanting, both on the 5th and the 6th, that we’re going to be going inside the Capitol.

Anybody knows that’s not allowed, especially in the context or – specifically in the context of how this was going. Now obviously you can go in the Capitol if they’re – you know, in a normal setting or tours or whatever else. But in this context, it was very clear that if they were to march up there as a mob, or even just as a protest, and try to march in Capitol, they know that’s not allowed. Right? So they – when he says that, he knows that he’s saying ‘We’re going to do something that’s going to put them on the defensive.’ And then, that – so, you know that what he’s doing is calling for action that will lead to conflict, whether it’s violent conflict or political – he knows that. And yet, now he gets represented as some kind of patsy that was just there for peaceful protesting, except on the record repeatedly screaming, “We’re going to go inside the Capitol,” and then telling them that they’re not going to – he even says once on the record, ‘I’m worried about saying this, because this will get me in trouble, but we need to go inside the Capitol.’ So, —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — clearly point out he knew it was a problem. And the point is —

GR: Was he —

RC: — is that guy got quickly kicked out of the conversation until way later when pushed by people like Thomas Massie and others to be talked about, you know, to be brought into the conversation, and it was very quickly pushed to the side. I mean, this was a 9/11 committee-style manipulation from the beginning, in my opinion.

GR: So, when the committee was investigating – doing their recent investigations, was he ever arrested? Or did they just leave him aside, but go after other individuals?

RC: I don’t believe he was ever technically arrested. I believe that he was overlooked and intentionally overlooked for a long time, until way later in this process that they brought him in. But I think they just – I don’t know, I don’t have the full – I’m going to go ahead and say I don’t know. But I think that he was invited, you know, via congressional subpoena to come in and testify. But we all know how wildly different that is, then even for example, some grandmother with a cell phone that actually got arrested and actually got charged for a crime, for doing something – for being present, despite the fact that he’s the one out there screaming, “We’re going to go in the Capitol.” Right? So, you can just see a very different way they engage with people when, I mean – let’s put it this way: when dealing with somebody they perceive to be a Trump supporter, they very clearly have dealt differently with them. But weirdly enough, the way that they engage with Epps seems to be from a perception of, ‘He’s being taken advantage of.’ Now, why is that? Right? It doesn’t make any other sense, any sense compared to how they treat everybody else. That doesn’t prove anything, but it gives you examples of why I think it’s pretty clear this person was an agent provocateur. That’s my opinion, just my opinion.

GR: Has the committee investigated the possibility that these people were actually armed, or that some of these people were actually armed? Was there any individuals discovered carrying firearms?

RC: No, as far as I can tell. And again, I’ll be – to be clear, I haven’t fine tooth comb gone through everything that’s been on transcripts from the January 6th committee. Frankly, I find it to be kind of a waste of time. Not that we shouldn’t be doing it, but there’s just so much else going on. But my point is that, what we know is that there was nobody armed there. If it comes out later that one person was like personally carrying a gun, we know how that’s going to be taken out of context.

Like for instance, saying that people were killed despite the only actual person being killed there was Babbitt who was shot by Capitol police. Right? Yet, they all still argue that people were killed there by the protestors. And that’s even a stretch to argue that it was because of the protestors. That’s a whole conversation we can get into if you want. But I think that what we know is that this was an unarmed protest.

And that was done for a very clear reason: because it was – it was discussed amongst these circles long before this started, that they were being set up. Right? So, this was known. And so, an entire – like, the whole sentiment, even to this day, is that it was an armed insurrection. There are still politicians saying that, even though it’s been very clearly proven that wasn’t the case. You know? So, my point in saying that in the beginning was: I bet you you could flesh this out to the point to where you’ll find out somebody was legally carrying. Somebody may be allowed to. Or more importantly, that we know that there were different people that were at the lead positions of some of these militias that turned out to be FBI. Or a woman that worked for a psychological operations department. I believe it was for the military, the Navy, I forget the exact location. But all this was discussed openly at the time. They are there of there own capacity, they claim, but except the FBI one. The point being is that there are probably examples of some kind of firearm at this large event. Point being, it was an unarmed insurrection, and that speaks volumes.

GR: Okay —

RC: Or, excuse me. I should —

GR: So, —

RC: — well, hold on —

GR: — did you —

RC: — I have to correct that: I didn’t mean to say, “Insurrection.” The point is, an unarmed protest that they call an “Insurrection.” Important correction. Go ahead.

GR: Okay. Well, you’re talking about this whole situation, including the media, seeming to just set up, you know, the parade – the protestors for – you know, basically criminalizing them. That suggests, because there’s a history of this sort of thing, that maybe there were agent provocateurs involved. I mean, are there any that come to mind, any individuals that you would say, okay, that that guy smells like a provocateur?

RC: Well, Ray Epps is an obvious example. I mean, whether he – whether that was what he was being paid to do or not, that’s what he was doing. Period. Right? And he was out there going, ‘We’re going in the Capitol. We’re going to do this, follow me. The Capitol’s this way.’ So, orchestrating. That’s exactly what – the word he even used.

So, I can’t prove that he did it on behalf of somebody else, but that’s my opinion and I think it’s pretty obvious, based on all the things we’ve already said. The way they engage with them, the way they didn’t go after him, on and on and on.

But there’s more than that. I mean, you can see examples of – there’s examples of Antifa members that have been caught on the record – their own videos, by the way – speaking both before, pretending to be Trump supporters, telling people to go in the Capitol. Telling them to do things that were against the law. And then, on video – which many people have copies of – running afterwards, saying, ‘We did it. We got them, we tricked them.’ I don’t think they use the word “trick,” but basically, ‘We got them, we got them to do it. They get – they went inside.’ It’s all on the record.

And then, you can prove that the guy, the – I forget… I don’t remember if they ever got his name, but the dark-skinned, dark-haired guy that was proven to be a member of Antifa. On, you know, his own social media profiles. So, whether again that was at the behest of some kind of government organization or intelligence, we don’t know. But obviously, they were there with dishonest intentions to either set up the MAGA people or frame them for a government agenda, or something. There’s an obvious example, verifiably, of an agent provocateur.

But you’ll never find that video, which is literally everywhere when – you know, in these conversations in the January 6th committee. Now why would that be? It’s record, it’s on the record, it’s provable, you know. They just don’t want to factor that in, they call it conspiracy theory.

But there’s endless examples of these kind of factors playing in any of these things, including – I would argue in a reverse sort of way – the allowance of people to go through certain areas and barriers and doors. You know, it’s not necessarily agent provocateurs, but in a reverse way they’re sort of doing so in the hope that they take some kind of action that they can then frame as being what they want it to be. You know? I mean, we could speak about Pelosi and the Capitol police, and how numerous calls were made to bring in reinforcements and it was turned down numerous times.

Or even before January 6th, speaking on the record, saying, ‘We need more people, we know what’s coming. We have this planned,’ and doing nothing about it. You know? It’s very obvious that this was at least allowed to happen, which is a classic tenet of US foreign policy and examples throughout. You know, Pearl Harbor, for example, it’s one of those examples.

GR: Now I want to talk about, you know, other aspects of it. It’s not just about Trump versus the Democrats and some Republicans, like Vice President Pence, for example. You were also talking about expanding it to the point where we are actually looking forward to, you know, what would transpire in Ukraine. I’m thinking there’s an individual that was parading around with face paint and a buffalo hide, I think. Very noticeable.

RC: Mm-hmm.

GR: You dug into his background and discovered a lot of interesting things as well on the record. Can you describe some of the things – into his background? And his buddy, as well, Dybynyn I believe his name is. It causes one to wonder about what they were doing there.

RC: Yeah, yeah. Well, there’s a lot of really interesting overlap there, and I am going to ask you – I had actually forgotten about this point, because I am looking forward to getting into the Ukraine overlap here, and Project Aerodynamic and all of this and Rise Above Movement. Before that, though, with – I’m glad you said that, I had actually forgotten about the Ukrainian individual that was there, pretending to be Russian, as one of these individuals.

This is all stuff that’s been fleshed out on the record. You can see the social media profiles. And this is an individual that was there alongside specifically the guy with the horns and that guy that was this prominent individual. But in numerous other examples as well, and is seen wearing the Azov colours and symbols before this. Seen wearing the Right Sector information. You know, all of – very interesting stuff. And so, the point was, to make it very concise for people, is that we have an individual directly tied to the Azov movement in Ukraine in this event acting like a Russian. Screaming things in Russian. All of this is easily provable. We went over this in our own January 6th coverage.

Without knowing what we’re going to get into next, that wouldn’t make much sense. But what’s important to understand – unless you wanted to make a further point on that – is how that, in my opinion I think provably connects with what has been a long sought agenda to create this exact situation, but ultimately blame the rise of what they claim is white supremacy, and so on. Or rather, what they claim is the rise of white supremacy and all these racist nut ideas because of Russia, despite the fact that I can prove to you this was a CIA agenda that’s been built. Just like the Mujahadeen, Afghanistan, Soviet Union play in Ukraine in order to blame specifically people that they call Republicans, but just anybody in this country that pushes back.

I’m happy to get into all that overlap there, but, unless you want to go further on that Ukraine guy. Because that’s such an interesting point that nobody really talks about.

GR: Yeah. Well, I think when you said “Mujanadeen” [SIC] you meant Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, right? Because we were – you were supporting, you know, the same people – we were supporting the Mujahadeen which were doing a lot of nefarious and evil things. But now you’ve got a white equivalent, if you will, doing these things.

RC: Yeah, no —

GR: But, —

RC: — I was —

GR: — yeah.

RC:— referencing the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Soviet Union overlap. Right? That they did —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — the same thing in arming a fascist entity to use them against the Soviet Union. Right? Which later became Al-Qaeda, later became ISIS. My point is, you’re showing that they have a play – the playbook, right? Where they will happily engage with the people that they later call terrorists in order to use it against somebody that they perceive as an enemy.

Right? The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against Soviet Union is the same game they’re playing right now with the fascist neo-Nazis and Nazis in Ukraine to use against Russia. And it’s the same game, it’s very interesting.

GR: Yeah. And I’m just talking briefly, like maybe in just a couple of minutes you could talk about the Ukrainians in this situation. Because they met in the past or – yeah, it was in the past in Donetsk, I think. There was a picture of the two of them together. So, well, okay how is it that we’re – that this group of angry Americans has these individuals from Ukraine speaking Russian to American citizens?

RC: Well, I don’t know exactly how this individual came to be there, like as the – you know, it happened. And what’s important to understand is to flush out the background of why that makes sense or why it’s important. I mean, I could make this quick, but there’s a whole bunch to unpack around this and the point that is what you can prove today.

First of all, is that there is Project Aerodynamic in 1948 to today, is a CIA operation to build fascism in Ukraine to use against Russia. Or first the Soviet Union, but now against Russia. And it’s ongoing. I mean, this is on the record CIA documentation where they picked up a guy named Mykola Lebed who was a Nazi war criminal, who was actually sentenced to death in Poland, and then was saved by the US government and was used both in New York and in Ukraine to head up a company called Prolog. And this was a media company. And this is a Nazi war criminal, they knew that. And so, this guy was the basis for what grew to this day.

It became less – the point is it was ongoing. Who knows to the level they were still using this, up until around 2014, when we saw the Maidan Square regime change. Which, by the way, is also on the record knowing that they knew who actually shot people, which was the US-backed entities and they framed the other side, sort of like Syria.

Now the point is that that created a new government and since – from that point forward, the agenda really kicked off, and there was articles written about this. That’s when this truly began, what we’re seeing today in the context of the, you know, invasion of February 25th. Now, a lot happened before that, but that was like the real re-initiation of this agenda as far as I can tell.

Now that began in the concept of trying to create and grow that fascist entity, neo-Nazis and Nazis, in Ukraine to be able to blame it on Russia and the influence of that around the world. Because we all saw every corporate media outlet, pre-February 25th, was writing about the neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine and suddenly it just vanished when it became something – it’s very transparent.

The important part to see here is that they were building this for the game of blaming it actually on Americans, as far as I can tell. And to make that point clear, the Rise Above Movement, which is the movement in the United States that was in Charlottesville that kind of was the beginning point for this white supremacy conversation around the Trump movement and MAGA. Right? They were the ones with the tiki torches marching down the street in Charlottesville. You know, what was it, “They will not replace us,” or whatever they were saying.

Now, people don’t know that that is verifiably, even according to Newsweek, the US arm, the faction of the Azov movement in the United States. Why that’s not discussed is obvious, because that’s not supposed to be traced back to the CIA. Because once the CIA documentation and this conversation got really fleshed out, that kind of fell apart.

But the whole point is, we having a rising white supremacy threat in this country. And if you trace the lines they were making, that was supposed to be laid at the feet of Russia and their efforts to do this and, you know, create the white supremacy threat. But if we know that the CIA was raising and growing this Azov movement group, along with Right Sector and Svoboda and all the other Nazi elements in this country. And then we know that that arm of that agenda was what created the conversation in the United States with the Rise Above Movement, as well as other groups: CasaPound, in Germany, they’re all over the world. We know that the CIA is the group that is responsible for this, at least in part, and yet that doesn’t get discussed.

And now, this has been spinning out of control and all they want to try to do is frame this as some kind of rising white supremacy, Nazi, fascist mentality. Well, the US government is openly arming the most obvious Nazi elements in the world right now in Ukraine, and working directly with the most openly fascist government I would argue, which is Israel’s government. And it’s very interesting that – the point – no, you tell me where you want to go from there. But the point is to realize that I think this has been carefully crafted to blame anybody freely thinking in this country, and I don’t just think Republicans.

I mean, they call me a Republican, I scream two-party illusion. But anybody pushing back. And that kind of fell apart with the Ukraine agenda, but it’s still going forward, so. It’s very interesting and very concer  ning. I call it the MAGA trap or the Vanilla ISIS psy-op.

GR: Probably be our last point, but the idea also is that you’re building up resistance to what they call domestic terrorism. So, it’s not terrorists, just you know, Islamic terrorists or those people outside the country. There is a domestic terrorist entity building within the country. And —

RC: Yeah.

GR: — there are all sorts of references, you know, among the people who – even before January 6th, people were making note of this. And then, boom, along comes the riot. And all of a sudden they have free – it’s kind of like where when 9/11 happened, they just pulled up the Patriot Act which was written before 9/11 and —

RC: Right.

GR: — put it out there to vote on. So, if you could just briefly talk about the – that mode of using this on Americans to divide them and —

RC: Yes.

GR: — the created terrorist threat which is going to build up a lot of monetary control, and other controls to stop it.

RC: Yeah, it’s a great place to wrap – to, you know, bring this to, the domestic terrorism angle. We have to remember that Biden wrote an executive order overlapping just basic misinformation with the concept of domestic terrorism. Right? So, we already see this effort to argue that if you challenge the vaccine agenda, that you’re suddenly not just dangerous, which is not even the – you know, words are not violence. But over the top of that, that you are a domestic terrorist, that you’re actually killing people. We saw people like Hotez make this argument on the vaccine.

The same point is happening around all of this, that they – this is all meant to kind of converge, in my mind, around the idea that you are a – there’s the domestic terrorist threat, but that’s the white supremacy threat and that comes from the outside. That’s their clumsy narrative. That’s where Vanilla ISIS got thrown out. That somehow, these white supremacists are so – I mean, I don’t even know how they try to piece together that you’re a white supremacist yet you work with foreign entities that are not white, but that’s what they’re doing, Iran and so on.

But that’s where the Russia angle came in. And we have to remember the groups like The Base – which by the way is the literally translation for the term Al-Qaeda, it translates to The Base in English – is a group that was based out of Russia, that only went there about 2018. But it was founded by a guy that worked for the DHS, for the US government at top secret clearance, and used to work on counter-terrorism, and just one day woke up and said, ‘I’m now a white supremacist, I’m going to go live in Russia and start a group.’ These things I think aren’t supposed to be so clear.

My point is I think it’s obvious this was built to create that exact thing that you’re pointing out. The domestic terrorism threat that stems from the bad guy, so it swings in all the foreign policy, despite this being built by the CIA and other groups. That overlaps with the overarching point of where this is all going, whether it’s the bio-security state direction or anything. It comes down to what you think is most important.

But as Whitney Webb has coined in the past that, you know, today under the security state, right, the idea was about fighting the idea of the boogeyman overseas and then ultimately realizing that it was turned in against us. But today, the bio-security state, your body is the new battlefield. Right? So, we now see how it’s been inverted even though it’s always kind of been that way, directly pointed at us. Even calling – you know, the domestic terrorism threat is the biggest rising threat.

So, I think this has been planned and I think we’re watching executed moves that bring this together in a larger way that, if you want me to touch on it, I think do connect with the Covid-19 agenda and where that all goes. But regardless, the most important point today from January 6th is: this was a setup. This was a psychological operation, in my opinion, meant to execute this larger thing we just discussed. Right? That was the point where they were going to say, ‘See, we told you. They’re violent, they tried to overthrow the government, and it all ties back to Russia.’ That’s what I think this really was. And you can prove it ties back to the CIA. It’s alarming.

GR: Well, Ryan, it’s great to have you on the show and I think maybe we can pick up on this at a later date. But we’re going to close for now. Thank you so much for being a guest on my show. And as always, we’ll allow our listeners to think for themselves thoroughly. Thank you for being our guest.

RC: Thank you, Michael. Appreciate it. Looking forward to next time.


The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22057379-thompson_openingstatementpreparedfordelivery
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YexrmlBPvt8
  3. ibid
  4.   and  (June 10, 2022), ‘U.S. Capitol riot hearing shows Trump allies, daughter rejected fraud claims’, Reuters; https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-aides-words-take-center-stage-us-capitol-riot-hearings-open-2022-06-09/

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

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

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

***

First published on December 2, 2022

Two of five people charged with “seditious conspiracy” for attending the rally for Trump on January 6, 2021 have been convicted by a Washington D.C. jury in a political trial with more resemblance to Soviet-era trials than to American justice. All five of the defendants were convicted of obstructing an official proceeding.

Widely misreported by the media including even RT as a “riot at the US Capitol,” the small disturbance was provoked by federal agents who had infiltrated those present.  

Trump and his supporters were too unfamiliar with Washington to realize that the rally would be used by Democrats and the presstitutes against Trump and his supporters.  It was easily accomplished by assertion alone.

We know from abundant videos that the police opened the doors and allowed people to enter the Capitol. 

 

 

 

 

*

Those who entered were peaceful and wandered around, as videos show, before leaving.  A couple of people took selfies of themselves sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair.  This was turned into a seditious conspiracy against democracy.

Consider as well that the rally was supporting those Republicans in Congress who insisted on presenting the evidence of the stolen election to Congress prior to the confirmation of Biden as the winner.  The Trump supporters had no interest in disrupting this presentation. 

It was this presentation that the orchestration of conflict at the Capitol was used by the Democrats and the Rino Republicans such as Mitch McConnell to prevent.  I don’t think that Trump and his supporters at the time understood that the Republican Establishment is as opposed to Trump as are the Democrats and the presstitutes.  Trump’s presidency was unsuccessful, because Trump appointed and surrounded himself with Rino Republicans. He staffed his administration with his opponents.

You can see the hostility of the Republican Establishment against Trump in their support of the Democrats’ claim that the midterm election was a repudiation of Trump and the Republican candidates that he supported.  The inconsistency of the Trump candidates sweeping their primaries only to have the same voters turn against them in the general election is quietly passed over.

The evidence against convicted Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes is that he is an “election denier” and predicted that the disregard of half of the voting population was leading to civil war.  Prior to the trial, the media had turned “election denial” and Oath Keepers into “threats to democracy,” so when a D.C. jury, almost assuredly all Democrats, was seated, the verdict had already been set in stone.

Now I will proceed to the main point. 

By succeeding in conflating in jurors minds  freedom of association and freedom of speech with seditious conspiracy and obtaining convictions of sedition with no evidence of armed violence and no evidence of any plans to “threaten democracy,” the DOJ has established a precedent for going after Trump with the same charges. Already the Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed a Democrat special prosecutor to put together a criminal case against Trump from “investigations” of Trump’s alleged possession of national security documents and Trump’s alleged role in the January 6 “attack on the Capitol.”

All of this is abject nonsense.  At any time in US history before the last few years, it would have made laughing stocks out of the Department of Justice, Democrat Party, and media.  But not today.  The concocted trial of the Oath Keepers and the trial that likely is in store for Trump are the most serious threats to truth, democracy, and accountable government that Americans have ever faced. We have now entered the Nazi-Stalinist era of American degeneracy in which conviction rests on accusation alone.

Trump’s trial would not require evidence, because the Democrats and their presstitutes have taught feminist women, younger Americans, and the younger generation of Woke business leaders to hate Trump.  The system, backed by enough vocal Trump-haters, just wants to get Trump regardless of evidence.  The Republican Establishment wants rid of him, too, because he is a threat to the Establishment.  Trump does what no Rino Republican does–he represents Republican voters or tries to.

For years I have watched with growing apprehension how manipulated emotion has taken over from reason, how emotion, not evidence, shapes public opinion.  As in Covid, the “vaccine,” the conflict in Ukraine, 9/11, literally every issue, evidence is “misinformation” if it doesn’t fit the official narrative. The ruling establishment has created an entirely new industry–“fact checkers”–to protect official narratives from evidence.

