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 new study published in the journal Vaccine examines the occurrence of serious adverse events following adult clinical trials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Authored by researchers from the United States, Spain and Australia, the analysis reveals that together these vaccines were associated in the trials with an excess risk of ‘serious adverse events of special interest’ of 12.5 per 10,000 people vaccinated.

Describing how their results raise concern that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time they were given emergency authorization, the researchers say their findings point to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses to be conducted.

The analysis carried out in the study utilizes a priority list created in March 2020 by the Brighton Collaboration, a vaccine safety research network. Endorsed by the World Health Organization and subsequently updated, the list contains potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. The Vaccine journal researchers adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Serious adverse events resulting from mRNA vaccines

The researchers describe how, to the best of their knowledge, the Brighton Collaboration’s list has not previously been applied to serious adverse events in randomized trial data. They therefore sought to investigate the association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and serious adverse events identified by the Brighton Collaboration, using data from the randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials on which the authorizations were based.

For the purposes of the vaccine trials, serious adverse events were defined as being adverse events that result in either death; an incident that was life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; or a medically important event, based on medical judgment.

The researchers found that the Pfizer trial exhibited a particularly notable 36 percent higher risk of serious adverse events occurring in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group. The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 percent higher risk of such events occurring in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group. Overall, compared to trial participants receiving placebos, the researchers found that the recipients of mRNA vaccines had a 16 percent higher risk of experiencing serious adverse events.

Serious adverse events of special interest

The researchers also evaluated serious adverse events of special interest observed in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials. Such events included coagulation disorders, cardiac disorders, and other serious problems.

In the Pfizer trial, serious adverse events of special interest were reported in the vaccine group at a rate equivalent to 27.7 incidents per 10,000 people vaccinated. For each 1 million people vaccinated, this would translate into an excess risk of 2,770 serious adverse events. Compared to the placebo group, people receiving the Pfizer vaccine had a 57 percent higher risk of experiencing a serious adverse event of special interest.

In the Moderna trial, serious adverse events of special interest were reported in the vaccine group at a rate equivalent to 57.3 incidents per 10,000 people vaccinated. For each 1 million people vaccinated, this would translate into an excess risk of 5,730 serious adverse events. People receiving the Moderna vaccine had a 36 percent higher risk of experiencing a serious adverse event of special interest than those in the placebo group.

Overall, compared to those in the placebo group, people receiving these vaccines had a 43 percent higher risk of experiencing a serious adverse event of special interest. Together, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest equivalent to 12.5 per 10,000 people vaccinated. For each 1 million people vaccinated, this would translate into an excess risk of 1,250 serious adverse events.

A rational health policy would consider potential harms

Disturbingly, the researchers note that in both the Pfizer trial and the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was actually higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization. This is clearly contrary to what the general public has been led to believe. As the researchers correctly point out, rational health policy formation should consider potential harms alongside potential benefits.

In their conclusion, the researchers argue that a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual trial participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups, particularly in people at low risk of serious complications from COVID-19. They add that full transparency of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, however, 2 years after the global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, the fact is that participant level trial data remain inaccessible.

While non-transparency might be in the financial interests of the vaccine industry, it most definitely isn’t in the health interests of the general public. If the companies manufacturing mRNA vaccines really have nothing to hide, it’s time for them to come clean and prove it.

*

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

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paulis also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from fernandozhiminaicela/Pixabay


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 Real Goal of Fed Policy: Breaking Inflation, the Middle Class or the Bubble Economy?

“There is no sense that inflation is coming down,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell at a November 2 press conference, — this despite eight months of aggressive interest rate hikes and “quantitative tightening.” On November 30, the stock market rallied when he said smaller interest rate increases are likely ahead and could start in December. But rates will still be increased, not cut. “By any standard, inflation remains much too high,” Powell said. “We will stay the course until the job is done.”

The Fed is doubling down on what appears to be a failed policy, driving the economy to the brink of recession without bringing prices down appreciably. Inflation results from “too much money chasing too few goods,” and the Fed has control over only the money – the “demand” side of the equation.

Energy and food are the key inflation drivers, and they are on the supply side. As noted by Bloomberg columnist Ramesh Ponnuru  in the Washington Post in March:

Fixing supply chains is of course beyond any central bank’s power. What the Fed can do is reduce spending levels, which would in turn exert downward pressure on prices. But this would be a mistaken response to shortages. It would answer a scarcity of goods by bringing about a scarcity of money. The effect would be to compound the hit to living standards that supply shocks already caused.

So why is the Fed forging ahead? Some pundits think Chairman Powell has something else up his sleeve.