Truth is precarious in such a society as it is a threat to those who control the narratives.  Wherever truth is suppressed there is only tyranny.

*

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 where this article was originally published. 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. 

Featured image: This file photo shows the US Supreme Court building located at One First Street, NE, in Washington.

Introduction

In the first round of the 2022 elections, amidst rising confusion and misunderstanding, Luis Inacio da Silva (Lula) acquired 48.4 % of the vote. 

On October 30th 2022: A very narrow victory for Lula: 50.9% of the votes compared to 49.1% for Bolsonaro 

The comeback of the Century. The Supreme Electoral Court confirmed Lula’s win. 

Lula first came to power as Brazil’s president in January 2003. That was exactly 20 years ago. 

What are the likely consequences of a renewed January 2023 Lula PT government?  

Throughout the western hemisphere as well as in Western Europe, the Left has endorsed the Lula presidency without examining the underlying implications. The 2023 Lula government has been casually categorized as a victory against US imperialism. 

Leftist Etiquette

While the “progressive” and “Leftist” labels prevail, key political appointments had already been approved by the Washington Consensus. De facto, it is a centre-rightist government “with leftist characteristics”. 

In this regard, it is important to reflect on how Brazil’s Workers Party (PT) leadership was coopted by Washington and Wall Street from the very outset prior to the 2002 elections.

In January 2003, “Leftists” meeting at the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre applauded the inauguration of Luis Inacio da Silva as a victory against neoliberalism, without acknowledging that Lula’s PT had embraced the demands of Wall Street and the IMF. (FYI, the “progressive” World Social Forum (WSF) established in 2001 was funded by the Ford Foundation, which has historical links to the CIA.)

In the words of IMF Managing Director (April 2003)

“the IMF listens to President Lula and the economic team”.  

But that team was appointed to serve the interests of US corporate capital including Brazil’s external creditors.  In August 2002, the composition of Lula’s cabinet had already been endorsed by the Washington consensus. 

Lula had chosen a prominent Wall Street banker to head Brazil’s Central Bank, i.e. to act as a dollarized Trojan Horse on behalf of the U.S. banking cartel. Henrique de Campos Meirelles, former president and CEO of FleetBoston (Brazil’s Second largest external creditor after Citigroup) was duly chosen to head Brazil’s Central Bank. In turn, the State investment bank Banco do Brazil had been handed over to CitiGroup.

The conduct of the nation’s finances and monetary policy were in the hands of Wall Street, the IMF-World Bank and the US Federal Reserve.  In August 2002 at the height of Brazil’s election campaign:  

The International Monetary Fund agreed to provide a $30 billion rescue package aimed at restoring investor confidence in Brazil, … The unusually large loan is intended to forestall a possible default on Brazil’s $264 billion public debt. It is also intended to insulate Brazil’s vulnerable finances from the uncertainty of an October presidential election [2002], in which left-wing candidates are both leading the polls and shaking the markets.  … 

U.S. bank claims on Brazilian borrowers were $26.75 billion at the end of March [2002], with Citigroup Inc. and FleetBoston Financial Corp. having the greatest exposures, according to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, a government agency. (WSJ, August 2002, emphasis added)

What does this mean?

The two key major banking institutions of the Brazilian State apparatus, namely the Banco Central do Brazil  and the giant Banco do Brazil were respectively handed over to Brazil’s two largest external creditors (quoted above), namely FleetBoston Finance Corp and Citigroup Inc.

Lula’s 2023 Cabinet

Lula’s running mate,  Vice President Geraldo José Rodrigues Alckmin Jr. (former governor of Sao Paulois an avowed neoliberal committed to privatizing State property on behalf of Brazil’s external creditors. He also has links to Opus Dei.

Fernando Haddad, former mayor of Sao Paulo, is Lula’s Finance Minister.

Victoria Nuland Goes to Brazil

The globalists’ endorsement of Lula’s candidacy was confirmed last April 2022 when neocon State Department envoy Victoria Nuland (who played a key role in the 2014 Maidan Ukraine coup d’état) on an “unofficial visit” to Brazil, categorically refused to meet president Bolsonaro.

“After promising the EU a participation in the “governance” of the Amazon and condemning the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine, Lula became the preferred candidate of globalist elites for this year’s electoral dispute [2022], making the cover of Time Magazine. The Brazilian hegemonic media, which was enthusiastic about the American support for the electoral system and has been campaigning strongly for electronic voting, also supports Lula, who now seems to bring together all the attributes of the globalist agenda, being aligned with green capitalism and sanctions against Russia.”  

Lula’s position with regard to the war in Ukraine was outlined in his May 2022 interview with Time Magazine:

“Putin shouldn’t have invaded Ukraine. But it’s not just Putin who is guilty. The U.S. and the E.U. are also guilty. What was the reason for the Ukraine invasion? NATO? Then the U.S. and Europe should have said: “Ukraine won’t join NATO.” That would have solved the problem.

What is the nature of his cabinet?”

A pseudo-Leftist PT Brazilian government integrated by powerful right wing elements will be serving the interests of  Wall Street and the US State Department.

The driving force is external debt, extensive privatization and the acquisition of real economic assets by the globalist financial establishment.

The geopolitics are crucial: Washington’s intent is also to ensure that a Lula government will not in any tangible way undermine America’s hegemonic agenda.

From Washington’s Standpoint, Lula’s Track Record is “Impeccable” 

1. “He is the most popular politician on Earth. I love this guy” said Barack Obama (2007). 

2. He is a friend of George W. Bush.

3. He helped us in America’s “Peacekeeping Initiatives”. Lula not only failed to condemn the US sponsored February 28, 2004 Coup d’état in Haiti, against a duly elected and progressive president Jean Bertrand Aristide, his Workers Party (P.T.)  government ordered the dispatch of Brazilian troops to Haiti under the auspices of the UN MINUSTAH “Peace Keeping” “Stabilization” operation (unofficially on behalf of Washington).

George W. Bush conveyed his thanks to Lula whose military participated in the MINUSTAH “Peace Mission” Initiative:

“I  appreciate very much your [Lula] leadership on Haiti.  I appreciate the fact that you’ve led the U.N. Stabilization Force.” 

Brazil’s Military was present in Haiti for 13 years under MINUSTAH with a total deployment of 37,000 troops (p. 1). This was not a peace initiative. President Aristide was kidnapped and deported. The MINUSTAH (police-military operation) was involved in acts of repression directed against Aristide’s progressive political party Famni Lavalas. 

4. Will Lula remain friends with the IMF? In the words of  former IMF’s Managing Director Heinrich Koeller: I am deeply impressed by President Lula, indeed, and in particular because I do think he has the credibility which often other leaders lack”. (2003)

5. And to top it off: Lula is a firm supporter of  Joe Biden:

“Biden is a breath for democracy in the world.” said Lula (CNN Interview with C. Amanpour, March 2021)

Neoliberalism with a Human Face is a convenient disguise.

The grassroots of the Workers Party (PT) have once again been misled.

What will be the future of Brazil as a sovereign Nation State?

Michel Chossudovsky, October 31, 2022, January 14, 2023

***

The article below on Neoliberalism with a Human Face was first published by Global Research almost 20 years ago, on April 25, 2003, shortly following Lula’s inauguration in January 2003.

*         *         *

Brazil: Neoliberalism with a “Human Face”

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research

April 25, 2003

The inauguration of Luis Inacio da Silva (Lula) [2003] to the presidency of Brazil is historically significant, because millions of Brazilians saw in the Workers Party  (Partido dos Trabalhadores), a genuine political and economic alternative to the dominant (neoliberal) “free market” agenda.

Lula’s election embodies the hope of an entire nation. It constitutes an overwhelming vote against globalization and the neo-liberal model, which has resulted in mass poverty and unemployment throughout Latin America.

Meeting in Porto Alegre in late January [2003] at the World Social Forum, Lula’s anti-globalization stance was applauded by tens of thousands of delegates from around the World. The debate at the 2003 WSF, held barely two months  before the invasion of Iraq, was held  under the banner: “Another World is Possible”.

Ironically, while applauding Lula`s victory, nobody  — among the prominent critics of “free trade” and corporate driven globalization– who spoke at the 2003 WSF, seemed to have noticed that President Luis Inacio da Silva’s PT government had already handed over the reigns of macro-economic reform to Wall Street and the IMF.

While embraced in chorus by progressive movements around the World, Lula’s administration was also being applauded by the main protagonists of the neoliberal model.  In the words of the IMF’s Managing Director Heinrich Koeller:

I am enthusiastic [with Lula’s administration]; but it is better to say I am deeply impressed by President Lula, indeed, and in particular because I do think he has the credibility which often other leaders lack a bit, and the credibility is that he is serious to work hard to combine growth-oriented policy with social equity.

This is the right agenda, the right direction, the right objective for Brazil and, beyond Brazil, in Latin America. So, he has defined the right direction. Second, I think what the government, under the leadership of President Lula, has demonstrated in its first 100 days of government is also impressive and not just airing intention how they work through the process on this huge agenda of reforms. I understand that pension reform, tax reform is high on the agenda, and this is right.

The third element is that the IMF listens to President Lula and the economic team, and that is our philosophy, of course, beyond Brazil. (IMF Managing Director Heinrich Koeller, Press conference, 10 April 2003, emphasis added

http://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/2003/tr030410.htm )

Lula appoints a Wall Street Financier to lead Brazil’s Central Bank

At the very outset of his mandate, Lula reassured foreign investors that “Brazil will not follow neighboring Argentina into default” ( Davos World Economic Forum, January 2003). Now if such is his intent, then why did he appoint to the Central Bank, a man who played a role (as president of Boston Fleet) in the Argentinean debacle and whose bank was allegedly involved in shady money transactions, which contributed to the dramatic collapse of the Argentinean Peso.

By appointing Henrique de Campos Meirelles, the president and CEO of FleetBoston, to head the country’s Central Bank, President Luis Inacio da Silva had essentially handed over the conduct of the nation’s finances and monetary policy to Wall Street.

Boston Fleet is the 7th largest bank in the US. After Citigroup, Boston Fleet is Brazil’s second largest creditor institution.

The country is in a financial straightjacket. The key finance/banking positions in Lula’s administration are held by Wall Street appointees:

  • The Central Bank is under the control of FleetBoston,
  • A former senior executive of Citigroup Mr. Casio Casseb Lima  has been put in charge of the State banking giant Banco do Brazil (BB). Cassio Casseb Lima, who worked for Citigroup’s operations in Brazil, was initially recruited to BankBoston in 1976 by Henrique Meirelles. In other words, the head of BB has personal and professional links to Brazil’s two largest commercial creditors: Citigroup and Fleet Boston.

Continuity will be maintained. The new PT team in the Central Bank is a carbon copy of that appointed by  (outgoing) President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The outgoing Central Bank president Arminio Fraga was a former employee of  Quantum Fund (New York), which is owned by Wall Street financier (and speculator) George Soros.

In close liaison with Wall Street and the IMF, Lula’s appointee to the Central Bank of Brazil, Henrique de Campos Meirelles,  has maintained the policy framework of his predecessor (who was also a Wall Street appointee) : tight monetary policy, generalized austerity measures, high interest rates and a deregulated foreign exchange regime. The latter encourages speculative attacks against the Brazilian Real and capital flight, resulting in a spiraling foreign debt.

Needless to say, the IMF program in Brazil will be geared towards the eventual dismantling of the State banking system in which the new head of Banco do Brazil, a former Citibank official, will no doubt play a crucial role.

No wonder the IMF is “enthusiastic”. The main institutions of economic and financial management are in the hands the country’s creditors. Under these conditions, neoliberalism is “live and kicking”: an “alternative” macro-economic agenda, modeled on the spirit of Porto Alegre is simply not possible.

“Putting the Fox in charge of the Chicken Coop”

Boston Fleet was one among several banks and financial institutions which speculated against the Brazilian Real in 1998-99, leading to the spectacular meltdown of the Sao Paulo stock exchange on “Black Wednesday” 13 January 1999. BankBoston, which later merged with Fleet is estimated to have made a 4.5 billion dollars windfall in Brazil in the course of the Real Plan, starting with an initial investment of $100 million.(Latin Finance, 6 August 1998).

In other words, Boston Fleet is the “cause” rather than “the solution” to the country’s financial woes. Appointing the  former CEO of Boston Fleet to head the nation’s Central Bank is tantamount to “putting the fox to in charge of the chicken coop”.

The new economic team has stated that it is committed to resolving the country’s debt crisis and steering Brazil towards financial stability. Yet the policies they have adopted are likely to have exactly the opposite effects.

Replicating Argentina

It so happens that Lula’s Central Bank president, Henrique Meirelles was a staunch supporter of Argentina’s controversial Finance Minister Domingo Cavallo, who played a key role under the Menem government, in spearheading the country into a deep-seated economic and social crisis. .

According to Meirelles in a 1998 interview, who at the time was President and CEO of Bank Boston:

The most fundamental event [in Latin America] was when the stabilization plan was launched in Argentina [under Domingo Cavallo] . It was a different approach, in the sense that it wasn’t a control of prices or a control of the flow of money, but it was a control of the money supply and government finances.(Latin Finance, 6 August 1998).

It is worth noting that the so-called “control of the money supply” referred to by Meirelles, essentially means freezing the supply of credit  to local businesses, leading to the collapse of productive activity.

The results, as evidenced by the Argentina debacle, was a string of bankruptcies, leading to mass poverty and unemployment. Under the brunt of Finance Minister Cavallo’s policies, in the course of the 1990s, most State owned national and provincial banks in Argentina, which provided credit to industry and agriculture, were sold off to foreign banks. Citibank and Fleet Bank of Boston were on the receiving end of these ill-fated IMF sponsored reforms.

“Once upon a time, government-owned national and provincial banks supported the nation’s debts. But in the mid- Nineties, the government of Carlos Menem sold these off to Citibank of New York, Fleet Bank of Boston and other foreign operators. Charles Calomiris, a former World Bank adviser, describes these bank privatisations as a ‘really wonderful story’. Wonderful for whom? Argentina has bled out as much as three-quarters of a billion dollars a day in hard currency holdings.” (The Guardian, 12 August 2001)

Domingo Cavallo was the architect of “dollarization”. Acting on behalf of Wall Street, he was responsible for pegging the Peso to the US dollar in a colonial style currency board arrangement, which resulted in a spiraling external debt and the eventual breakdown of the entire monetary system.

The currency board arrangement implemented by Cavallo had been actively promoted by Wall Street, with Citigroup and Fleet Bank in the lead.

Under a currency board, money creation is controlled by external creditors. The Central Bank virtually ceases to exist. The government cannot undertake any form of domestic investment without the approval of its external creditors. The US Federal Reserve takes over the process of money creation. Credit can only be granted to domestic producers by driving up the external (dollar denominated) debt.

Financial Scam

When the Argentina crisis reached its climax in 2001, major creditor banks transferred billions of dollars out of the country. An investigation launched in early 2003 pointed not only to the alleged criminal involvement of former Argentinean finance minister Domingo Cavallo, but also to that of several foreign banks including Citibank and Boston Fleet of which Henrique Mereilles was president and CEO:

“Battling to surmount a deep economic crisis, Argentina [January 2002] targeted capital flight and tax evasion, with police searching US, British and Spanish bank offices and authorities seeking explanations from an ex-president about the origins of his Swiss fortune. Claims that as much as 26 billion dollars left the country illegally late last year prompted the police actions. Later in the day, police went to Citibank, Bank Boston [Fleet] and a subsidiary of Spain’s Santander. (…) The various lawsuits in connection with illegal capital transfers name, among others, former president Fernando de la Rua, who stepped down December 20 [2001]; his economy minister Domingo Cavallo; and Roque Maccarone, who quit as central bank chief…” (AFP, 18 January 2003).

The same banks involved in the Argentinean financial scam, including Boston Fleet under the helm of Henrique Meirelles, were also involved in similar shady money transfers operations in other countries including the Russia Federation:

“[A]s many as 10 U.S. banks might have been used to divert as much as $15 billion from Russia, sources said, citing federal investigators. Fleet Financial Group Inc. and other banks are being investigated because they have accounts that belong to or are linked to Benex International Co.which is at the center of an alleged Russian money-laundering scheme.” (Boston Business Journal, 23 September 1999)

The Brazilian Financial Reforms

Everything indicates that Wall Street’s hidden agenda is to eventually replicate the Argentinean scenario and impose “dollarization” on Brazil.  The ground work of this design was established under the Plan Real, at the outset of the presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1994-2002).

Henrique Meirelles, who had integrated FHC’s party the PSDB, played a key behind the scenes role in setting the stage for the adoption of more fundamental financial reforms:

“In the early 1990s, I  [Meirelles] was a member of the board of the American Chamber of Commerce and in charge of an effort to begin lobbying for a change in the Brazilian Constitution. At the same time I was also chairman of the Brazilian Association of International Banks and was in charge of the effort to open up the country to foreign banks and to open the flow of money. I started a broad campaign of approaching key people, including journalists, politicians, professors and advertising professionals. When I started, everyone told me it was hopeless, that the country would never open its markets, that the country should protect its industries. Over a couple of years, I spoke to about 120 representatives. The private sector was fiercely against the opening of the markets, particularly the bankers.(Latin Finance, op cit)

Amending the Constitution

The issue of Constitutional reform was central to Wall Street’s design of economic and financial deregulation.

At the outset of Fernando Collor de Melo’s presidency in 1990, the IMF had demanded an amendment to the 1988 Constitution. There was uproar in the National Congress, with the IMF accused of “gross interference in the internal affairs of the state”.

Several clauses of the 1988 Constitution stood in the way of achieving the IMF’s proposed budget targets, which were under negotiation with the Collor administration.  IMF expenditure targets could could not be met without a massive firing of public- sector employees, requiring an amendment to a clause of the 1988 Constitution guaranteeing security of employment to federal civil servants. Also at issue was the financing formula (entrenched in the Constitution) of state and municipal-level programs from federal government sources. This formula limited the ability of the federal government to slash social expenditures and shift revenue towards debt servicing.

Blocked during the short-lived Collor administration,  the issue of constitutional reform was reintroduced shortly after the impeachment of President Collor de Melo. In June 1993, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who at the time was Finance Minister in the interim government of President Itamar Franco, announced budget cuts of 50 per cent in education, health and regional development while pointing to the need for revisions to the 1988 Constitution.

The IMF’s demands regarding Constitutional reform were later embodied in Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s (FHC) presidential platform. The deregulation of the banking sector was a key component of the Constitutional reform process, which at the time had been opposed by the Workers Party in both the House and the Senate.

Meanwhile Henrique Meirelles, who at the time was in charge of BankBoston’s operations in Latin America (with one foot in FHC’s party the PSDB  and the other in Wall Street), was lobbying behind the scenes in favour of constitutional reform:

“Eventually we reached an agreement that became part of the Constitutional reform. When the Constitution was first supposed to be reformed, in 1993, it didn’t happen. It didn’t get enough votes. However, after Fernando Henrique Cardoso took office, it was reformed. That particular agreement I had worked on was one of the first points in the Constitution that was actually changed. I  [Meirelles] personally was involved in a change which I think at the end of the day meant the beginning of the opening of the Brazilian capital markets. In Brazil, there were restrictions on the flow of capital, on foreign capital acquiring Brazilian banks and on international banks opening branches in Brazil as mandated by the 1988 Constitution, all of which prohibited the development of the capital markets. ” (Latin Finance, 6 August 1998).

The Plan Real

The Plan Real was launched barely a few months before the November 1993 elections while FHC was Finance Minister. The fixed peg of the Real to the US dollar, in many regards, emulated the Argentinean framework, without however instating a currency board arrangement.

Under the Plan Real, price stability was achieved. The stability of the currency was in many regards fictitious. It was sustained by driving up the external debt.

The reforms were conducive to the demise of a large number of domestic banking institutions, which were acquired by a handful of foreign banks under the privatization program launched under the FHC presidency (1994-2002).

A spiraling foreign debt ultimately precipitated a financial crash in January 1999, leading to the collapse of the Real.

Cruel Logic of IMF Rescue Loans

IMF loans are largely intended to finance capital flight. In fact this was the logic of the multibillion dollar loan package granted to Brazil, immediately following the October 1998 elections which led to the reelection of FHC for a second presidential term. The loan was granted barely a few months prior to the January 1999 financial meltdown:

Brazil’s foreign currency reserves have fallen from $78 billion in July 1998 to $48 billion in September. And now the IMF has offered to “lend the money back” to Brazil in the context of a “Korean style” rescue operation which will eventually require the issuing of large amounts of public debt in G-7 countries. The Brazilian authorities have insisted that the country “is not at risk” and what they are seeking is “precautionary funding” (rather than a “bail-out”) to stave of the “contagious effects”of the Asian crisis. Ironically, the amount considered by the IMF (30 billion dollars) is exactly equal to the money “taken out” of the country (during a 3 month period) in the form of capital flight . But the central bank will not be able to use the IMF loan to replenish its hard currency reserves. The bail-out money (including a large part of the $18 billion US contribution to the IMF approved by Congress in October) is intended to enable Brazil to meet current debt servicing obligations, –ie. to reimburse the speculators. The bailout money will never enter Brazil. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Brazilian Financial Scam, op cit.)

The same logic underlies the $31.4 billion precautionary loan granted by the IMF in September 2002, barely a couple of months prior to the presidential elections.

(See IMF Approves US$30.4 Billion Stand-By Credit for Brazil at

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2002/pr0240.htm )

This IMF loan constitutes “a social safety net” for institutional speculators and hot money investors.

The IMF pumps billions of dollars into the Central Bank, Forex reserves are replenished on borrowed money. The IMF loan is granted on condition the Central Bank retains a deregulated foreign exchange market coupled with domestic interest rates at very high levels.

So-called “foreign investors” are able to transfer (in dollars) the proceeds of their “investments” in short term domestic debts (at very high interest rates) out of the country. In other words, the borrowed forex reserves from the IMF are re-appropriated by Brazil’s external creditors.

We must understand the history of successive financial crises in Brazil. With Wall Street creditors in charge, the levels of external debt have continued to climb.  The IMF has “come to the rescue” with new multibillion dollar loans, which are always conditional upon the adoption of sweeping austerity measures and the privatization of State assets. The main difference is that this process is now being undertaken under a  president, who claims to be opposed to neoliberalism.

It should be noted, however, that the new multibillion dollar IMF “precautionary loan” granted in September 2002, was negotiated by FHC, a few months before the elections. The IMF loan and the conditionalities attached to it set  the stage for a spiraling external debt during Lula’s presidential mandate.

(See Brazil—Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Economic Policies, and Technical Memorandum of Understanding, at

http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2002/bra/04/index.htm#mep , Brasília, August 29, 2002.)

Dollarization

With the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance under the control of the Wall Street establishment, this process will eventually lead Brazil into another financial and foreign exchange crisis. While the underlying logic is similar, based on the same financial manipulations as in 1998-99, in all likelihood it will be far more serious than that of  January 1999.

In other words, the macro-economic policies adopted by President Luiz Inacio da Silva could well result, in the foreseeable future, in debt default and the demise of the nation’s currency, leading Brazil down the path of “dollarization”. A currency board arrangement,  similar to that of Argentina could be imposed. What this means is that the US dollar would become Brazil’s proxy currency. What this means is that the country looses its economic sovereignty. Its Central Bank is defunct. As in the case of Argentina, monetary policy would be decided by the US Federal Reserve system.

While not officially part of the Free Trade Area of the America’s (FTAA) negotiations,  the adoption of the US dollar as the common currency for the Western Hemisphere is being discussed behind closed doors  Wall Street intends to extend its control throughout the hemisphere, eventually displacing or taking over remaining domestic banking institutions (including that of Brazil).

The greenback has already been imposed on five Latin American countries including Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala. The economic and social consequences of “dollarization” have been devastating. In these countries, Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve system directly control monetary policy.

Brazil’s PT government should draw  the lessons of Argentina where the IMF’s economic medicine played a key role in precipitating the country into a deep-seated economic and social crisis.

Unless the present course of monetary policy is reversed, the tendency in Brazil is towards the “Argentina scenario”, with devastating economic and social consequences.

What Prospects under the Lula Presidency?

While the new  PT government presents itself as “an alternative” to neoliberalism, committed to poverty alleviation and the redistribution of wealth, its monetary and fiscal policy is in the hands of its Wall Street creditors.

Fome Zero (“zero hunger”), described as a program “to fight misery”, largely conforms to World Bank guidelines on “cost-effective poverty reduction”.  The latter require the implementation of so-called “targeted” programs, while drastically slashing social sector budgets. World Bank directives in health and education require curtailing social expenditures with a view to meeting debt servicing obligations.

The IMF and the World Bank have commended President Luiz Ignacio da Silva for his commitment to “strong macroeconomic fundamentals.” As far as the IMF is concerned, Brazil “is on track” in conformity with IMF benchmarks. The World Bank has also praised the Lula government:  “Brazil is pursuing a bold social program with fiscal responsibility.”

 “Another World is Possible”?

What kind of “Alternative” is possible, when a government committed to “fighting neoliberalism”, becomes an unbending  supporter of “free trade” and “strong economic medicine.”

Beneath the surface and behind the Workers Party’s populist rhetoric, the neoliberal agenda under Lula remains functionally intact.

The grassroots movement which brought Lula to power has been betrayed. And the “progressive” Brazilian intellectuals within Lula’s inner circle bear a heavy burden of responsibility in this process. And what this “Left accommodation” does is to ultimately reinforce the clutch of the Wall Street financial establishment on the Brazilian State.

“Another World” cannot be based on empty political slogans. Nor will it result from a shift in “paradigms”, which is not accompanied by real changes in power relations within Brazilian society, within the State system and within the national economy.

Meaningful change cannot result from a debate on “an alternative to neoliberalism”, which on the surface appears to be “progressive”, but which tacitly accepts the “globalizers” legitimate right to rule and plunder the developing World.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Taiwan Defense Ministry Reveals Rare Cooperation with NATO

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

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

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

***

The latest tranche of emails from the Twitter Files revealed that the social media platform censored posts about natural immunity and the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines following pressure from a member of Pfizer’s board of directors.

An email from Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb dated Aug. 27, 2021 was made public by independent journalist Alex Berenson. In the said email, Gottlieb complained to Twitter Senior Manager for Public Policy Todd O’Boyle about a tweet posted by former Adm. Brett Giroir, who reiterated the superiority of natural immunity over vaccines.

“It’s now clear COVID-19 natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity, by [a lot]. There’s no scientific justification for [proof of vaccination] is a person had prior infection.” Giroir tweeted. He also urged former President Donald Trump and former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield to “follow the science.”

In line with that, Gottlieb wrote to O’Boyle:

“This is the kind of stuff that’s corrosive. Here, he draws a sweeping conclusion off a single retrospective study in Israel that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. But this tweet will end up going viral and driving news coverage.”

The Twitter senior manager then forwarded Gottlieb’s email to the Strategic Response team without mentioning him by name, writing: “Please see this report from the former FDA (Food and Drug Administration) commissioner.”

According to Berenson, an analyst from the team quickly found that Giroir’s tweet did not violate any edicts on “misinformation.” Nevertheless, the post was labeled as “misleading” and all its interactions – replies, re-tweets and likes – disabled.

Both Gottlieb and Giroir previously served as FDA commissioner under the Trump administration – Gottlieb from May 2017 to April 2019, and Giroir in an acting capacity from November to December 2019. The two also joined the boards of pharmaceutical firms after their time in government, with Gottlieb joining Pfizer and Giroir becoming the CEO and a board member of Georgia-based Altesa BioSciences.

Gottlieb also complained about other COVID critics

The misleading label and restrictions on Giroir’s tweet remain in place as of writing, even though several high-ranking health officials – including former White House COVID-19 Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx – have since questioned that effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing infections.

Berenson, a former reporter for the New York Times, also revealed that Gottlieb complained about a tweet from author Justin Hart. The Pfizer board member’s Sept. 3, 2021 grievance centered on Hart’s post that said: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of [about zero percent] has cost our children nearly three years of schooling.”

According to the independent journalist, Gottlieb’s complaint about Hart’s tweet came at a time when Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine “would soon be approved for children [aged] five to 11.” In that instance, however, Twitter refused to act.

Even Berenson himself was included in the people Gottlieb complained about. He divulged this fact during an October 2022 appearance on the Fox News program “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

“I was discouraging people from getting the vaccines, which the White House wanted,” Berenson told news anchor Tucker Carlson. “And then Gottlieb … went to Twitter and said, ‘This guy is a problem,’ and then they banned me. Thus began the final act in a secret months-long conspiracy to suppress my basic American right to free speech.” (Related: Alex Berenson says former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer board member colluded with Twitter to ban him.)

On one hand, Gottlieb responded to the revelations about him flagging Giroir’s tweet by claiming that the publication of his email to O’Boyle was a “selective disclosure of his private communications with Twitter.” The Pfizer board member continued that the publication of his correspondence had stoked “the threat environment” and “instigated more menacing dialogue, with potentially serious consequences.”

On the other hand, Giroir accused the Pfizer director of scheming with Twitter to “apparently put corporate interests first” instead of prioritizing public health.

Censorship.news has more stories about Twitter’s censorship.

Watch Adm. Brett Giroir explain why President Joe Biden experienced a breakthrough COVID-19 infection even though the latter was vaccinated below.

*

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 Pandemic.news


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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

A member of a purportedly independent data monitoring committee charged with ensuring the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine previously worked as a paid consultant and advisor to Pfizer.

Dr. Kathryn Edwards apparent conflict of interest was revealed during a recent episode of “The Highwire with Del Bigtree.” Bigtree, an independent journalist and founder of Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), interviewed Aaron Siri, ICAN’s lead attorney.

Siri, supported by ICAN, deposed and then cross-examined Edwards during Hazlehurst v. Hays, the first vaccine-related autism case to ever reach a jury in the U.S.

Edwards served as an expert witness in the Hazlehurst case for one of the defendants, a medical clinic in Tennessee that administered several childhood vaccines to Yates Hazlehurst in 2001. She testified that the vaccines Hazlehurst received “were not relevant or important” to Hazlehurst’s subsequent development of autism.

Court transcripts reviewed by The Defender reveal that Edwards’ conflict of interest involving Pfizer was just one of several revealed in her deposition and cross-examination.

The transcripts reveal that Edwards had, at times, served on government committees evaluating vaccine safety while maintaining concurrent affiliations with vaccine manufacturers whose products were being evaluated.

A review of Edwards’ August 2020 deposition and January 2022 cross-examination by Siri also reveals multiple instances where Edwards was apparently coached by others while her testimony was in progress. Edwards denied she was being coached, even when supporting evidence was presented.

Along with Edwards’ prior apparent conflicts of interest — many of which involve her parallel association with vaccine manufacturers and with bodies evaluating candidate vaccines — the court transcripts raise questions about the broader impartiality of theoretically “independent” committees that evaluate vaccine safety.

As part of this investigation, The Defender reviewed video and transcripts from Edwards’ deposition and cross-examination, and copies of her 2014 and 2019 curriculum vitae (CV) and other documentation relevant to her medical and professional background.

Who is Kathryn Edwards?

Edwards is viewed as a world-renowned vaccinologist, board-certified in pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases, who has held professorships at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, since 1980 — the year she also joined the institution’s Vaccine Research Program, which she previously directed and of which she remains a member.

According to one of her bios on Vanderbilt’s website, Edwards is a professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, where she is also vice-chair for clinical research.

Aside from her affiliation with Vanderbilt, Edwards is principal investigator of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network.

Another university bio for Edwards states she is “currently working with the CDC to address adverse events after immunization.”

In Edwards’ own words during her 2022 cross-examination, she said she has “directed and organized and conducted studies on vaccines. Some of those studies are the first times those vaccines are used in people and [I] have studied vaccines and their safety. I continue to work with the CDC in providing safety assessment for vaccines and work on research to make sure that the vaccines are safe and effective.”

Yet another Vanderbilt bio for Edwards states she has received contracts from the CDC and National Institutes of Health (NIH), and served on several CDC, NIH, World Health Organization (WHO) and Infectious Diseases Society of America committees.

Edwards’ participation in WHO-related endeavors includes a 2007 advisory role in the evaluation of pandemic influenza vaccines, an unspecified 1999 advisory role, and chairing a 1997 meeting on maternal and neonatal pneumococcal immunization, according to a publicly available 2014 version of Edwards’ CV.

The same CV indicates that Edwards, between 1991 and 1995, was a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and that between 1996 and 2000, she served as a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

Testimony Edwards provided during her 2020 deposition confirmed the above, plus a second tenure on the VRBPAC from 2016 to 2018. According to Edwards’ 2022 testimony, ACIP “is a group of non-governmental experts in infectious disease vaccines and adult and child health that advise the CDC on vaccine policy.”

According to the FDA, the VRBPAC “reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases.”

Edwards’ 2014 CV also shows previous experience on the American Academy of Pediatrics’ executive committee of the Section on Infectious Diseases and Committee on Infectious Diseases, prior membership on the National Academy of Science’s Vaccine Priorities Committee and past membership on the council of the American Pediatric Society.

Edwards is also one of the associate editors of “Plotkin’s Vaccines,” widely viewed as one of the preeminent medical school textbooks on vaccines — which Bill Gates described as as “an indispensable guide to the enhancement of the well-being of our world.”

Edwards co-authored the COVID-19: Vaccines section of UpToDate, an online point-of-care medical resource.

Edwards also was on the editorial board numerous well-regarded medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Clinical and Vaccine Vaccine Immunology, and Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Edwards’ conflicts of interest selectively — or reluctantly — disclosed

Edwards’ online bios detail her many academic and government affiliations — however, conspicuously absent in those bios are details about her ties to pharmaceutical companies and vaccine manufacturers.

Edwards’ Vanderbilt University Medical School and Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium (IDCRC) bios focus on her prior leadership of government-funded studies and her prior consulting work with public agencies and the WHO.

Only the IDCRC bio makes a cursory mention of Edwards’ prior participation in “industry-funded multicenter vaccine and surveillance initiatives,” without providing further details.

Her 2014 CV notes her participation in studies funded by Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and other Big Pharma companies, but these affiliations are not explicitly spelled out.

During her 2020 deposition, Edwards vehemently denied any conflicts of interest, past or present. She stated, for instance, that when she was a member of the VRBPAC, “it was imperative that I had no conflicts, and I had no conflicts.”

However, those claims collapsed under further examination in 2020 and 2022.

Certain journal publications and academic activities with which Edwards has been associated reveal multiple conflicts of interest, though they fail to provide a full picture of the scope of those conflicts.

For instance, “Proposals to Accelerate Novel Vaccine Development for Children,” an article Edwards co-authored in December 2021 for Pediatrics, a journal published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, notes under the “financial disclosure” section:

“Kathryn Edwards has received grant funding from the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is a consultant to Bionet and IBM. She is also a member of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, and Roche.”

Similar affiliations are listed in the “presenter info” provided as part of the online program for the April 2022 conference of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS), where Edwards delivered a presentation. However, the program listed her role for companies such as Pfizer and Moderna as “advisory committee.”

Most other online bios for Edwards do not indicate any such Big Pharma affiliations, however — nor did at least some of the scientific presentations that Edwards has delivered in recent years.

Siri exposed these discrepancies when he deposed Edwards in 2020. For instance, he pointed out that in a July 2020 ACIP presentation on COVID-19 vaccine safety considerations, Edwards did not reveal her active affiliations with companies such as Pfizer and Moderna, and that this information is also absent from her CV.

These affiliations with Pfizer and other drugmakers became one of the main focus areas of her 2020 deposition and 2022 cross-examination.

Evaluating the ‘safety’ of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — while being paid by Pfizer

To understand Edwards’ conflicts of interest related to drug companies it’s important to understand the role of entities known as Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs), which are alternatively referred to as Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs).

An April 25, 2022, presentation on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trials, “Does It Work — and — Is It Safe?” — which Edwards co-presented at the Johns Hopkins Division of Infectious Diseases, provided an explanation of the role of such committees:

“DMCs are considered to have ‘stewardship’ of the trial. The Board has responsibilities to monitor safety and efficacy, and to ensure the validity of results.

“Board members are independent, are paid hourly consultants and are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest.

“Unblinded data are ‘Firewalled’ from the study team(s).”

The presentation goes on to state that the composition of a DMC “should reflect the disciplines and specialties necessary to interpret the data and evaluate participant safety,” and that they typically consist of three to seven members, depending on “the phase of the trial, range of medical issues, complexity of design and analysis, and potential level of risk.”

These are the committees, according to the April 2022 presentation, that can issue recommendations to the pharmaceutical company for the study in question, including continuing, modifying or stopping the study or studies, or withholding a final recommendation until more data is provided.

An internal Pfizer document, dated Nov. 4, 2020, and released to the public as a result of the successful Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, outlined the role of the DMC during the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine trials:

“This External Data Monitoring Committee (E-DMC) (hereafter referred to as ‘the committee’) is a single, external, independent, expert advisory group established to oversee safety and efficacy data from the BNT162 Vaccine Program.

“The primary rationale for establishing the committee is to make certain that appropriate external safeguards are in place to help ensure the safety of subjects and to maintain scientific rigor and study integrity while the trial is on-going.”

The same document, and the April 2022 Johns Hopkins presentation, note that Edwards was one of the five (later expanded to seven) members of the “independent” DMC for the BNT162 vaccine program that resulted in the development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

In his 2022 cross-examination of Edwards, Siri raised the issue of Edwards’ concurrent participation in the DMC for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine:

Siri: “And isn’t it true that you’ve also been an advisor to Pfizer?”

Edwards: “Yes sir. I’ve been an advisor to Pfizer and I’ve been working very, very closely with Pfizer, particularly their COVID vaccines and going over lots of reactions and adverse [events] of that. So yes, I am working and being paid by Pfizer for my assessment of vaccine safety.”

Siri: “You’re part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for Pfizer?”

Edwards: “That’s correct.”

Siri: “[For the] COVID vaccine, is that what you meant when you said that?”

Edwards: “That’s correct. […]”

Siri: “And that’s supposed to be an independent data safety monitor board, correct?”

Edwards: “It is an independent data safety monitoring board.”

Siri: “That’s the board that all of us in America are hoping on and relying upon is going to independently make sure that safety is properly assessed as the clinical trial for that Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is ongoing, correct?”

Edwards: “That’s true. And let me tell you that we have worked very hard to go over this and work very, very hard to do that indeed as comprehensively as we possibly can.”

Siri: “And since it’s supposed to be independent, it’s critical that the members of that independent data safety monitor board are in fact independent of the pharmaceutical company. This product is being evaluated, correct?”

Edwards: “That’s correct.”

Siri: “Isn’t it true that directly before becoming a member of the Independent Data Safety Monitor board of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, you were an advisor to Pfizer?”

Edwards: “Pfizer pays me to evaluate the safety of their vaccines because I’m an expert. So I do get paid to do the work that I’ve been doing, but I’ve been doing the work conscientiously and comprehensively.”

Siri: “My question was, before you became a member of the Independent Data Safety Monitor board for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, isn’t it true that you … separately, before you held that independent position, you were an advisor to Pfizer?”

Edwards: “Yes sir. But I think what you’re presuming is that because I have been an advisor makes me on their dole or makes me going to say what they want me to say that … is not and has never been a part of my being. I say what I believe based on my expertise.”

Siri: “You don’t think that financial incentives can sway people’s judgment at all?”

Edwards: “It does not sway my judgment, sir.”

Siri: “Why bother having an independent data safety monitor board? Why doesn’t Pfizer just have some of its employees on it?”

Edwards: “Because we are independent … we are independent from Pfizer in this assessment.”

Later in the same exchange, Siri noted that at the same time Edwards sat on CDC and FDA committees providing recommendations for vaccine licensure, she maintained “relationships with a number of pharmaceutical companies” whose products were under consideration by those committees.

The Pfizer DMC on which Edwards sat appears to have overlooked numerous serious adverse events, including deaths, that occurred during the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials.

Indeed, despite the FDA, in February 2022, opting to delay approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, the April 2022 Johns Hopkins presentation stated, “The DMC found no safety issue, and after review of the data recommended to proceed with a 3-shot series (including boost the eligible children already enrolled in the study).”

The same presentation also claimed the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine showed “high efficacy” for children ages 5-11 and provided “Effective neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron with three doses of BNT162b2,” the candidate vaccine that received an Emergency Use Authorization, and “Similar neutralization activity against BA.1 and BA.2 with three doses of BNT162b2.”

The FOIA-mandated release of the Pfizer documents, along with Pfizer’s hiring of extra staff to process vaccine injury claims related to the COVID-19 vaccine, later revealed the occurrence of serious side effects, including deaths, among trial participants.

Additionally, whistleblower Brook Jackson, who previously worked for Ventavia — which hosted some of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine trials — provided The BMJ a cache of internal company documents, photos and recordings highlighting alleged wrongdoing by Ventavia.

Jackson has since filed a lawsuit alleging Pfizer and others “deliberately withheld crucial information … that calls the safety and efficacy of their vaccine into question.”

Edwards’ role on the DMC was acknowledged in a November 2021 NEJM article, which found, “The data reported herein support vaccination of 5-to-11-year-old children with two 10-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine.” The study was completed “with funding from Pfizer.”

On Oct. 7, 2020, ICAN sent a demand letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the White House alerting them to the lack of independent members on the DSMBs for COVID-19 vaccines and specifically explaining the conflict with Edwards and another DSMB member.

ICAN later shared the FDA’s Nov. 18, 2020, response letter, which according to ICAN, “fails to address a single one of the serious conflicts” and “would make any reasonable person even more concerned about the process for licensing a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Edwards’ relationship with Pfizer is also evident from her appearances in at least two episodes of “The Antigen,” a Pfizer-produced podcast. In the inaugural episode of the podcast, Edwards explained “why vaccines are more relevant now than ever,” while in episode four, Edwards discussed “vaccine hesitancy” and “everything anti-vax.”

Edwards’ 2020 deposition also revealed that between 1996 and 1998, she was paid $255,052 annually by pharmaceutical company Wyeth Lederle “to conduct a clinical trial for one of its vaccines,” while being “a consultant and on the speakers’ bureau” for the same company — and while being a member of the VRBPAC.

“When you voted to approve Wyeth Lederle’s vaccine on VRBPAC, you also had a contract with Wyeth Lederle for $255,023 per year from 1996 to 1998 for the study of another of its vaccines,” Siri said during the deposition — which after some hesitation, Edwards confirmed. In 2009, Pfizer acquired Wyeth Lederle.

Multiple conflicts of interest with other Big Pharma players

Edwards also maintained paid relationships with other pharmaceutical companies — often simultaneously with or in close proximity to her participation on the VRBPAC, ACIP and/or DMCs for vaccines produced by those very companies.

In her 2020 deposition, Edwards initially claimed she never was an advisor to any vaccine company. She later was obliged to admit, however, that in light of evidence produced, she had been both an advisor and consultant to Merck, including having received a “recent” $5,000 payment from Merck for services she provided.

It was further revealed during the 2020 deposition and 2022 cross-examination that Edwards served as a consultant for SmithKline Beecham (SKB) while conducting a vaccine trial for the same company. Edwards then remained as a consultant and on the advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) after its merger with SKB, for whom Edwards claimed she “provided input in terms of the design of a flu study.”

The 2022 cross-examination also revealed that Edwards received payments from GSK for her consulting services and for lectures she provided, while conducting clinical trials with some of the company’s vaccines.

Similarly, in her 2020 deposition, Edwards initially testified she had never served on a speakers’ bureau. In Edwards’ own words, speakers’ bureaus consisted of a “list of names that different people from [a] pharmaceutical company will say that people will give lectures, and so it’s widely known that I will give lectures about vaccines.”

She also claimed during her deposition not to remember having been on any speakers’ bureaus or that she “misspoke,” before admitting that while sitting on the VRBPAC, she was on the speakers’ bureau of at least two companies — Connaught and Lederle-Praxis — and a consultant for one of them. This was not noted in her CV.

By the 2022 cross-examination, Edwards was more forthcoming, admitting that she participated in and received fees from speakers’ bureaus. She also admitted such bureaus are “not very common now” and that “generally people don’t want to be on those because they’re felt to be perhaps more biased than they should be.”

Despite telling Siri during the 2020 deposition that he “know[s] nothing about me,” under cross-examination, Edwards qualified her involvement “in recent conflicts” on the basis that “we have a national pandemic … and we need people who know how to evaluate vaccine safety, and I spend a lot of time doing that.”

Edwards also claimed that the CDC and FDA “did not feel” that her paid work for pharmaceutical companies, including conducting their clinical trials “were conflicts.”

Notably, companies such as Merck, GSK and Sanofi, to whom she also provided paid services, produced childhood vaccines administered to Hazlehurst prior to the onset of his autism.

Siri further showed, during the 2020 deposition, that during Edwards’ tenure on ACIP and VRBPAC between 1991 and 2000, numerous childhood vaccines were added to the CDC’s ever-expanding childhood vaccine schedule. These included hepatitis A and B, dTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) and Hib (Haemophilus influenza type B).

The end of Edwards’ first tenure on VRBPAC, in 2000, was further marked by the release of a June 15, 2000, U.S. House of Representatives report highlighting conflicts of interest in VRBPAC and ACIP, noting:

“How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so few around the country that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted?

“It almost appears that there is an ‘old boys network’ of vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA, at times serving simultaneously.”

The report also identified some of Edwards’ conflicts of interest, noting, “Another member [of VRBPAC], Dr. Catherine [sic] Edwards, was receiving a grant for research on another vaccine of $163,000 from Wyeth Lederle.”

Edwards coached during testimony — twice 

Controversy involving Edwards also arose during the Hazlehurst trial when it appeared someone was coaching Edwards, seemingly guiding her toward providing specific responses to questions she faced from Siri, during both the deposition in 2020 and the cross-examination in 2022.

In at least two instances during the 2020 deposition, which as a result of COVID-19-related measures occurred online via Zoom, Siri asked Edwards if someone else was in the room with her, providing her with responses that she was then repeating.

Edwards denied she was being coached, claiming her husband “passe[d] through” or asked if she would “like some water.” Multiple times, Siri had to ask Edwards to unmute her microphone.

This issue was then addressed during the 2022 cross-examination, when Siri played back video of the 2020 deposition — but with the volume amplified, revealing a voice, off-camera, that could be heard saying things that Edwards then repeated verbatim as her response to Siri. Despite the recording, Edwards continued to deny she was being coached.

During the same 2022 cross-examination, which took place in a Tennessee courtroom, Edwards’ husband was ejected from the courtroom by the sheriff and by the judge presiding over the case, after he was seen communicating non-verbally with Edwards, apparently instructing her on how to respond. Again, Edwards denied this was the case.

At numerous other times during the deposition and cross-examination, Edwards’ replies consisted of variations of “I don’t know,” “I don’t remember,” or “I couldn’t hear that.”

Notably, during the 2022 PAS conference, Edwards apparently drew upon her experience during the deposition and cross-examination — which she had testified was her first time as an expert witness — to deliver a presentation entitled “How to prepare and testify as an expert witness for vaccine-related litigation.”

And, also of note, Edwards had, for a term spanning between 2012 and 2015, served as a member of the American Board of Pediatrics’ Conflict of Interest Committee, according to her 2014 CV.

Close ties to Fauci and Gates-linked vaccine organization

Edwards also appears to be connected to Dr. Anthony Fauci, in part due to the funding she received from the NIH and the NIAID, one of the 27 institutes that together comprise the NIH and the one headed until recently by Fauci.

These ties were evident during a May 2021 question-and-answer session Fauci provided to Vanderbilt students “about lessons learned during the pandemic and to share career advice” — an event moderated by Edwards. This event was held just days before Fauci was awarded the university’s Nichols-Chancellor’s Medal, on the same day he delivered the university’s commencement speech.

Edwards is also listed as a vaccine expert by the Sabin Vaccine Institute, which “recognizes that journalists and health workers play a vital role in public health by promoting fact-based media coverage,” leading to the establishment of its “Immunization Advocates” program, with the support of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

As previously reported by The Defender, GAVI proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

GAVI describes its core partnership with various international organizations, including names that are by now familiar: the WHO, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank, and with the ID2020 Alliance, which supports the implementation of “vaccine passports.”

ID2020’s founding members include the Gates Foundation, Microsoft and Rockefeller Foundation.

*

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.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD


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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

On Tucker Carlson’s show the other night, restaurant owner Stratis Morfogen explained how New York Gov. Kathy “Karen” Hochul’s proposal to ban gas stoves in new buildings would “destroy” the restaurant and hospitality sectors.

Supposedly to prevent “global warming” and “brain damage,” Hochul and other left-wingers want only electric cooking appliances to be allowed in new construction. Were that to actually happen, cafes and other eateries would no longer be able to run their businesses.

“For 35 years, we’ve been attacked by everybody,” Morfogen told Carlson. “We had organized crime in our industry in the ’30s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. In the 2000s, we had corrupt Wall Street, and for the last three years we’ve had government overreach.”

“I mean, we’ve seen it during covid – they did things and never followed the science and what’s going on. I heard a rumor about this last year, and what I’m hearing about today from the White House to Gov. Hochul, that they want to make us, for new restaurant construction, use electric stoves.”

Not only would gas stoves be banned in new construction under Hochul’s plan, but so would gas heaters. Everyone would be forced to use costly and highly inefficient electric cooking and heating appliances, which would also place enormous strain on the electrical grid. (Related: In Europe, the ongoing energy crisis is causing some to have to burn wood for warm meals and heat.)

Electric stoves are 40% less productive than gas stoves

According to Hochul and other Democrats, the planet’s climate is supposedly changing because of gas use. In order to stop the climate from changing, electric must be the only source of energy used – even if it comes from coal, ironically enough.

“So let me explain it to you: we lose 40 percent productivity by using electric,” Morfogen further stated. “If they inquire with small business owners, I’ll give them three pieces of advice: get a stronger filtration system; get a hood system that works; and, basically, train your staff how to maintain it.”

Citing a single study claiming that gas stoves contribute to 12.7 percent of all cases of asthma in children, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is attempting to implement a nationwide ban on gas stoves – because freedom of choice is not one of that group’s values.

“For 35 years, we continuously have obstacles in running our industry,” Morfogen added during the interview.

“I’ve got to tell you, Tucker – and I want to thank you for supporting small business – since the last time I was on, you inspired me to write the book. And I’ve got to tell you, our journey is constantly being attacked, like, we’re vulnerable and this is the crème de la crème, because I will tell you, this will destroy our industry just as bad as they attempted to do with covid.”

If you are interested in watching the Tucker Carlson segment featuring Morfogen, you can do so at this link.

Bearing the nickname “Golden Greek,” Morfogen has owned and operated a number of top restaurants in New York City – at least 41 of them, in fact. He told the New York Post last summer that thievery, economic downturns, demolition problems, and changing neighborhoods are among the many reasons why his restaurants have come and gone over the years.

“Our industry was then like the Wild West,” he explained. “There comes a knock on the door and you have to pay protection so the mob doesn’t break your window or your manager’s legs.”

The new mob, apparently, are Democrats and their “green” tyranny solutions to climate problems that are entirely nonexistent outside of their own deranged heads.

*

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 NaturalNews.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Prevent Global Warming”, Ban Gas Stoves, Restaurants Everywhere Will Fail

Who Designed Global Guidelines for Puberty Blockers?

January 13th, 2023 by Free West Media

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

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

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

***

Clinics around the world follow guidelines from the Netherlands for gender treatments in children. The basis for this is, among other things, a much-criticized study sponsored by a German hormone manufacturer.

More and more children and young people believe they have to question their gender identity. Some 60 minors were treated in the Netherlands in 2010, but has increased to around 1 600 last year. Another 1 800 people under the age of 18 were on the waiting list because gender clinics in the country are full.

Institutions around the world use a standard procedure developed in Amsterdam in the 1990s when it comes to the drug treatment of supposedly transsexual children.

A report by the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad has meanwhile cast doubt on the directive and the independence of gender research at the Amsterdam UMC hospital. As strict as the conditions for treatment may appear, several complications have been overlooked: The terrible side effects of the heavy drug has been brushed off by doctors as being the lesser evil.

Hormone manufacturer sponsored ‘puberty blocker’ study

The approach with puberty inhibitors has since been known internationally as the “Dutch protocol”. The protocol has become the basis for the “gender-affirming standard of care” used throughout the world. Tens of thousands of children are affected worldwide, and in the Netherlands certainly several hundreds, although no precise figures are available.

Scientists investigated whether hormone treatment in transsexuals is more successful if their puberty was initially suppressed with medication. The sponsor of the study was the German hormone manufacturer.

Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the company that markets the drug Triptorelin as a puberty inhibitor had a strong commercial interest in the outcome. Primarily, treatment relies on administering hormones from the opposite sex: men are given oestrogen to become more feminine, women testosterone to become more masculine. But teenagers are additionally administered puberty inhibitors, which prevent boys from developing a low voice and beard growth and girls from developing breasts and other feminine shapes.

There are many criticisms of the study. Questionnaires were inconsistent, there was no control group at all, and the researchers used random samples from the 196 treated children for the results.

Several countries are moving away from ‘puberty blockers’

In the meantime, there is objection in more and more countries to the treatment of children with “puberty blockers”. Not only are they said to impair the physical sexual development of minors, but they can also cause osteoporosis, anorgasmia and infertility. According to the NRC, the drug is said to sometimes even impair the ability to make rational decisions.

Worldwide, there is increasing criticism of the scientific content and non-existent empirical basis of the Dutch protocol developed at the gender clinic of the Free University of Amsterdam. In several countries, health authorities have already decided to treat children mainly psychologically and prescribe puberty inhibitors only exceptionally. In Sweden, they concluded that “the risks currently outweigh the possible benefits” and spoke of possibly the country’s “worst medical scandal”.

In the UK, criticism of the Dutch protocol was so serious that the Tavistock gender clinic, the largest in the world, was closed by the authorities.

Sweden, Finland and Great Britain only want to prescribe the drug in rare, particularly severe cases. Instead, they are increasingly relying on psychological support for patients.

Since February last year, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare has followed the Karolinska Institute’s policy regarding hormonal interventions for gender-dysphoric minors. Karolinska’s pediatric gender services at Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital (ALB) has ended the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to gender-dysphoric patients under the age of 18.

Marketing redundant drugs for the wrong condition

In the US, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been investigating two pharmaceutical companies for advertising puberty blockers to children. This is a condition they are not approved to treat.

In December, Paxton announced investigations under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act into Endo Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie Inc., the two companies that sell puberty blockers. The drugs were approved to treat precocious puberty and forms of prostate cancer but were being marketed and prescribed off-label to treat gender dysphoria.

“These drugs were approved for very different purposes and can have detrimental and even irreversible side effects,” Paxton said. “I will not allow pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of Texas children.”

*

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: Trans Rights Protest In London, Soho. Photo credit: Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Designed Global Guidelines for Puberty Blockers?

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

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

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

***

In response to Western sanctions, Russia’s central bank is dropping the US dollar and will buy Chinese yuan on the foreign exchange market. The yuan’s share of Moscow’s currency trading increased from 1% to 40-45% in 2022, while dollar trade halved from 80% to 40%.

Russia has spent years trying to decrease its dependency on the US dollar. But especially since the escalation of the proxy war in Ukraine in 2022, Moscow has accelerated its drive toward de-dollarization.

Western sanctions have locked Russia out of the US-dominated international financial architecture. Numerous Russian banks were disconnected from the SWIFT inter-bank messaging system. Washington and Brussels even froze a staggering $300 billion of the Russian central bank’s foreign exchange reserves.

In response, Russia’s central bank has largely abandoned the US dollar and euro, and instead it plans to buy Chinese yuan on the currency market.

In the span of less than a year, the yuan has quickly replaced the dollar as the most sought foreign currency in Moscow.

According to the Federal Reserve, the US dollar is involved in around 80% of global trade, and the dollar makes up approximately 60% of globally disclosed official foreign reserves, as of 2021.

But rising geopolitical conflict, fueled by Washington’s new cold war, has pushed Russia, China, Iran, and a growing list of countries to try to de-dollarize, or at least to diversify their foreign reserves.

Reuters reported that daily “yuan-rouble trading volumes on the Moscow Exchange are already exceeding dollar-rouble trades on some days,” and noted that this trend is likely to increase in 2023.

Russia has already made importers of its oil and gas pay in its currency, the ruble, in a challenge to the petrodollar.

An anonymous source in Russia’s banking system told Reuters, “The central bank can currently now buy yuan,” and, “if next year budget revenues from the export of oil and gas exceed 8 trillion roubles, then the central bank will buy yuan.”

Another anonymous source in the Russian government said to Reuters, “We have a lot of friendly currencies. On the exchange, the Chinese yuan is the most traded currency, it is the friendliest currency so far.”

In a separate report, titled “The yuan’s the new dollar as Russia rides to the redback,” Reuters revealed that the yuan’s share of trading on Russia’s currency market increased from 1% to 40-45% in less than a year.

At the same time, dollar trade halved from 80% to 40% of volumes on the Moscow Exchange.

Russia has quickly become the world’s fourth-biggest offshore trading center for renminbi – a drastic change, considering it was not even in the top 15 at the beginning of the year.

Reuters acknowledged that Moscow’s de-dollarization campaign is not new, but it accelerated in 2022.

“While the yuan, or renminbi, has been making gradual inroads into Russia for years, the crawl has turned into a sprint in the past nine months as the currency has swept into the country’s markets and trade flows,” the media outlet wrote.

It added, “Russia’s financial shift eastwards could boost cross-border commerce, present a growing economic counterweight to the dollar and limit Western efforts to pressure Moscow by economic means.”

In a report in March, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned of an “erosion of dollar dominance.”

The IMF noted that the use of Chinese yuan in global central bank reserves has increased, while holdings of the US dollar declined from roughly 70% in year 2000 to less than 60% by 2021.

Western sanctions on Russia have also incentivized countries around the world to create new financial systems for regional trade in other currencies – not just adversaries, but also longtime US allies such as India, Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia.

In July, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin visited Iran, where the two countries signed a $40 billion energy cooperation agreement, and pledged to deepen their economic integration.

Both Putin and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called to challenge the dominance of the US dollar, instead proposing the use of local currencies for trade.

*

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 GER

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

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

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

***

Fifteen-minute cities are popping up everywhere, and the World Economic Forum is wildly enthusiastic about them. Last year it was announced that Paris, France, would become a 15-minute city, and now the British city of Oxford is next. However, outraged Brits are fighting back.

As reported previously at RAIR Foundation USA, the city council has announced that it will divide Oxford into 15-minute neighborhoods or small 15-minute towns billed as “greener, cleaner and safer.” To further seize control of people’s lives, Globalists are pushing the false idea that these “green” cities, which make services accessible to residents within 15 minutes of their homes, will “save the planet” and help all humanity.

Instead, they are nothing more than a way for them to restrict, coerce, fine, punish, surveil, and limit the fundamental right of freedom of movement for residents. For example, residents are not allowed to leave your 15-minute city by car more than the allotted times a year. Otherwise, you will be fined. In addition, the government will track and control your every movement through your smartphones & facial recognition technology.

World Economic Forum

Climate lockdown

The “15-minute city” concept is crucial in the United Nations Agenda 2030 and their Net Zero green agenda. The World Economic Forum is also pushing this new concept. Oxford, which has declared a ‘climate emergency,’ is hoping their 15-minute cities will help achieve the Council’s ‘Net Zero carbon Oxford’ vision by 2040.”

As early as 2024, Oxford plans to impose “climate lockdowns” on residents to help achieve the Council’s ‘Net Zero carbon Oxford’ vision by 2040.” The “15-minute city” concept is also crucial for the United Nations Agenda 2030. And not surprisingly, the World Economic Forum is also pushing the idea.

Oxford will be divided into six zones ‘to save the planet’ from “global warming.” Electronic fences are placed on access roads to ensure residents remain within their own zone.

Residents are allowed to leave their 15-minute city a maximum of 100 times a year, but then they must first register their car, which is tracked throughout the city via smart cameras.

While the initial allotment of escape tickets may seem reasonable to some, once the public accepts that the state has the right to confine you, it is guaranteed that they will add additional restrictions and fewer permits to leave your zone. This was established very clearly and quickly in many Western nations in the past few years under the rubric of Covid restrictions.

Protests

Oxford residents are furious over council plans to turn the city into ’15-minute’ controlled zones. They have been brushed away by the Council, which has ignored their displeasure.

Media silent

Oxford citizens have taken to the streets, “The media is silent, of course,” writes UK journalist Sophie Corcoran. She implored people to stand with the citizens of Oxford against this type of totalitarianism.

Davos Globalist Conference

“At the end of this week, thousands of the world’s elite will be jetting off to Davos in their private jets, whilst people around the globe are starting to be confined to 15-minute zones in their cities and need a permit to drive over it,” Corcoran said.

Corcoran is referring to the Globalist conference next week in the Swiss ski resort of Davos 52 heads of state and government are expected to meet. Nearly 600 company directors have also been invited. Public sessions are held, but it is mainly where the Globalists make their deals behind the scenes in secret backrooms.

While people worldwide are forced to choose between eating dinner or heating their homes, the Elites will fly to Davos in their private planes, stay in posh hotels, eat expensive food and scheme how to confine us to our “15-minute” prisons.

The Dutch party Forum for Democracy (FvD) previously made an English-language video exposing the dangerous and freedom-crushing agenda concocted by the Globalists who attended the annual meeting in Davos this past May:

*

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.

Amy Mek is an Investigative Journalist: Banned in parts of Europe, Wanted by Islamic countries, Threatened by terror groups, Hunted by left-wing media, Smeared by Hollywood elites & Fake religious leaders.

Featured image is from RAIR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The WEF’s “Net Zero Carbon” Lockdown Fraud: British Protest “15-Minute Cities” Where They Will Become Prisoners of the State
  • Tags: , ,

CIA Coup in Peru Explodes into Violence

January 13th, 2023 by Kurt Nimmo

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

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

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

***

The USG is busy in South America, making sure the right people are in control of the government. In Peru, there are “clashes between security forces and demonstrators,” as described by the AFP.

It comes as trade unions, left-wing parties and social collectives readied for an afternoon march through Lima, the capital, to denounce a “racist and classist … dictatorship.”

Supporters of ousted president Pedro Castillo are demanding new elections and the removal of current leader Dina Boluarte.

Castillo, a former school teacher and student of Peruvian neurosurgeon and Marxist-Leninist politician Vladimir Cerrón, was impeached last year and held on charges of sedition and high treason after he unwisely attempted to form a new government.

It should be noted that Peru is renowned for its corruption. President Alberto Fujimori was convicted of ordering murders, embezzlement of public funds, abuse of power, and crimes against humanity. He controlled the Grupo Colina death squad. This death squad massacred Fujimori opponents in Barrios Altos and La Cantuta. Fujimori also had a journalist and businessman kidnapped.

Fujimori served as Washington’s man in Lima. He was fully onboard with neoliberal “free market reforms” (selling off public assets for private, corporate gain). In return, the USG, in particular the Clinton administration, turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in Peru.

In Peru’s repressive environment, the Comités de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Committees) was born and despite the brutality of the Shining Path Maoists, the left began to gain power and influence, in part due to the horrors inflicted on Peruvians by the government and the Shining Path guerrillas. According to a truth and reconciliation commission report, 69,280 people were killed between 1980 and 2000, during the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush administrations.

One day prior to the coup d’état overthrowing Castillo, the USG ambassador to Peru, Lisa Kenna, met with  Gustavo Bobbio Rosas, the country’s defense minister. Kenna is a CIA veteran and worked with embassies in former tank commander Mike Pompeo’s state department. Her state department bio does not mention nine years spent at the CIA.

In 2019, Pompeo admitted the CIA  lies, cheats, and steals (add murder and torture and you have rounded the circle).

The CIA operates out of USG embassies around the world. Philip Agee details this in his book, “CIA Diary: Inside the Company,” while Allan Nairn explores how the agency went about neutralizing troublesome political opposition in Latin America.

In regard to Peru, the CIA gave ex-Peruvian spook Vladimiro Montesinos more than $10 million over the period of 25 years, ostensibly to fight drugs (much of the money was funneled into an “anti-terrorist” operation), according to Angel Paez, a Peruvian member of the Center for Public Integrity’s International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Montesinos was sentenced to a 20-year prison term for his hands-on involvement in an illegal arms deal to provide 10,000 assault weapons to Colombia’s FARC rebels.

The USG “has staunchly supported Peru’s unelected coup regime, which declared a nation-wide ‘state of emergency’ and deployed the military to the streets in an attempt to crush the protests,” Ben Norton wrote for MRonline in December. “Most governments in Latin America have criticized or even refused to recognize Peru’s unelected coup regime, including Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Venezuela, Cuba, and various Caribbean nations.”

However, reading the corporate media, we learn nothing about the CIA’s meddling in Peru or the widespread disapproval of the coup government outside Peru. Instead, US News & World Report insinuates Castillo, with “no experience in elected office or ties to the Lima establishment,” is at the center of the crisis.

The Grand Lady of Propaganda, The New York Times, dwelled on the plight of a “fragile democracy“ betrayed by “supporters of the former president,” supporters accused of “attacks against police stations, airports and factories.”

Indeed, Pedro Castillo was elected by the people of Peru because he is not tied to the ruling elite in Lima, a financial elite wedded to neoliberalism and supremely unconcerned with “the high cost of living and staggering social inequality” for the majority of the population, as Andrea Lobo summarizes.

Socialism has a failed record in South and Latin America. However, this should not dismiss interference by the USG, its CIA, USAID, and “democracy” operations abroad run by presumed NGOs.

These agencies and organizations work together to undermine socialists—or any political group opposed to neoliberal policies—voted into office by impoverished peasants, victims of an elite conspiring with the USG, global corporations, and the neoliberal financial elite to deprive them of their birthright, livelihood, and natural resources.

*

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 author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

In the year 1986, when I was sixteen years old, I founded the Save the Earth Club, which I believe was the first high school environmental organization in Texas. Dallas in those days was heavily influenced by the oil industry, and a lot of people thought I was unhinged. Maybe I was. At any rate, my adolescent brain was given to apocalyptic images of planet earth and all of its beautiful forests, oceans, and creatures going up in smoke. If only humanity weren’t so terribly selfish, greedy, and wasteful, I thought. Then we would all be saved and live in harmony with nature instead of dominating and exploiting it.

Looking back, I believe I was in the grip of powerful yearnings for absolution, salvation and redemption. And boy, was I a sucker for anyone who claimed to offer a solution. I gave much of my spare money to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and other environmental non-profit organizations. During my freshman year in college, I worked for Greenpeace in Boston as a telephone fundraiser, and I briefly contemplated dropping out of college to become a full time Eco-Warrior.

Greenpeace got its start protesting atomic bomb testing and the commercial whaling industry. I thought of this last night when I saw a news report about humpback whales washing up on the New Jersey Shore in an area where preparations are underway for a large-scale, offshore wind farm.

A bit of learning that ultimately helped me to overcome my attachment to the Environmental Cult came from my high school physics teacher, who did an excellent job of explaining the Laws of Thermodynamics and the related law of the Conservation of Energy. I remain grateful to him, because his lessons later spared me from the monstrous ignorance that now shapes public perceptions of so-called Renewable Energy.

Consider the energy required to build a single large wind turbine. First there’s the site preparation with excavators and bulldozers (burning diesel). Turbines in the 1 to 2 MW range typically use 130 to 240 m3 of concrete for the foundation. This means: 1). Excavating and hauling cement, sand, and gravel for concrete (burning diesel) 3). Hauling concrete to site (diesel). 4) Laying concrete foundation (diesel).

This is just the foundation. Then you get into the massive, energy intensive business of building and hauling the gigantic turbine blades. Mining and refining and manufacturing all of the steel for the blades and the copper power cable. Miles of the latter must be run underground in order to connect the turbine to the power grid. On and on it goes.

Then there’s the terrible inefficiency of wind turbines—which only deliver significant power to the grid for a relatively small period per year—and their short lifespan of around 20 years, at which point they must be dismantled and the giant blades hauled off and buried. Finally, wind turbines are murderous for migratory birds and (if suspicions prove to be correct) migrating whales. Compared to natural gas—an abundant, high density, clean-burning energy mass that can be efficiently transported through existing pipelines—wind turbines are of abysmal utility.

Examine any major “Climate Initiative” and you’ll see that it doesn’t square with math and the Laws of Thermodynamics. If the mega billionaires of the world really want to reduce the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, they would get serious about economic investment in tropical nations that continue to clear rainforest for palm oil plantations and other low-yielding economic activities. Bill Gates could easily scratch a check for the entire palm oil industry of Borneo, thereby saving its rainforests and orangutans from incineration.

If the State of California were serious about preventing carbon from entering the atmosphere, it would start MANAGING its forests through judicious logging in order to prevent massive forest fires. According to a recent LA Times report, the 2020 California wildfire season wiped out TWO DECADES of California emission reduction efforts. And yet, instead of managing their forests, California’s imbecilic politicians are now chattering about banning natural gas stoves.

How to explain this nonsense? For starters, the Climate Cult is able to harness very powerful yearnings like those that gripped me when I was a dumb adolescent. Secondly, because profligate politicians with access to unlimited debt financing have gotten in on the act, the “Renewable Energy” industry has become an absolute bonanza.

*

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: Climate & Vaccine Cult High Priest, Bill Gates, at 2010 Ted Talk “Innovating to Zero!” on the pressing need to reduce CO2 emissions in order to save planet Earth.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Remunerative Religion. Understanding the Climate Cult.
  • Tags:

Cuba’s Hero, American Spy: Ana Belen Montes

January 13th, 2023 by Rachel Hamdoun

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

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

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

***

The recently freed Puerto Rican-American will be remembered as Castro’s “exceptional person” and Cuba’s “respect and admiration” for infiltrating the Pentagon to prevent the US from destroying Cuba.

The US calls her the “Queen of Cuba,” but the intention to brand her as a notorious figure of evil nature is something Western-entrenched to be avoided in this article. To say her name, Ana Belen Montes, is for her to be remembered for saving Cuba and its people so many times that so many innocent deaths of Cubans were avoided.

She is not a queen, nor a terrorist as the Americans describe her. She is a hero who singlehandedly saved lives by giving Cuba information about possible attacks by the US at a time when the US was carrying out a colonial campaign against Central America, due to fear of communist presence in the region.

Sibling rivalries at the FBI

Ana Belen Montes was born in Nuremberg in what was then West Germany on February 28, 1957, on a US Army base where her father was stationed. After moving to the US, she received a Bachelor’s from the University of Virginia in International Affairs and was hired by the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1985 before acquiring a Master’s degree in the same specialty from Johns Hopkins in 1988.

With her intelligence and hard work, she excelled and constantly got promoted until she was finally hired by the Pentagon in 1992 as an analyst specializing in Cuban matters. That was the door for her to gain access to files and documents related to Cuba by the CIA, FBI, and the National Security Agency (NSA). Of her three siblings, two were employed with the FBI: her brother Tito served as an FBI special agent and her sister, Lucy, also worked as a Spanish-language FBI agent who would later do the exact opposite of what Ana set out to do.

During her position, Montes traveled to Cuba in 1993 on a “fact-finding” mission to study the Cuban military for intelligence study paid for by the CIA. She would later go on to have many more of these trips. She planned to achieve her goal during the time of Fidel Castro as Cuba’s leader and revolutionary hero, alongside Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and during Bill Clinton’s time as US President.

Communication between Montes and Cuban officials was done via numeric messages transmitted over shortwave radio with the use of codes, and with Montes’ access to files and sensitive information, she was able to memorize everything at work and type them out at home to facilitate communication.

Image: The cheat sheet used by Montes for communication (Source: FBI Archives)

The cheat sheet used by Montes for communication (FBI Archives)

On February 23, 1996, American Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll visited Cuba as part of an American campaign to gradually control the island. The Cuban Ministry of Defense warned the US not to allow the “Brothers to the Rescue” planes to fly over Cuba as planned. The “Brothers to the Rescue” refers to the group formed by five Cuban exiles who were an anti-Castro opposition established in 1991 and protected by the US due to common interests naturally.

However, the US decided to continue poking the bear and let two of the planes fly over Havana the next day, which were then shot down. It was found that Montes was the one who arranged Admiral Carroll’s travel to Cuba and when asked about it, she stated that she chose that specific date because it was a free date available on the Admiral’s schedule – with the help of the Wasp Network, known as La Red Avispa in Spanish.

The “Brothers to the Rescue” was infiltrated by the Wasp Network, and five of the activists pertaining to the Network were caught by the US in 1998 and charged with conspiracy to commit espionage. They were caught with the help and treachery of Montes’ sister, Lucy, who was responsible for translating the wiretapped conversations.

Snitch with a ‘gut feeling’ 

As a result of suspicion by a colleague in her department, she was subjected to two polygraphy tests, informally known as lie detector tests that check a suspect’s heart rate and respiration to determine if they committed a crime or not through lying. She passed both tests. Her colleague and DIA employee, Scott Carmichael, became a pest for the FBI after he built a whole file on Montes due to his ‘gut feeling’ and finally came through to lead agent Steve McCoy who opened the investigation against her. According to the Washington Post, FBI agents waited for her to leave town with her boyfriend to break into her apartment and came across the infamous Toshiba laptop. The hard drives containing all the sensitive information were confiscated, and the laptop was left as it was.

In 1999, the NSA caught and deflected a Cuban communication message which revealed a top official associated with the DIA’s SAFE software system – indicating that the official was most likely an employee of the DIA. Not only so, but the official was discovered to have traveled to Guantanamo Bay back in 1996 and used a Toshiba laptop – Montes matched all the above. Montes was arrested in September 2001 at Bolling Airbase in Washington, D.C., and was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage.

The moment she was captured, FBI agents had a nurse, oxygen tanks, and a wheelchair prepared, because they expected her to collapse and “be a wreck,” retired FBI special agent Pete Lapp said, as he added, “And I think she could have just carried both of us out on her back. She walked out that calm — I won’t say ‘proud’ — but with that kind of composure.”

She was sentenced to 25 years at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas. At Carswell, she was placed in a special unit meant for offenders with mental and psychiatric problems, but it was never clarified as to why. During her trial 21 years ago, she stated that the US government’s policies against Cuba are very harsh, speaking out that she behaved according to her conscience rather than the law. She added,

“I felt morally obligated to help the island defend itself from our efforts to impose our values and our political system on it.”

She suffered inhumane imprisonment conditions in Carswell as she was not allowed to contact other inmates, receive external letters, read newspapers and magazines, or watch TV. Her basic and constitutional rights were violated at the prison.

Back home

In 2002, a year after her imprisonment, Fidel Castro was asked at the University of Informatic Sciences in Havana about her arrest by an American journalist. He responded by saying that a noble American who is against such an injustice and against a blockade of over 40 years, who was able to act in the manner that she did, is an exceptional person…. who “deserves respect and admiration.”

On January 7, a day before her release, Cuban-American Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, said, “[H]er treason against the US accomplished nothing for the Cuban people. On the contrary, by helping the criminal Castro regime, Montes strengthened the Cuban people’s worst enemy,” making it seem as if he is entitled to speak on behalf of the Cuban people who, according to him, prefer Cuba to remain silent while the US carries on its colonial endeavors.

On January 8, Ana Belen Montes was released. Her lawyer, Linda Backiel, confirmed that she has reached her homeland Puerto Rico and relayed Montes’ letter to the public on her behalf.

“I am more than happy to touch Puerto Rican soil again. After two rather exhausting decades and faced with the need to earn a living again, I would like to dedicate myself to a quiet and private existence. Therefore, I will not participate in any media activities…. I encourage those who wish to focus on me to focus instead on important issues, such as the serious problems facing the Puerto Rican people or the US economic embargo against Cuba. February will mark the 61st anniversary of the economic embargo against Cuba, enacted by President John F. Kennedy and later tightened by the US Congress.”

We contacted Ms. Backiel through email to find out more about Montes’ imprisonment conditions but have not received any comment yet.

In a letter written by her sister Lucy and addressed to her in prison, she wrote, “You betrayed your family, you betrayed all your friends. Everyone who loves you was betrayed by you,” adding, “You betrayed your co-workers and your employer, and you betrayed your nation. You worked for an evil megalomaniac who shares or sells our secrets to our enemies.”

Her family has cut contact with her since her arrest and imprisonment over 20 years ago, given the fact that both her siblings and their spouses were all FBI agents.

Ana Belen Montes should be a lesson to demonstrate how vulnerable and cowardly the US is, in the face of those who stand and fight against injustices toward innocent people through attacks, embargoes, and murders. Ana Belen Montes will be one for the books and a symbol of hope for the activist in everyone.

*

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 Al Mayadeen English

Vaccine Induced. The Story of Shawn Maldoun

January 13th, 2023 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction by Dr. Gary Kohls

The 28 minute video below tells the powerful story of Canadian distance-runner Shaun Muldoon, an innocent, previously healthy young victim of the not uncommon, but commonly mis-diagnosed, vaccine-induced autoimmune disorder called “VITT” (Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytyopenia).

The VITT syndrome is known to be caused by AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine (which vaccine, in Muldoon’s case, was injected 2 weeks before his emergency small bowel resection that was followed by two additional major abdominal surgeries, which has left him to deal with the life-long serious consequences of a “short bowel syndrome”).

The Covid vaccine-caused autoimmune disorder resulted in the formation of antibodies to his own platelets (the phenomenon of “molecular mimicry”) that caused the platelets to clump and thus cause blood clots in the blood vessels leading to his bowel, lung, spleen, and who know what other organs).

The abnormal platelets (now being recognized as a foreign substance to Muldoon’s immune system) clumped excessively and clotted both small and large blood  vessels anywhere in the body – including possibly the circulation to the brain (causing TIA’s [transient ischemic attacks/stroke warnings] and completed strokes; impaired circulation to the heart (angina pectoris, heart attacks, and even cardiac arrest). (Makes one wonder about the real, over-looked cause of Buffalo Bills cornerback, Damar Hamlin’s near-SADS [Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) cardiac arrest episode on Monday Night Football a couple of weeks ago.)

Note that AstraZeneca’s vaccine is not an mRNA gene-altering inoculation (like the Pfizer or Moderna “vaccines”) which is also well-known to cause the circulatory issues noted above.

*

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 Gary G. Kohls is a retired rural family physician from Duluth, Minnesota. Since his retirement in 2008, Dr Kohls has written a weekly column, titled Duty to Warn, which has been re-published and archived at websites around the world. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Dr Kohls practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career, primarily helping psychiatric patients who had become addicted to their cocktails of dangerous, addictive psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process. His Duty to Warn columns often deal with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-prescribing, over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing and sickness-promoting food industry. Those four powerful, profit-seeking entities combine to seriously affect the physical, mental, spiritual and economic health of the recipients of the prescription drugs, medical treatments, toxic vaccines and the consumers of the tasty, ubiquitous and disease-producing “FrankenFoods” – particularly when they are consumed in combinations, doses and potencies that have never been tested for safety or long-term effectiveness.


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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

By any standard, the money the United States government pours into its military is simply overwhelming. Take the $858-billion defense spending authorization that President Biden signed into law last month. Not only did that bill pass in an otherwise riven Senate by a bipartisan majority of 83-11, but this year’s budget increase of 4.3% is the second highest in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. Indeed, the Pentagon has been granted more money than the next 10 largest cabinet agencies combined. And that doesn’t even take into account funding for homeland security or the growing costs of caring for the veterans of this country’s post-9/11 wars. That legislation also includes the largest pay raise in 20 years for active-duty and reserve forces and an expansion of a supplemental “basic needs allowance” to support military families with incomes near the poverty line.

And yet, despite those changes and a Pentagon budget that’s gone through the roof, many U.S. troops and military families will continue to struggle to make ends meet. Take one basic indicator of welfare: whether or not you have enough to eat. Tens of thousands of service members remain “food insecure” or hungry. Put another way, during the past year, members of those families either worried that their food would run out or actually did run out of food.

As a military spouse myself and co-founder of the Costs of War Project, I recently interviewed Tech Sergeant Daniel Faust, a full-time Air Force reserve member responsible for training other airmen. He’s a married father of four who has found himself on the brink of homelessness four times between 2012 and 2019 because he had to choose between necessities like groceries and paying the rent. He managed to make ends meet by seeking assistance from local charities. And sadly enough, that airman has been in all-too-good company for a while now. In 2019, an estimated one in eight military families were considered food insecure. In 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, that figure rose to nearly a quarter of them. More recently, one in six military families experienced food insecurity, according to the advocacy group Military Family Advisory Network.

The majority of members of the military largely come from middle-classneighborhoods and, not surprisingly perhaps, their struggles mirror those faced by so many other Americans. Spurred by a multitude of factors, including pandemic-related supply-chain problems and — you guessed it — war, inflation in the U.S. rose by more than 9% in 2022. On average, American wages grew by about 4.5% last year and so failed to keep up with the cost of living. This was no less true in the military.

An Indifferent Public

An abiding support for arming Ukraine suggests that many Americans are at least paying attention to that aspect of U.S. military policy. Yet here’s the strange thing (to me, at least): so many of us in this century seemed to care all too little about the deleterious domestic impacts of our prolonged, disastrous Global War on Terror. The U.S. military’s growing budget and a reach that, in terms of military bases and deployed troops abroad, encompasses dozens of countries, was at least partly responsible for an increasingly divided, ever more radicalized populace here at home, degraded protections for civil liberties and human rights, and ever less access to decent healthcare and food for so many Americans.

That hunger is an issue at all in a military so wildly well-funded by Congress should be a grim reminder of how little attention we pay to so many crucial issues, including how our troops are treated. Americans simply take too much for granted. This is especially sad, since government red tape is significantly responsible for creating the barriers to food security for military families.

When it comes to needless red tape, just consider how the government determines the eligibility of such families for food assistance. Advocacy groups like the National Military Family Association and MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger have highlighted the way in which the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), a non-taxable stipend given to military families to help cover housing, is counted as part of military pay in determining the eligibility of families for food assistance. Because of that, all too many families who need such assistance are disqualified.

Debt-Funded Living, Debt-Funded Wars

The BAH issue is but one part of a larger picture of twenty-first-century military life with its torrent of expenses, many of which (like local housing markets) you can’t predict. I know because I’ve been a military spouse for 12 years. As an officer’s wife and a white, cisgender woman from an upper-middle-class background, I’m one of the most privileged military spouses out there. I have two graduate degrees, a job I can do from home, and children without major health issues. Our family has loved ones who, when our finances get tight, support us logistically and financially with everything from childcare to housing expenses to Christmas gifts for our children.

And yet even for us, affording the basics has sometimes proved challenging. During the first few months after any move to a new duty station, a typical uprooting experience for military families, we’ve had to wield our credit cards to get food and other necessities like gas. Add to that take-out and restaurant meals, hotel rooms, and Ubers as we wait weeks for private contractors to arrive with our kitchen supplies, furniture, and the like.

Tag on the cost of hiring babysitters while we wait for affordable childcare centers in the new area to accept our two young children, and then the high cost of childcare when we finally get spots. In 2018, during one of those moves, I discovered that the military had even begun putting relocated families like ours at the back of wait lists for childcare fee assistance — “to give others a chance,” one Pentagon representative told me when I called to complain. In each of the five years before both of our children entered public school, we spent nearly twice as much on childcare as the average junior enlisted military service member gets in total income for his or her family.

Our finances are still struggling to catch up with demands like these, which are the essence of military life.

But don’t worry, even if your spouse isn’t nearby, there are still plenty of social opportunities (often mandated by commanders) for family members to get together with one another, including annual balls for which you’re expected to purchase pricey tickets. In the post-9/11 era, such events have become more common and are frequently seen as obligatory. In this age of the gig economy and the rolling back of workplace benefits and protections, the military is, in its own fashion, leading the way when it comes to “bringing your whole self (money included) to work.”

Now, add the Covid-19 pandemic into this fun mix. The schedules of many military personnel only grew more complicated given pre- and post-deployment quarantine requirements and labor and supply-chain issues that made moving ever less efficient. Military spouse unemployment rates, which had hovered around 24% in the pre-pandemic years, shot up to more than 30% by early 2021. Spouses already used to single parenting during deployments could no longer rely on public schools and daycare centers to free them to go to work. Infection rates in military communities soared because of travel, as well as weak (or even nonexistent) Covid policies. All of this, of course, ensured that absenteeism from work and school would only grow among family members. And to make things worse, as the last Congress ended, the Republicans insisted that an authorization rescinding the requirement for military personnel to get Covid vaccines become part of the Pentagon budget bill. All I can say is that’s a bit more individual freedom than this military spouse can wrap her brain around right now.

Worse yet, this country’s seemingly eternal and disastrous twenty-first-century war on terror, financed almost entirely by national debt, also ensured that members of the military, shuttled all over the planet, would incur ever more of it themselves. It should be no surprise then that many more military families than civilian ones struggle with credit-card debt.

And now, as our country seems to be gearing up for possible confrontations not just with terror groups or local rebel outfits in places like Afghanistan or Iraq, but with other great powers, the problems of living in the U.S. military are hardly likely to get easier.

The Fire of War Is Spreading

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has at least publicly acknowledged hunger as a problem in the military and taken modest steps to alleviate the financial stresses on military families. Still, that problem is far larger than the Pentagon is willing to face. According to Abby Leibman, MAZON’s chief executive officer, Pentagon officials and military base commanders commonly deny that hunger exists among their subordinates. Sometimes they even discourage families in need of food assistance from seeking help. Daniel Faust, the sergeant I mentioned earlier, told me that his colleagues and trainees, concerned about seeming needy or not convinced that military services offering help will actually be useful, often won’t ask for assistance — even if their incomes barely support their families. Indeed, a recently released RAND Corporation investigation into military hunger found that some troops worried that seeking food assistance would jeopardize their careers.

I’m lucky that I haven’t had to seek food assistance from the government. However, I’ve heard dozens of officers, enlisted personnel, and family members shrug off such problems by attributing debt among the troops to lack of education, immaturity, or an inability to cope with stress in healthy ways. What you rarely hear is someone in this community complaining that military pay just doesn’t support the basic needs of families.

Ignoring food needs in the military is, in the end, about more than just food. Individual cooking and communal meals can help individuals and families cope in the absence of adequate mental healthcare or… well, so much else. The combat veteran who takes up baking as a tactile way of reminding himself that he’s here in the present and not back in Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or Syria is learning to conquer mental illness. The family that gathers for meals between deployments is seizing an opportunity to connect. In an age when military kids are suffering from widespread mental-health problems, eating together is one way parents can sometimes combat anxiety and depression.

Whatever is life-enhancing and doesn’t require a professional degree is vital in today’s stressed-out military. Heaven only knows, we’ve had enough excitement in the years of the war on terror. Perhaps in its wake you won’t be surprised to learn that military suicide rates have reached an all-time high, while mental healthcare is remarkably inaccessible (especially to families whose kids have disabilities or mental illnesses). And don’t let me get started on sexual assault or child abuse, or the poor school performance of so many military kids, or even the growth of divorce, not to speak of violent crime, in the services in these years.

Yes, problems like these certainly existed in the military before the post-9/11 war on terror began, but they grew as both the scale and scope of our disastrous military engagements and the Pentagon budget exploded. Now, with the war in Ukraine and growing tensions with China over Taiwan, we live in what could prove to be the aftermath from hell. In other words, to quote 1980s star Billy Joel’s famous record title, we did start this fire.

Believe me, what’s truly striking about this year’s Pentagon funding isn’t that modest military pay raise. It’s the way Congress is allowing the Department of Defense to make ever more stunning multi-year spending commitments to corporate arms contractors. For example, the Army has awarded Raytheon Technologies $2 billion in contracts to replace (or even expand) supplies of missile systems that have been sent to aid Ukraine in its war against Russia. So count on one thing: the CEOs of Raytheon and other similar companies will not go hungry (though some of their own workers just might).

Nor are those fat cats even consistently made to account for how they use our taxpayer dollars. To take but one example, between 2013 and 2017, the Pentagon entered into staggering numbers of contracts with corporations that had been indicted, fined, and/or convicted of fraud. The total value of those questionable contracts surpassed $334 billion. Think of how many military childcare centers could have been built with such sums.

Human Welfare, Not Corporate Welfare

Policymakers have grown accustomed to evaluating measures meant to benefit military families in terms of how “mission ready” such families will become. You would think that access to food was such a fundamental need that anyone would simply view it as a human right. The Pentagon, however, continues to frame food security as an instrument of national security, as if it were another weapon with which to arm expendable service members.

To my mind, here’s the bottom line when it comes to that staggering Pentagon budget: For the military and the rest of us, how could it be that corporate weapons makers are in funding heaven and all too many members of our military in a homegrown version of funding hell? Shouldn’t we be fighting, first and foremost, for a decent life for all of us here at home? Veteran unemployment, the pandemic, the Capitol insurrection — these crises have undermined the very reasons many joined the military in the first place.

If we can’t even feed the fighters (and their families) decently, then who or what exactly are we defending? And if we don’t change course now by investing in alternatives to what we so inaccurately call national defense, I’m afraid that there will indeed be a reckoning.

Those worried about looking soft on national defense by even considering curbing military spending ought to consider at least the security implications of military hunger. We all have daily needs which, if unmet, can lead to desperation. Hunger can and does fuel armed violence, and has helped lead the way to some of the most brutal regimes in history. In an era when uniformed personnel were distinctly overrepresented among the domestic extremists who attacked our Capitol on January 6, 2021, one of the fastest ways to undermine our quality of life may just be to let our troops and their families, hungry and in anguish, turn against their own people.

*

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.

Andrea Mazzarino, a TomDispatch regular, co-founded Brown University’s Costs of War Project. She has held various clinical, research, and advocacy positions, including at a Veterans Affairs PTSD Outpatient Clinic, with Human Rights Watch, and at a community mental health agency. She is the co-editor of War and Health: The Medical Consequences of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

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

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

***

Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev has issued ultra-provocative words claiming that it’s not fundamentally Ukraine that Russia is at war with, but that the Russian military is facing all of NATO inside Ukraine.

“The events in Ukraine aren’t a clash between Moscow and Kiev. It’s a military confrontation of NATO, first of all the US and Britain, with Russia. Fearing a direct engagement, NATO instructors push Ukrainian men to certain death,” he said in a fresh interview with state-owned newspaper aif.ru.

Patrushev continued by describing Russia’s military as geared toward seeking to “free its regions from occupation and must put an end to the West’s bloody experiment to destroy the fraternal people of Ukraine.”

We are not at war with Ukraine because we can’t have hatred for ordinary Ukrainians by default,” he stressed. He then presented Russian and Ukrainian heritage and closely bound up together, according to state media:

“Get this: the Ukrainian language is one of the official languages in Crimea. Ukrainian cultural centers, Ukrainian folk song and dance groups continue to exist in many cities. A considerable number of people in the south of the Far East regard Ukrainian culture as their own, given a large proportion of migrants from the times of Stolypin,” he said, referring to Pyotr Stolypin, a prime minister of the Russian Empire in the early 1900s, who oversaw a resettlement policy.

“The sooner the people of Ukraine realize that the West is using them to wage a war on Russia, the more lives will be saved,” Patrushev added. “Many have realized that long ago, but they are afraid to say that publicly out of fear of reprisals. It’s not a part of the West’s plans to save someone’s life to the detriment of its enrichment and other ambitions. Even so, the Americans, the British and other Europeans often create an illusion that they protect civilization from barbarians.”

He then referenced the ongoing Western backed attempts of Kiev to make Russian language and culture illegal, which directly impacts millions in the region: “all this story with Ukraine was engineered by Washington to rehearse the technologies of dividing a people that’s one and sow discord,” he said.

Meanwhile, there’s a growing move among leading NATO countries to begin transferring Western tanks and troop carriers to the Ukrainian battlefield. Starting last week, France began leading the way, resulting in a fierce response from the Kremlin…

But following this warning that a “red line” has been crossed, the Biden administration approved sending Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and now Britain is the next to be mulling tanks for Ukrainian forces, as Sky News reports Monday:

The UK is considering supplying Ukraine with British tanks for the first time to fight Russia’s invading forces, Sky News understands.

Discussions have been taking place “for a few weeks” about delivering a number of the British Army’s Challenger 2 main battle tank to the Ukrainian armed forces, a Western source with knowledge of the conversations said.

A Ukrainian official was cited in the report as saying that the UK sending tanks would in turn “encourage others to give tanks.” President Zelensky during his December in-person address to US Congress mentioned that his country is in dire need of tanks, and he’s specifically multiple times asked Washington for M1 Abrams tanks.

The US has still remained reluctant, however, largely on fears that to much heavy weaponry too fast would lead to direct NATO-Russia confrontation, ostensibly at least.

But based on the words of Russian Security Council Secretary Patrushev, it seems Russia increasingly sees military confrontation with NATO as already happening. After all, the massive loss of Russian troops in the Makiivka barracks attack was reportedly accomplished with US-supplied HIMARS missile systems.

*

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: Challenger 2 battle tank, file photo via Zero Hedge

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘We Are Facing the Entire NATO in Ukraine’: Kremlin Says, As UK Mulls Battle Tanks

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

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

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

***

On January 10th, Russia’s Defense Minister, Nikolai Patrushev said: “The events in Ukraine are not a clash between Moscow and Kyiv – this is a military confrontation between Russia and NATO, and above all the United States and Britain.”

Earlier, on January 8th, Ukraine’s Defense Minister, Oleksii Resnikov had said:

“The main threat to the [NATO] alliance” is “the Russian Federation. Today Ukraine is eliminating this threat. We are carrying out NATO’s mission today. They aren’t shedding their blood. We’re shedding ours. That’s why they’re required to supply us with weapons.”

They both agree that the war in Ukraine is a proxy-war for NATO (the U.S., UK, and EU) against Russia, in which the battlefields are in Ukraine, and that this is not a war that Ukraine and Russia are waging against each other. They agree that Ukraine is helping NATO to defeat Russia in Ukraine’s battlefields, and is expending Ukrainians’ “blood” in order to achieve this objective of NATO, instead of this war’s being NATO helping Ukaine to defeat Russia.

None of the mainstream, and almost none of the non-mainstream, news-media, in U.S.-and-allied countries, are presenting this war in that way: instead, it is being presented as being NATO choosing to help Ukraine to defeat Russia. Ukraine’s Defense Minister is saying: We wage NATO’s war; NATO supplies weapons. “Like a real shield, [Ukraine] is defending the entire civilized world, the entire West,” from the Russians, he alleges, while he goes on to assert that the New Year’s greetings that he had received “from Western defense ministers” were “to that effect.” However, virtually no news-media in The West have been presenting the war in this way. To the contrary: it is being presented as being a war between Ukraine and Russia, not as being a war between NATO and Russia.

Here are some of the statements that NATO itself has officially made about this matter, during the year 2022:

“NATO is not a threat to Russia.” 

“NATO has tried to build a partnership with Russia, developing dialogue and practical cooperation in areas of common interest. Practical cooperation has been suspended since 2014 in response to Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, Ukraine, which NATO will never recognise.”

“NATO is not at war with 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.

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from South Front

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine and Russia Defense Ministers Agree: The War in Ukraine Is Between NATO and Russia
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

Below is a slightly modified version of my NY Post column on the discovery of the second batch of classified documents in areas previously used by President Joe Biden. A number of questions remain unanswered by the perplexing response of President Biden that he will not even ask about the identity of these documents on advice of counsel.  However, with the discovery of a second batch of classified documents at a different location, the President’s “surprise” could grow exponentially in the days to come. You might want to find a chair . . . the forthcoming spin from the press and pundits could produce global vertigo.

Here is the column:

There is an old story attributed to Noah Webster of being caught in a closet with a paramour. His wife cried out, “Noah! I am surprised!” Webster responded with a grammatical correction that “It is I who am surprised. You are astonished.”

The Webster story came to mind this week when President Joe Biden broke days of silence over the discovery of highly classified documents in a closet. Biden declared that he was “surprised” by the discovery but then said that his lawyers advised him not to ask (or presumably answer) other questions.

Biden was grammatically correct, if legally confused, in only describing his first reaction rather than his prior actions.

Biden was indeed surprised by the discovery. The rest of us should be astonished.

After all, it was Biden who expressed revulsion at the very thought of his predecessor possessing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago: “How that could possibly happen, how one anyone could be that irresponsible.”

Biden is not the only one who appears hopelessly conflicted. With the reported discovery of a second batch of highly classified documents connected to President Biden, the decisions of Attorney General Merrick Garland are fast moving from the inexplicable to incomprehensible.

Garland was presumably briefed that classified documents were discovered in Joe Biden’s old office on Nov. 2. He also presumably knew about the Biden documents when he appointed a special counsel to investigate the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago 16 days later.

At the time of the appointment of Jack Smith, some of us noted the inexplicable refusal of Garland to appoint a special counsel to look into alleged Biden influence peddling and other crimes.

Garland continued to refuse an appointment for Biden even as he justified the appointment for Trump on the basis that Trump was running for the presidency. Joe Biden is the president. What is the difference?

President Biden, meanwhile, is feigning ignorance, simply saying he was “surprised” the documents were there.

By not discussing the content of the documents, Biden minimizes his vulnerability to charges of obstruction or false statements. He can simply declare “surprise,” knowing that many in the media will welcome his silence as they spin the scandal.

Despite the lack of information, the press and pundits have already declared there is no real national security danger and certainly no comparison to Mar-a-Lago. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, declared “There is no comparison. They were in a locked closet. They were not accessible.”

So that is the standard? A locked closet? The Mar-a-Lago storage room was locked and later the security was enhanced at the request of the FBI.

It is fair to note that Trump and his staff are accused of false statements and obstruction. However, that does not change the same alleged crime of unlawful removal and possession.

Biden is taking a page from the Hillary Clinton playbook. Recall the long-sought Whitewater documents. After the case was effectively over, they suddenly appeared. The New York Times called the documents “elusive,” as if they moved by free will.

Clinton was also “surprised” by the discovery of the documents . . . after they could not be used as part of the earlier investigation.

There are some obvious explanations for the documents being present in the office, particularly given Biden’s work on a book that discussed his work in some of the referenced countries like Ukraine. However, even that explanation raises more questions. For example, Biden left office as vice president in 2017 and had an office at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia after finishing his term until 2019. On February 8, 2018, the Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement says that it opened its doors in Washington, D.C.

So if these documents were removed when Biden left office, where were they in the prior year and were they moved repeatedly before they ended up in the Washington office? This does not appear a “one-and-done” mistake. Rather documents may have been at various locations over a five year period.

Otherwise, Biden would have had to request and receive classified information at some point in the five years outside of a secure location.

Now that we have a second batch of documents, there is an increasing concern that classified documents were distributed or divided among different offices.  This also means that an even greater array of individuals may have had access to such documents at different locations over the five-year period.

None of this could be clarified with Biden simply expressing “surprise.”

The FBI has two immediate tasks: secure the highly classified documents and then determine whether they may have been compromised.

Consider that Biden did not categorically deny asking for the documents to be taken at the end of this term as vice president.

He also did not explain when he was briefed after they were found.

Democrats and the media are eager to wave this away and move on. But, as the statements of Garland and Biden show, there are many questions that need answering. The discovery of new classified documents only magnifies those unanswered questions.

That is why we were not “surprised” but we can all be legitimately (and grammatically) astonished by the discoveries in Joe Biden’s closet — and his silence about the contents.

*

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.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

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

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

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

***

Among the many lessons that we should have collectively learned as a society in the post-COVID era is that the pharmaceutical industry willfully lies, manipulates, bribes, and threatens the American public for the sake of profit and social control. Often, the products it markets don’t work or have extremely negative side effects or both.

A pair of recent stories further illustrate the point:

  • an arthritis drug that actually exacerbates arthritis, and
  • an Alzheimer’s drug rushed through clinical trials that costs more than most people’s annual salaries yet doesn’t actually do much of anything to improve the disease trajectory

The arthritis drug that worsens arthritis

Via SciTech Daily:

“Two recent studies have shown that corticosteroid injections, which are commonly used to treat the pain associated with knee osteoarthritis, may actually contribute to the progression of the disease…

Statistical analysis showed that corticosteroid knee injections were significantly associated with the overall progression of osteoarthritis in the knee, specifically in the lateral meniscus, lateral cartilage, and medial cartilage.”

Literal sugar pills – placebos – would be preferable to this. They might not deliver any actual physiological benefit (although they often confer psychological benefit via the “placebo effect”), but at least they don’t actively worsen the patient’s condition.

$56k/year Alzheimer’s drug

If you monitor the medical industry with a healthy skepticism, you may recall the unprecedented fanfare over a new “miracle” Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (sold under the brand name “Aduhelm”), which earned “accelerated approval” by the US Food and Drug Administration.

“Accelerated approval” in the context of drug rollout is an immediate red flag. It almost always means that corners were cut and standard safety and efficacy clinical research was not sufficiently performed.

Via Bangkok Post:

“Aduhelm received “accelerated approval” from the FDA in June despite the fact that an independent panel advising the US drug regulator had found insufficient evidence of its benefit and some experts had raised concerns about inconsistency in the drug’s clinical data.

At least three of the 11-member independent committee that voted unanimously against recommending the drug to the FDA subsequently resigned.”

The parallels to the COVID vaxx rollout are startling.

In September 2021, two leading FDA officials resigned over the Biden administration’s unscientific booster recommendations.

Via Insider:

“The US Food and Drug Administration announced the resignations of two top vaccine officials on Tuesday, and reports said the two were leaving in anger over the Biden administration’s plan to roll out COVID-19 booster shots before officials had a chance to approve it.”

While this might seem like welcome news because it illustrates that there are still some honest people in government, the ultimate outcome is that the decent people are all driven out of positions of authority to be replaced by industry yes-men willing to greenlight any pharma product no matter how scant the evidence to support it.

Similar to the COVID vaxx clinical trial fraud, there were significant problems with the original trials that should have warranted further investigation before approval for public use.

Via New York Times:

“Two months before the Food and Drug Administration’s deadline to decide whether to approve Biogen’s controversial Alzheimer’s drug, aducanumab, a council of senior agency officials resoundingly agreed that there wasn’t enough evidence it worked…

On June 7, the F.D.A. greenlighted the drug anyway — a decision that has been met with scathing rebuke from many Alzheimer’s experts and other scientists and calls for investigations into how the agency approved a treatment that has little evidence it helps patients.”

In the end, patient health be damned, the right hands got greased at the FDA, the right officials were made promises of lucrative positions in private industry after departing public service (the infamous revolving door), and voila!

An expensive, ineffective drug gets pushed on vulnerable patients with wildly unrealistic promises of recovery if they just open their hearts and wallets to the good people at Biogen. Their bank accounts get drained while their health further deteriorates.

*

Of course, describing the above as “failures” of modern medicine is largely a subjective judgment based on perspective.

If you’re a patient with one of these conditions, they are, indeed, abject failures that waste your money and keep you preoccupied with non-effective treatments when you could be doing something proactive.

But if you’re an executive at one of the pharmaceutical firms profiting off of human desperation, they’re a whopping success. Not only do they generate massive revenue – they keep patients hopeless, sick, and grasping at straws for the next round of bogus drugs to sell 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.

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TDB

Oil Chief Exec ‘Captures’ COP28

January 13th, 2023 by Brendan Montague

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

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

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

***

A chief executive of an oil company will lead the United Nations COP international climate conference for the first time in its 30 year history. There have already been calls for Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber to stand down from the fossil fuel major before negotiations begin in earnest.

Al Jaber has been confirmed as the incoming COP28 president. He is an influential member of the United Arab Emirates government, holding roles as a minister of industry, chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and chair of the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company (Masdar).

The 49-year-old was educated in the US and the UK, and has been the face of the UAE’s energy sector over the last decade, setting up Masdar in 2006 while running the UAE government’s strategic investment arm. Al Jaber is not in the royal family, making his rise all the more remarkable. He is known to have close relationships with world leaders and CEOs.

Planetary

Tasneem Essop, the executive director of Climate Action Network International, said: 

“With the COP28 host, the UAE, announcing the appointment of His Excellency Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber as president of COP28, it is imperative for the world to be reassured that he will step down from his role as the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Corporation.

“He cannot preside over a process that is tasked to address the climate crisis with such a conflict of interest, heading an industry that is responsible for the crisis itself. If he does not step down as CEO, it will be tantamount to a full scale capture of the UN climate talks by a petrostate national oil company and its associated fossil fuel lobbyists.

“COP26 in Glasgow had 500 fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance, the COP in Egypt saw a 25 per cent increase in their presence, COP28 now seems to be open season for vested interests who will no doubt use the climate talks to continue to undermine any progress on climate action. As civil society we demand that Al Jaber does the right thing and either stand aside or step down.”

Rachel Kyte, the dean of the Tufts University, Fletcher School, said: 

“The incoming COP president has a dilemma. The UAE is competing to be the most efficient and lowest-cost source of fossil fuels as global production must diminish through the energy transition in line with IPCC and IEA pathways.

“There cannot be any more development of fossil fuels. It will be challenging as COP president to unite countries around more aggressive action while at the same time suggesting that other producers stop producing because UAE has you covered. We don’t have the planetary space for mixed messages.”

Health

Christiana Figueres, the UN climate chief from 2010 to 2016, said:

 “The International Energy Agency (IEA) has been abundantly clear that there is no more atmospheric space for any new oil, gas or coal.  This policy clarity echoes the findings of science and the increasing demands of public opinion.  COP28 must not only align itself with this reality, but in fact accelerate global decarbonization. There is no other path forward.”

Vanessa Nakate, a climate justice activist from Uganda, said:

“COP28 needs to see real money put into the loss and damage fund agreed in Egypt. But alongside this, COP28 must speed up the global phase out of fossil fuels – we cannot have another COP where fossil fuel interests are allowed to sacrifice our futures to eke out another few years of profit.

“And finally, the voices of civil society and young activists are crucial in holding governments to account — they must be heard in Dubai without intimidation.”

Maria Mendiluce, the chief executive of the We Mean Business Coalition, said:

“Strong ambition and leadership from the UAE’s new President of COP28, Sultan Al Jaber, is critical for accelerating the significant investment needed globally to deliver a clean energy system – with the new jobs, health and economic benefits it will bring.

“Science is telling us the perils of going beyond the 1.5C limit: there can be no new fossil fuel projects, according to the International Energy Agency.”

Embrace

She added:

“At COP27, global business strongly backed the call to ensure we limit global temperature rise to 1.5C, and over 80 countries supported a call to phase down fossil fuels. Simply put: fossil fuels will inevitably be replaced with clean energy.

“Business needs the COP28 presidency to mobilize ambitious government policy and finance to dramatically scale up investments in clean energy while stopping new investment in fossil fuels. This will enable companies to cut emissions at speed, and build a safer, more stable and thriving global economy.”

Manuel Pulgar-Vidal was the president of COP20 and minister of environment for Peru. He is currently the global climate and energy lead at WWF. He said:

“In time, we will realise that 2021-2022 was a critical turning point.

“It is the moment that a few calls at COP to once and for all end climate-wrecking fossil fuels became an undeniable clamour. We need COP28 in the UAE to build on this foundation with a well-considered approach that quickly enables the whole world to fully embrace a complete transition to clean energy. We have no more time to lose. I look forward to supporting COP28 to achieve successful outcomes.”

Petroleum

Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief from 2006 to 2010, said:

 “The UAE has much to offer, especially when it comes to the thorny question of how to rise to the climate challenge while creating prosperity at the same time. Masdar City in Abu Dhabi is a renowned green innovation hub that also houses the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

“In addition the UAE has adopted a sound green growth strategy and is a major investor in renewable energy both at home and abroad. The COP President designate has been instrumental on many of these issues. This equips him with the understanding, experience and responsibility to make COP28 ambitious, innovative and future focussed.”

The 2023 conference promises to be a particularly tough event, given worsening geopolitics, rising climate damages and a fractious end to the COP27 summit in Sharm El Sheikh. The COP28 event will be the third time a major UN climate summit has been held in the Middle East, with Qatar (2012) and Egypt (2022) among the previous hosts.

UAE has a huge per capita carbon footprint: the world’s 4th largest behind Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) it’s the seventh-largest petroleum and other liquids producer in the world with export revenues topping $70 billion.

Technology

The government’s PR machine does a good job highlighting the Masdar initiative and solar investments through to 2030. Solar is now available at 1.35 cents per kilowatt hour in UAE, with 9GW due online by 2030.  Renewables nonetheless account for a fraction of the country’s power mix, as the US EIA observes.

Recent energy announcements include plans to switch a coal fired plant under construction to gas; a deal valued at $100bn with the US government to invest in carbon capture technology and grow its renewables sector; a green hydrogen partnership with Germany and an$11bn onshore wind farm in Egypt.

Al Jaber himself claimed in a piece for Project Syndicate that all the electricity consumed by ADNOC comes from zero-carbon nuclear and solar power in August 2022. But ADNOC’s announcement of this in December 2021 said construction would begin in 2022 with commercial operation commencing in 2025. Then there is the issue of the gas that would previously have been burned to power its operations being sold instead.

*

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.

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.

Featured image: Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber chairs a meeting. Image: ΝΕΑ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ / Flickr / ΝΕΑ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ / Creative Commons 2.0

Miss Universe Wants to Ethnically Cleanse Donbas

January 13th, 2023 by Kurt Nimmo

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

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

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

***

In the West, all the stops are pulled out in the effort to keep the destruction of Russia, and the assassination of its elected leader, front and center.

For instance, consider the militarization of the Miss Universe spectacle, an annual gala self-described as the “Greatest Celebration of Women,” or rather some women—not those defending Donetsk and Luhansk, those are Putin’s terrorists.

Saint Michael the Archangel? Now the propagandists are deep diving the Book of Enoch. This mystical character was invented by ancient Jews to act as a Torah referee and protector of Israel. He features prominently in Revelation 12:7-12, doing battle with Satan, and also in the Epistle of Jude, where heretics are denounced. Saint Michael is an archangel for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and followers of the Baha’i faith.

On the stage in New Orleans, a blonde model, a slender female remake of Saint Michael the Avenger, spreads gold-tipped wings, and we are told she is a “warrior or light” on a mission to save Ukraine, presumably from the New Satan, Putin.

Next up, a half-naked woman prances across the stage, her cape emblazoned with “Be Brave Like Ukraine.”

It rhymes! There is no way you can forget this catchy one-liner!

The propagandists are selling suspicion, hatred, murder, torture, rape, and ethnic cleansing. How better to sell it than on the bodies of semi-clad young women?

For some reason unexplained, this grotesque promotion of Russian corpses rotting in the field is not denounced as shameless exploitation and war propaganda. It is simply more entertainment—and if anything, Americans demand to be entertained. Inserting war propaganda in the stream of Hollywood pablum is a logical step.

It’s simply another day in America, where the inequities and crimes of the state and the ruling elite are sold to the people in a form they understand, not much different than Pavlov’s dogs understanding the dinner bell.

Forget archangels. It might be time to dig deep into Slavic tradition and find a more suitable myth to recast as war propaganda.

For instance, Zorya, the Red Maiden, doubles as a warrior goddess protecting men in battle. She might be conscripted as an attractive propaganda tool in the war to defeat Russia. A neon pink Agua de Coco bikini might be appropriate. Maybe they can convince the model Olga Kurilenko to wear a skimpy bikini and a war propaganda cape?

*

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 author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Miss Universe Wants to Ethnically Cleanse Donbas
  • Tags:

Unrest Spreads Across Peru After Massacre of Civilians

January 13th, 2023 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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

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

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

***

Since the ouster by the parliament of former leftwing President Pedro Castillo in December, demonstrations demanding his release from detention and the reversal of the military-backed coup have been unrelenting.

Official figures indicate that over the last month some 48 people have died as President Dina Boluarte has attempted to end protests which are seeking her resignation, the immediate release of Castillo and the holding another round of elections.

The impeachment of Castillo was done in a perfunctory manner absent of any substantiative hearings where evidence of alleged crimes could have been presented. A split from the Peru Libre party on whose slate Castillo and Boluarte ran in 2021 encouraged the rightist elements along with the military to take effective power.

Despite the departure of Castillo and Boluarte from Peru Libre, the president maintained widespread support by the electorate concerned about the reforms under which he campaigned during 2021. Castillo retains tremendous support in the southern region of the country among the rural population groups. This region is key to the overall economy of Peru which is heavily dependent upon tourism and the extractive industries.

Castillo, an educator and trade union leader based in the rural areas of the South, was just elected in a runoff vote during mid-2021. During his first year in office, there were several attempts to impeach him over disagreements related to the domestic policies of the country.

After a lull in the demonstrations during the holiday season, the mass protests and acts of civil disobedience have resumed. In response to the unrest, the Boluarte regime has declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews throughout sections of the country.

Image: Peru anti-coup demonstrators

A general work stoppage was called for aimed at ending the tenure of Boluarte and the present Congress which ousted the grassroots trade union leader on December 7. The broad support for Castillo has been evidenced by the economic and social impact of the mass demonstrations and general strikes which have gripped key regions of the country for more than a month.

Those political interests now controlling the Peruvian Congress are described by the Castillo supporters as completely out of touch with the realities of the workers, farmers and youth within the Indigenous communities.

January 4 witnessed the beginning of an indefinite strike in the departments of Arequipa, Ayacucho, Apurimac, Cusco, Moquegua, Madre de Dios, and Puno. Simultaneously organizations in Ayacucho, Huancavelica and Apurimac were debating over whether to join the actions.

The General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) held a demonstration in the capital of Lima expressing solidarity with the mobilizations and strike actions in various sections of the country. In addition, the CGTP endorsed the demand for the closing of Congress, the resignation of Boluarte and the holding of general elections immediately.

A report by Telesur on the burgeoning crisis stressed:

“The land Transport Superintendence confirmed the blockade of roads in 46 sites scattered in eight regions of the country. Among them is the blockade of traffic between Puno and Arequipa, two important commercial cities. Currently, the strongest protests are taking place in the southern part of the country. Local media report traffic blockades on the Interoceanic Highway and the Pan-American Highway, as well as protests in Andahuaylas, Aymaraes, and Abancay. In this last region, 70 percent of the population has complied with the national strike, leaving a large number of vehicles stranded on the roads. In the city of Chalhuanca, the police tried to unblock a highway, which led to clashes with the indigenous communities.”

Massacre at Juliaca

On January 9, it was reported that 17 civilians were massacred in the city of Juliaca in San Roman province by the security forces in the southeast of the country. Just two days later, protesters marched with coffins of the deceased through the city with signs denouncing Boluarte. When the funeral procession walked past a local police station, the people began to chant “murderers, murderers.”

The supporters of Castillo have engaged in a general strike to emphasize the need to reverse the current political situation inside the country. In response, the police and military forces at the aegis of the Boluarte administration have exercised maximum force to end the protests against the undemocratic character of the regime.

Demonstrations in Peru have focused on closing down airports and roads which facilitate the large tourism industry in the country. Although most of the protest actions have been nonviolent, there were reports that at least one police officer was burned to death after being thrown into a fire.

With specific reference to the attacks by the police on the people of Juliaca, Telesur noted as the events unfolded that:

“The first death was recorded just hours ago (Jan. 9) when 35-year-old Gabriel Omar Lopez was identified. A pellet hit the victim in the head during clashes in the southern city of Juliaca, in the province of San Roman, Puno department. The death of a 17-year-old girl was reported. The initial casualty and injury toll issued by the Health Network was lower but has been updated with the report of 12 dead and 38 injured. In the midst of such a scenario, road blockades are maintained at Puno’s connection points with Arequipa, Cusco and Madre de Dios. According to the Superintendence of Land Transportation of People, Cargo and Goods (Sutran), the blockade affects 20 sectors in the different roads of the region. The roads leading from Puno to Desagüadero, in the sectors of Platería, Acora, Ilave, Juli, Yunguyo and Desagüadero, are blocked. In the city of Puno, the carriers blocked with mobile units different streets, parks, entrances and exits of the city of Lago and the city of Juliaca, in the Yanamayo sector.”

Meanwhile, Castillo remains in detention as his family has been given political asylum in the Republic of Mexico. Several states throughout the region including Mexico, Cuba, Argentina, Venezuela, among others, have rejected the removal of the former president.

At the same time the Attorney General of Peru announced on January 11 that President Boluarte and Prime Minister Alberto Otarola along with the ministers of defense and interior, are under investigation for genocide. This investigation stems directly from the repressive measures instituted by the regime to halt dissent and public protest since the December 7 removal and arrest of Castillo. The announcement of the investigation took place during the same week as the Peruvian Congress gave a vote of confidence to the Boluarte and Otarola administration.

The Role of the U.S. and Its Allies

There are a number of governments which have recognized Boluarte as president. The U.S. State Department supported the coup against Castillo, who has repeatedly claimed that his impeachment was illegal and that he remains the legitimate president.

In the immediate aftermath of the removal of Castillo, Reuters press agency reported:

“The U.S. government said it welcomed the appointment of Dina Boluarte as President of Peru, who was sworn in by Congress on Wednesday (Dec. 7) in a day that saw ex-leader Pedro Castillo arrested following his ousting from office in an impeachment trial. ‘We commend Peruvian institutions and civil authorities for assuring democratic stability and will continue to support Peru under the unity government President Boluarte pledged to form,’ a U.S. State Department spokesperson said in a statement.”

The U.S. has a history of favoring and installing military regimes in Latin America. Although Boluarte is ostensibly a civilian president, from the beginning of her tenure she has empowered the Peruvian National Police and the Peruvian Armed Forces to suppress the democratic and left opposition to the removal of Castillo.

In Bolivia during 2019, a military-backed coup was carried out against socialist President Evo Morales. This move on the part of the right-wing was backed by the administration of former President Donald Trump.

Recently in Brazil, right-wing supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro called upon the military to seize power and arrest the incumbent head-of-state Lula da Silva. Although the U.S. has condemned the attacks on the government buildings in Brasilia on January 8, it is well known that Bolsonaro was influenced by the Trump administration during their tenures in office. Republicans have regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives while Democrats in general have not taken any meaningful measures to halt the destabilization efforts by the State Department and the intelligence agencies around the world.

These methods of destabilization will continue until the threat of U.S. imperialism is eliminated in Latin America. Solidarity efforts from the U.S. antiwar and peace movements could have a tremendous impact in curtailing the interventionist policies of Washington and Wall Street.

*

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.

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

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

***

On January 11th, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees appointed a Commission of eight neoconservatives (otherwise called “defense hawks,” or, in more ordinary terms, supporters of U.S. invasions and of military defense contractors) to advise them on the Pentagon’s existing budget for the coming fiscal year.

Some of them have been MIC (military industrial complex) executives; others have been advisors to members of Congress, and the Chair, Jane Harman, was a leading member of several defense-related House committees, as well as of defense-related nonprofits (think tanks).

Called the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, the Commission’s stated purpose is “to provide an independent review and assessment” of the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy.

Congress recently has been seeking higher Defense spending than the White House proposes, and this Commission will be well suited to recommending that.

The Commission’s Chair will be Democrat Jane Harman.

Its Vice Chair will be Republican Eric Edelman.

The other six members will be:

*

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 Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Struggle-La Lucha

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Seeking Higher Defense Spending: Bipartisan Committee Appointed to Advise Congress on Pentagon Budget

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

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

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

***

No sooner did the new year ring in, did the corporate state’s cancel culture machine kick into high gear, finding a fresh new target.

Not satisfied with regulating speech on the web, the establishment in New Zealand has set its sights on canceling print publications as well, this time for the alleged crime of spreading ‘dangerous conspiracies.’ The gears of censorship have a problem though. As tired epithets like ‘conspiracy’ continue to lose their potency, the cancelation machine is now having to resort to openly lying about content they seek to ban.

In their bid to protect the public from “harmful” speech, leading the charge was mainstream media outlet Stuff.co.nz, who dutifully alerted the public on January 3rd that they might be exposed to some dangerous text found in the periodical section of one of the country’s leading retail chains.

In his article,”Whitcoulls stocks magazine peddling mosque terror attack conspiracy,” senior reporter, Geraden Cann, explained how during a routine counter-disinformation reconnaissance mission to a local newsagent, either himself or a colleague (it’s not clear which), spied the offending publication: the latest issue of New Dawn Magazine, now targeted for removal from the store’s shelves.

According to Stuff, the article in question is a short piece located in the back of the magazine on page 70, entitled, “The Strange Story of Brenton Tarrant,” by writer T.J. Coles (see PDF of full article below), which Cann claims is “peddling a number of anti-vax conspiracies and insinuating the Christchurch mosque terror attack was a false flag operation.” The key word here is insinuating, which, according to Stuff, meets their fluid criteria for a nationwide ban.

Interestingly, the T.J. Coles article is not listed on the cover of the issue, so it’s possible what may have first triggered Stuff was the cover – an image poking fun at masks and jabs, and the well-worn “Trust The Science” mantra; or, maybe the mention of an interview with antipodean bête noire, Australian celebrity chef and “antivaxxer” and “conspiracy theorist,” Pete Evans (also targeted for cancelation by both the Australian and New Zealand media). It’s difficult to say, but the answer probably depends on which talking point garners more political outrage.

Stuff’s intrepid reporter didn’t stop there, and proceeded to travel around the city to check if any other stores had dared to stock the controversial publication. Cann was appalled to discover that, “Lambton Quay store in Wellington had copies of two issues of New Dawn magazine for sale this week. It was also spotted in another Wellington store, Johnsonville, and at New Lynn in West Auckland.”

It’s now clear that Cann’s article was the catalyst for initiating a much wider and highly organised public mobbing campaign – which was meant to target all bookstores and newsagents in New Zealand, beginning with one of the nation’s largest such retailer, Whitcoulls. This was then followed by the usual reflexive activist swarming and ‘brigading‘ on social media, first by disseminating Stuff’s hit-piece, followed by a wave of outrage from various activist accounts in New Zealand. Note the numerous replies in the Twitter thread (below), including vitriol specifically targeting Whitcoulls’ corporate PR department.

Once the Whitcoulls cancelation campaign was fully under way, activists expanded their brigading by targeting other print retailers, including another leading national chain Paper Plus, pressuring them to remove New Dawn from their stores (see tweet below).

Less than a day later on January 4th, Stuff then began taking a victory lap in a follow-up piece, again by Geraden Cann, informing the world that the “Magazine peddling mosque attack conspiracy disappears from Whitcoulls shelves,” clearly indicating they, along with their online brigade, had indeed put sufficient pressure on the bookstore chain, and as Twitter threads clearly show, berating corporate officials and branch managers for not moving fast enough to cancel New Dawn.

To complete the public mobbing circle, Stuff seems to have drafted the help of Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand and its spokesperson Abdur Razzaq who, after likely not having read the magazine, derided New Dawn, saying that it “had no meaningful information, except to confuse and raise conspiracies.”

Razzaq then went on to assure Stuff’s readership that cancelation was imminent, stating, “We have sent communications to Whitcoulls on this matter and expect them to play their part in promoting social good as an iconic New Zealand company.”

Feigning forbearance, Stuff’s Geraden Cann seemed content that even though Whitcoulls had not responded to his request for comment, that the bookstore still did ‘the right thing’ by removing all copies of the magazine:

“the magazines had in fact been removed from the shelves a Stuff reporter had visited Lambton Quay and Cuba St stores in Wellington last Tuesday…. A staff member in Johnsonville said: “That magazine was stocked by us in the past, it is no longer stocked by us and we have no further comment on that.”

Mission accomplished. A successful modern day book burning.

The Big Lie

Unfortunately, the damage was not limited to celebratory booking burning. Stuff felt the need to employ some extremely underhanded tactics to ensure their conquest was successful. Outlets engaging in defamation is not uncommon in mainstream media, especially where politics are concerned, and Stuff is no exception.

In order to destroy the reputation of New Dawn Magazine, an incredible lie was conjured up.

The level of speed and coordination in this operation is nothing short of breathtaking.

Initially, Stuff‘s Geraden Cann, along with academic Kate Hannah from the Disinformation Project, pushed out the fanciful claim that the magazine’s contents could cause readers to fall foul of the law in New Zealand:

“Kate Hannah, director of The Disinformation Project, a research group monitoring Covid-19 disinformation, said some of the commentary in New Dawn was borderline in legality.”

She said some of the commentary in New Dawn was borderline in legality, because it described the content of livestreamed video of the Christchurch shootings, as well where it had been published, which could encourage people to seek it out.

Mainstream Kiwi outlets like Bay of Plenty Times and News Talk ZB then ran with the Stuff’sfabrication, “Magazine sold in Whitcoulls could get readers in legal trouble,” and claimed that the article contained details about where to view the video of the mass shooting:

“A claim an article in a conspiracy magazine sold in Whitcoulls could cause readers to run afoul of the law. The book chain is stocking a copy of New Dawn, a magazine with anti-vax conspiracies and an article insinuating that the Christchurch Mosque attack was a false flag operation. A claim an article in a conspiracy magazine sold in Whitcoulls could cause readers to run afoul of the law. The book chain is stocking a copy of New Dawn, a magazine with anti-vax conspiracies and an article insinuating that the Christchurch Mosque attack was a false flag operation. Disinformation Project Director Kate Hannah says that while some of the articles will be harmless, the one about the mosque attack details where to find the banned livestream of the attack. She says a naive reader may choose to look it up, which would be illegal.”

This last point was in fact a lie, as no such details appear in the article.

Indeed, the New Zealand government went so far as to deem it illegal to watch or possess the livestream video of the shooting, and internet service providers even blocked access to websites showing the video.

This begs the question: did Cann or Hannah actually read the article? If they had, then they should have concluded that, “The Strange Story of Brenton Tarrant,” by T.J. Coles (PDF below) does not contain any details about where to find the location of the livestream of the 2019 Christchurch Mosque attack. The article mentions how at the time of the shooting video links were posted on forums like 8chan, but for Stuff or Kate Hannah to claim this is ‘illegal’ is laughable, not least of all because the entire global mainstream media have all reported how those links were posted on 8Chan and the like – a well-known fact is already part of the historical record. How any ‘fact-checker’ or qualified journalist would claim that by merely mentioning this fact of history, New Dawn Magazine and its writer T.J. Coles have engaged in some kind of unlawful or dangerous act, is incredible. While it may be ridiculous on their part, it is by no means accidental. Their big lie was intended to inflict maximum damage on the magazine’s brand, and see it banned nationwide, and beyond. As Australian independent journalists Ethan Nash from TOTT News aptly points out, the information in T.J. Coles Christchurch Shooting article in New Dawn is the same information which appears on the Christchurch Shooting’s official Wikipedia page.

If Cann and Hannah’s logic were correct, then millions of Wikipedia readers would be in trouble with the law in New Zealand. Of course they aren’t, but that’s not what this is about. It’s about state-sponsored media and third sector organizations like the Disinformation Project waging targeted campaigns against selected dissident voices whose crime is simply daring to ask questions and challenge the official narrative on any given story or state policy.

Checking the ‘Fact-Checkers’

Another common tactic by Establishment outlets like Stuff is to claim that independent media must be canceled, or at least regulated by state-approved agencies, is because they lack the necessary ‘fact checking’ controls which are somehow necessary for preventing potential “harm” (a completely arbitrary term) emotional or otherwise, at any point in the future. That is the core of their argument. They claim that mainstream media outlets already meet this ethical and professional standard, and have rigorous fact checking in place. But that delusional assumption does not square with reality, and everyone knows it. There are volumes of books and academic studies detailing mainstream media lies and propaganda over the ages. Many wars have been started as a result of their lies. However, after reviewing the article in question, “The Strange Story of Brenton Tarrant,” by T.J. Coles, it’s clear that the article in question does not need any “fact checking” – because all historical references are footnoted, and it merely offers a critical analysis which includes some theory, but does not posit any conclusions. It merely asks a few pertinent questions about the many known anomalies present in this mass shooting event story. The same cannot be said for those pointing the finger at New Dawn, as it’s now clear that Stuff and its senior reporter Geraden Cann did not even bother to ‘fact-check’ their own work as it pertains to this story.

Still, the New Zealand establishment and its frontline infantry at Stuff and the Disinformation Project, seem determined to shut down any basic (and legal) critical discourse on this topic, and feel justified in doing so. This pervasive lack of self-awareness by the mainstream media and academia is not a strong indicator of a healthy democracy. History dictates it’s quite the opposite.

If this is how the state and the media are going to operate, then we have arrived at Fahrenheit 451, the 1953 dystopian novel by American writer Ray Bradbury. It was meant to be a warning, not a handbook.

Forbidden Speech: False Flags

Even more interesting though, is the knee-jerk reaction by the state and its private-public media partners at the mere mention of false flag events. It is a historical fact that many wars and high-profile ‘terror attacks’ have featured the hidden hand of intelligence services, military, and government agencies. Such revelations often come after the fact, showing the use of deception and the misattribution of blame, by way of covert state involvement in order to control and steer what the public would normally perceive as an ‘extremist’ terrorist attack – and always to affect some political or geopolitical outcome.

One of the best examples of was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which is widely attributed to home-grown Muslim extremists, when in fact it was the FBI who groomed and managed a ‘terror cell’ – one of their many ‘sting’ operations gone awry. Despite the FBI debacle being documented by the New York Times and others, most politicians and mainstream media routinely ignore the facts and stick to the popular “al Qaeda” narrative. In fact, most so-called ‘terror busts’ during the War on Terror era featured paid FBI informants, some of whom were the ringleaders of the radical groups. This uncomfortable truth has been documented by American author Trevor Aaronson in his best-selling book, Terror Factory, The: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism. These are but a few examples. Does that mean that the 2019 Christchurch Shooting in New Zealand was also a false flag? No, it does not. That is a question for a special government inquiry, and for investigative journalists to interrogate, and it’s a process which requiresquestioning the official narrative of any incident or event in history. That is the essence of freedom of speech and the free press. In a truly democratic society, these should be nonnegotiables. In almost every case, revelations of actual false flag events are discovered after the fact, and only then due to the brave testimony of whistleblowers and investigative journalists – and almost never from ruling governments and their state-sponsored narrative gatekeepers. Therefore, journalists, writers, and academics must be allowed to probe these historic incidents in order to discover the truth, including writer T.J. Coles and New Dawn Magazine. This speech must be protected by our society and governments, even if those uncomfortable questions happen to offend someone. It is the legal and constitutional right of writers like T.J. Coles to objectively interrogate historic events, without fear of reprisals by the corporate state. Claims by Stuff, Kate Hannah or the government, that doing so is somehow “harmful” seems more like the mark of a very insecure and thin-skinned establishment that’s increasingly obsessed with narrative management. The visceral reaction by the New Zealand establishment to this New Dawn issue certainly looks as if they are not comfortable with people asking questions, and that maybe, just maybe, they may not be telling the whole story. 

It’s understandable how Stuff and Hannah might feel confident in advancing this totalitarian approach to speech control, especially after PM Jacinda Ardern had openly declared at last year’s UN General Assembly that free speech online should be regarded as a “weapons of war,” and therefore regulated by the corporate state to prevent ‘potential harm.’ There’s that word again, harm. For the new authoritarian caste and disinformation mavens, anything goes in the righteous pursuit of harm reduction. Ardern was rightly admonished by critics for her remarks at the UN, but it would be a mistake to think that her connotation merely misunderstood. No, she was firing a salvo on behalf of a globalist technocracy which is authoritarian by nature; antithetical to constitutional rights and civil liberties, and which proven without a shadow of a doubt through the actions and words of its adherents during the ‘global pandemic’ moment. The likes of Stuff, Kate Hannah and the Disinformation Project are merely foot soldiers that globalist technocracy.

One of the world’s leading academics on the subject of state propaganda is British academic Dr. Piers Robinson, who recently reacted to this story on social media. He warned that, “Censorship and de-platforming continues to corrode our public sphere; see recent events with New Dawn Magazine, Unless we stand our ground and defend the critical right freedom of expression, democracy will be eclipsed.”

Who is Kate Hannah? What is the Disinformation Project? 

The long-established mainstream media practice of parroting actual misinformation and outright falsehoods is nothing new, and these establishment outlets rarely, if ever, pay a price for regularly spreading untruths on an almost daily basis. Of course, none of these mainstream outlets are ever taken to task by the new legion of fact-checkers and disinformation/misinformation’ experts and agencies.

How about the so-called ‘disinformation/misinformation’ officials? It seems that in her haste to stir-up public outrage intended to get the magazine banned, ‘Disinformation Project‘ director Kate Hannah used her state-approved platform to spread the lie that the New Dawn article contained the details of the location of Tarrant’s livestream video of the mosque attack and could land readers in legal trouble. How could such an accomplished academic make such a fatal error? It’s worth asking: did she actually read the article, or was she simply going off of second and third hand information about the magazine contained in mainstream media reporting and posts on social media?

Failing that, you could just write this off as incompetence on the part of Hannah. If that is indeed the case, then this is really a good example as any of a how inept this new breed of self-styled ‘disinformation’ experts truly are. Still, they receive regular rounds of state funding, and are given a public profile to act as de facto judge, jury and executioner when policing speech and media content, but are reckless when it comes to applying basic journalistic standards themselves and their media partners. At present, no one seems to want to hold them to account.

Regardless, the big lie was amplified by Kate Hannah, which then led to the magazine effectively being pulled from the shelves across New Zealand – shelves which New Dawn Magazine has been on for decades.

Who is Kate Hannah, and is she really qualified to adjudicate free speech and public discourse? One would expect that New Zealand’s top authority for policing speech and ‘disinformation’ would have at least some experience in journalism, broadcasting, or media? Only, it turns out that Hannah, a Research Fellow at the University of Auckland, has no such experience. According to her university bio, she has MA in “19th Century American Literary Culture”, and her principal research area is the “historiography of the history of science, with a focus on the cultures and subcultures of science, gender in science history, and narrative and complexity” and “investigating novel hybrid methodologies for the history of science.” Lots of academic theory and social sciences, but nothing remotely resembling real world or industry experience in the very sector she is in charge of policing (presumably on behalf of the ruling Ardern government).

One of the recent jobs completed by Kate Hannah and the Disinformation Project was to scrape data and use web analytic tools like CrowdTangle to track and identify dissident users online, and then draw-up extensive lists of supposed undesirable accounts on social media. Hannah recently named “The Disinformation Dozen,” in almost mirror fashion to the Biden Administration’scensorship campaign with the same name – a list of social media users marked as a priority for censorship and deplatforming – supposedly for committing the crime of Covid or vaccine ‘misinformation/disinformation.’ Recent revelations from the Twitter Files from the United States show how these similar academic working groups and fact-checking organisations are actively coordinating with Big Tech firms and Government in order to dox, target, and ultimately deny peoples’ right to free speech and access to major social media platforms, namely Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn.

As of today, the Disinformation Project (founded in February 2020, fortuitously, just a month before the Covid crisis) does not appear to list their source of funding on their website, or at least easily searchable on their site. So one can only assume it’s being funded through some form of public money or research grant, most likely through from Te Pūnaha Matatini (TPM), a technocracy think tank hosted by the University of Auckland, and funded through the Tertiary Education Commission. TPM describes itself as the county’s “Centre of Research Excellence for complex systems,” with “different disciplines, ways of thought, methods, and crucially, people – to define, and then solve, society’s thorny interconnected problems.” Early on in the Covid hysteria in 2020, TPM was New Zealand’s version of Imperial College, using Neil Ferguson-style computer modeling to erroneously “predict” that 83,500 residents would die without heavy-handed ‘public health’ intervention measures, like severe lockdowns. As with Ferguson, TPM’s doomsday death toll turned out to be pure science fiction. Not surprisingly, they now claim that their recommended lockdown saved all those lives. It’s important to note how governments relied on otherwise credible academic institutions, such as Imperial College and Te Pūnaha Matatini/University of Auckland, to help wage a campaign of fear against the public in order to usher in non-science-based ‘mitigation’ policies like lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, medical apartheid (vaccine passports), as well as Jacinda Ardern’s ludicrous “Zero Covid” policy, when the PM ordered a national lockdown after just one positive PCR ‘case’ appeared on the state’s bio-surveillance radar. For helping to spin-up the fear, TPM was later given a $6 million dollar award by the government.

Stuff – A Private-Public Partnership

It’s important to point out that Stuff.co.nz receives large tranches of funding from the government of New Zealand, as well as tech giants like Google.

Recently, Stuff secured a large tranche of funding, supposedly “to fight misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccination” in partnership with Māori TV and the Pacific Media Network – funded through the Google News Initiative for support from its Covid-19 Vaccine Counter Misinformation Open Fund.

In addition, Stuff raked in at least $2.37 million in a New Zealand government self-described “media bailout.”

Aside from all this, like so many other media outlets, Stuff is probably surviving off of government advertising money for “public information campaigns” in support of Jacinda Ardern’s COVID-19 policies – another way in which governments have been able to control editorial shape of mainstream media outlets during the Covid pseudo pandemic.

With money comes strings, along with promises of future rounds of funding. Considering how closely the state has partnered with Big Pharma and Big Tech during the COVID crisis, the conflicts of interest should be glaringly obvious by now. For any media outlet being subsidized by this sea of public-private partnership cash, it would be impossible to not continually defend the government’s policies and its public health institutions, and in the case of Stuff – attack its critics.

Hence, any government funding for Kate Hannah’s Disinformation Project and state-funded Stuff.co.nz, should be viewed for what it really is: money to quell any public opposition to the government’s pandemic policies by monitoring, attacking and marginalising any skeptics and dissenters on social media, independent media, or ‘rogue’ medical professionals.

Hannah also worked closely with New Zealand state-funded media Stuff.co.nz with an article and video entitled, “Covid-19: ‘Multiple complaints’ over anti-vaccine doctors,” a hit-piece attacking any medical professionals in New Zealand who were asking for informed consent with the experimental mRNA vaccines, or who challenge the Ardern government’s “single source of truth” on Covid-19 and vaccine policies. Hannah and Stuff reserved their most severe attacks for popular New Zealand doctor and broadcaster, Dr.Sam Bailey, and her fellow medical colleagues at NZDSOS, who dared to question the efficacy of government’s Covid measures and for raising concerns about vaccine safety for children.

Finally, Kate Hannah claims that, “People who see and/or consume such content must understand that there are larger and more dark agendas present, particularly the Russian connections, which aim to destabilise liberal democracy.”

Well, of course. It’s those dastardly Russians, again. Hell-bent on undermining our fragile democracy.

This is the definition of gaslighting, and a tragic example of how twisted the establishment’s disinformation strawman has become. They rely on a low-attention span public to take the media’s lies at face value and then parrot them to make those lies go viral, thereby fueling cancelation and censorship. That’s how this machine works.

If there is any dark agenda here, then it has to be the one which Hannah and her media partners at Stuff are working so feverishly to obfuscate: the tens of millions of people worldwide who experienced serious loss, injury or death – as a direct consequence of governments’ pandemic mitigation measures. That includes the countless thousands worldwide who have suffered adverse reactions or deaths following their mRNA injection.

Who is going to hold government, Big Pharma, and mainstream media to account for their role in imposing this debate on societies worldwide? Certainly not government, Pharma, or the mainstream media.

Which leaves us with citizen journalists and the independent media – as liberal democracy’s last line of defense against this Orwellian juggernaut.

And the mainstream media are invited to join us, if they can summon the courage.

*

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 21st Century Wire.

Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer, accredited journalist, global affairs analyst, co-founder and executive editor of 21st Century Wire, host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show and the Patrick Henningsen Show on TNT Radio International, as well as co-host of the popular UK Column News TV program. He is also a featured writer at New Dawn Magazine. His work has appeared in a number of international publications and on TV channels globally, and over the last decade he has worked on the ground covering politics and global affairs in North America and Europe, as well as work in conflict zones in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. Patrick has an MA in International Relations from the University of Plymouth in the UK.

Featured image is from 21CW

Yemen War Continues Beyond Media Spotlight

January 13th, 2023 by Felix Abt

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

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

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

***

“An unexpected result of Yemen’s war: More men are cooking and cleaning,” The Washington Post reported in 2016 on the social and cultural impact of the war in Yemen. The seemingly good side of this U.S.-sponsored genocide: gender equality!

Image

Source: washingtonpost.com

The fact that Yemeni men, provided they have not yet been blown to pieces by American and European bombs, are taking the housework off their wives should please German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who pursues a “feminist foreign policy.”

Like her good acquaintance, billionaire speculator George Soros, she vehemently advocates human rights and democracy in all those countries that do not want to submit to American “security interests.” The lack of democracy and the serious human rights violations in Ukraine, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, which are part of the U.S. sphere of influence, are therefore not part of their vigorous moral offensive.

https://i0.wp.com/ansage.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Bildschirmfoto-2022-12-18-um-15.37.01.png?resize=696%2C987&ssl=1

Tweet by Annalena Baerbock showing her with George Soros at the 2019 Munich Security Conference. [Source: volksverpetezer.de]

Surprisingly, on December 16, 2022, U.S. mainstream media outlet MSNBC reported rather lonely from the dreary, uniform Western media desert: “Few people noticed, but the United States Senate came very close to ending America’s complicity in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen earlier this week. But the very same person who had vowed to end that war intervened and stopped the Senate from taking action—President Joe Biden.”

There were no protests from politicians of all stripes against Saudi Arabia—and certainly not from “transatlanticists” and U.S. allies like Baerbock and other representatives of the European Union—being allowed to continue its war against the neighboring country with all brutality and with predominantly American, but also German, British and French weapons.

The former leading German news magazine, Der Spiegel, reports daily (see for example here) about “Russia’s war of aggression” against Ukraine. Saudi Arabia’s Western-backed war of aggression against Yemen, which exacts an incomparably higher toll, hardly receives any attention in that magazine—or in the rest of the European mainstream media. They condemn and demonize Putin daily, but not the Saudi rulers and their Western supporters.

One reason for U.S. involvement in the Yemen war by the Obama administration was to “tamp down Riyadh’s opposition to a nuclear agreement with Iran by supporting an aggressive, Saudi Arabia-led response to what was perceived as rapidly growing Iranian influence in Arab countries.”

Another one was that for U.S. military commanders “countering Iran took strategic priority over the fight against al-Qaeda and ISIL,” although “some top officers questioned Washington’s support for the Riyadh-led intervention, which they believed was doomed,” as Al Jazeera reported in April 2015.

Since the Houthi minority in Yemen are Shiites, Sunni Saudi Arabia accused them of being vassals of rival Iran. According to a February 2015 Newsweek report, Houthis are fighting “for things that all Yemenis crave: government accountability, the end to corruption, regular utilities, fair fuel prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis and the end of Western influence.”

Houthi fighters. [Source: realclearworld.com]

Like al-Qaeda and its Syrian offshoot al-Shabab, IS (ISIL, ISIS or also called Daesh) is a Wahhabi terrorist organization largely funded by wealthy Saudi Wahhabis. In Yemen, they were successfully fought by the Shiites (Houthis), and in Syria by a government with an Alawite president (Alawites are close relatives of the Shiites) with Russian support, because the United States also supported these Wahhabi terrorist organizations there in order to bring about regime change.

Political instability in Yemen began after the U.S.-sponsored “Arab Spring” uprising in 2011 that toppled President Saleh. Then-Vice President Hadi became Yemen’s interim president for a two-year term pending scheduled elections.

In 2014, Yemenis’ frustration with rampant corruption, unemployment and rising fuel prices led to unrest throughout Yemen, including calls for an independent southern Yemen. Fighters from the Houthi tribe marched into the capital Sanaa in September with the support of former President Saleh. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia.

With the stated goal of returning Western backed Hadi to power, Saudi Arabia joined forces with the United Arab Emirates in 2015 to form a coalition of nine Arab countries. The coalition was supported by the United States, Britain, France and Canada.

As justification for the war of aggression, Saudi and Western propaganda claims the Houthis are merely agents of Iran. The proud tribe rejects such claims. Yemen expert Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, told Al Jazeera: “Unlike some [Iran-allied, F.A.] militias in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis have never been an Iranian proxy. They have their own unique history, grievances and agenda.” [Emphasis added.]

And as usual, overwhelming vested interests also play a role here on the part of Washington: Several U.S. congressmen profit from the arms deliveries to Ukraine because they are investors in the arms companies. It is the same war profiteers who escalated the proxy war in Ukraine who have no interest in ending the war in Yemen.

C:\Users\Felix Abt\Desktop\Rubbish\Stinger.jpg

Source: npr.org

Remember: According to the UN, this war is the world’s biggest humanitarian disaster. It has already claimed hundreds of thousands of victims and 20 million of Yemen’s 30 million inhabitants are starving in the war-ravaged country.

If the West had wanted, this war would never have happened or it would have ended long ago with the stroke of a pen. The Saudi regime could not have survived two weeks without American support, as then-U.S. President Trump told his hosts in Saudi Arabia in his own, very direct way.

The people of Yemen have the misfortune of not being “good”—like Banderist western Ukrainians—and they are subjected to a proxy war against Iran, backed by the U.S.-led liberal-democratic West. The Western media have barely reported on the ongoing massacre.

Expressions of solidarity from Western politicians and celebrities are extremely sparse compared to those raining down on Ukraine, and sanctions against the perpetrators and supporters of this “good” war, which is causing incomparably more death and devastation than the war in Ukraine, are not being sought. All this fits perfectly with the morally sublime “values of the West.”

*

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.

Felix Abt is the author of “A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom” and of “A Land of Prison Camps, Starving Slaves and Nuclear Bombs?” He can be reached via his Twitter account.

Featured image: WFP Provides Food Assistance to a Record 7 Million People In Yemen In August 2017. UN World Food Program. [Source: wfp.org]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yemen War Continues Beyond Media Spotlight
  • Tags:

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

January 13th, 2023 by Global Research News

The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 7, 2023

Alexander Mercouris: “Something Big Is on the Way”

Mike Whitney, January 4, 2023

Video: Bombshell Docs Reveal COVID-19 Cover-Up Goes Straight to the Top. Redacted with Clayton Morris

Clayton Morris, January 9, 2023

Seeing Is Believing: What the Data Reveal About Deaths Following COVID Vaccine Rollouts Around the World

Gavin de Becker, January 11, 2023

mRNA/DNA Gene Injection “Vaccine”: Murder Charges against Pfizer, Moderna, FDA, CDC,NIH, NIAID

Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, January 8, 2023

The WEF and WHO – Are They Running a Death Cult? A WHO / Pharma controlled Worldwide Tyrannical “health system”

Peter Koenig, January 10, 2023

Video: US Military Oversaw Secret Contents of COVID Jabs

Sasha Latypova, January 10, 2023

“How World Governments Are Run by Multinational Companies”

John Cooper, January 9, 2023

The Health Plot Against the People of the World

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 12, 2023

The High Cost of Blowing Up the World: Ukraine and the 2023 NDAA

Matthew Ehret-Kump, January 7, 2023

Look Up! Wake Up, People! You Are Being “Suicided in Warp Speed”.

Peter Koenig, January 12, 2023

A ‘Cover-Up of Evidence of Mass Murder’: The CDC Appears to be Removing VAERS Records

DailyClout, January 9, 2023

“In Politics, Nothing Happens by Accident. If it Happens, You Can Bet it Was Planned that Way.”

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, January 7, 2023

Will 2023 be Worse Than 2022? “Stepping into World War III”

Philip Giraldi, January 10, 2023

How to Be Your Own Bank: Holding Actual Custody of Your Digital Assets

Ben Bartee, January 7, 2023

A Major Shift in the JFK Assassination

Jacob G. Hornberger, January 9, 2023

From Free Press to Billionaire Press: Reviewing the Top (Censored) Stories of 2022

Michael Welch, January 6, 2023

Explosive Increase in Cardiac Symptoms After Second Injection

Dr. Peter McCullough, January 9, 2023

Covid-19 Vaccines Lead to New Infections and Mortality: The Evidence is Overwhelming

Gérard Delépine, January 8, 2023

Dilma RousseffUsual Suspects in the Attempted Coup Against Lula in Brazil

Kurt Nimmo, January 10, 2023