The Problem with “Demand Destruction”

First, a closer look at the problem. Shrinking demand by reducing the money supply – the money available for people to spend – is considered the Fed’s only tool for fighting inflation. The theory behind raising interest rates is that it will reduce the willingness and ability of people and businesses to borrow. The result will be to shrink the money supply, most of which is created by banks when they make loans. The problem is that shrinking demand means shrinking the economy – laying off workers, cutting productivity, and creating new shortages – driving the economy into recession.

Demand has indeed been shrinking, as evidenced in a November 27 article on ZeroHedge titled: “The Consumer Economy Has Completely Collapsed – ‘It’s A Ghost Town’ for Holiday Shopping Everywhere.” But retailers have cut their prices about as far as they can go. While the rate of increase in producer costs is slowing, those costs are still rising; and retailers have to cover their costs to stay in business, whether or not they have customers at their doors. Rather than lowering their prices further, they will be laying off workers or closing up shop. Layoffs are on the rise, and data reported on December 1 showed that U.S. factory activity is contracting for the first time since the lockdowns of the Covid-​19 pandemic.

It is not just activity in shopping malls and factories that has taken a hit. The housing market has fallen sharply, with pending home sales dropping 32% year-over-year in October. The stock market is also sinking, and the cryptocurrency market has fallen off a cliff. Worse, interest on the federal debt is shooting up. For years, the government has been able to borrow nearly for free. By 2025 or 2026, according to Moody’s Analytics, interest payments could exceed the country’s entire defense budget, which hit $767 billion in fiscal 2022. That means major cuts will be needed to some federal programs.

Breaking the “Fed Put”

In the face of all this economic strife, why is the Fed not reversing its aggressive interest rate hikes, as investors have come to expect? Former British diplomat and EU foreign policy advisor Alastair Crooke suggests that the Fed’s goal is something else:

The Fed … may be attempting to implement a contrarian, controlled demolition of the U.S. bubble-economy through interest rate increases. The rate rises will not slay the inflation “dragon” (they would need to be much higher to do that). The purpose is to break a generalized “dependency habit” on free money.

Danielle DiMartino Booth, former advisor to Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher, agrees. She stated in an interview with financial journalist and podcaster Julia LaRoche:

Maybe Jay Powell is trying to kill the “Fed put.” Maybe he’s trying to break the back of speculation once and for all, so that it’s the Fed – truly an independent apolitical entity – that is making monetary policy, and not speculators making monetary policy for the Fed.

The “Fed put” is the general idea that the Federal Reserve is willing and able to adjust monetary policy in a way that is bullish for the stock market. As explained in a Fortune Magazine article titled “The Stock Market Is Freaking Out Because of the End of Free Money – It All Has to Do with Something Called ‘The Fed Put:’”

For decades, the way the Fed enacted policy was like a put option contract, stepping in to prevent disaster when markets experienced serious turbulence by cutting interest rates and “printing money” through QE [quantitative easing].

… Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Fed had supported markets with ultra-​accommodative monetary policy in the form of near-​zero interest rates and quantitative easing (QE). Stocks thrived under these loose monetary policies. As long as the central bank was injecting liquidity into the economy as an emergency lending measure, the safety net was laid out for investors chasing all kinds of risk assets.

… The idea that the Fed will come to stocks’ aid in a downturn began under Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. What is now the “Fed put” was once the “Greenspan put,” a term coined after the 1987 stock market crash, when Greenspan lowered interest rates to help companies recover, setting a precedent that the Fed would step in during uncertain times.

But the “free money” era seems to be over:

The regime change has left markets effectively on their own and led risk assets, including stocks and cryptocurrencies, to crater as investors grapple with the new norm. It’s also left many wondering whether the era of the so-​called Fed put is over.

Killing the Parasite That Is Killing the Host

The Fed put favors the rich – investors in the stock market, the speculative real estate market, the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market. It favors what economist Michael Hudson calls the “financialized” or “rentier” economy – “money making money,” formerly called “unearned income” – which drives up prices without adding productive value to the “real” economy. Hudson calls it a parasite, which is sucking out profits that should be going toward building more factories and other economic development.

By backstopping the financialized economy, the Fed has been instrumental in widening the income gap of the last two decades, pushing housing prices to heights that are unaffordable for first-time homebuyers, driving up rents and educational costs, and crushing entrepreneurs. DiMartino Booth explains:

Fed policy feeds passive investing … because you don’t have to carefully allocate your resources. You simply have to be long the NASDAQ and sit there with your money. What does that feed? It feeds the monopolization of America. The largest companies, the companies such as Google and Microsoft … if there is a competitor in their world they simply absorb them. They acquire them, which quashes … the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country so great.… If the Fed succeeds, Main Street will be the main winner.

… [T]he trick here is for the Fed to not break anything big, and that’s the delicate balancing act, … if … they can slowly, methodically take the rot out of the system without breaking anything big that forces them to pull back.

The “rot” in the system is particularly evident in the housing market:

Since the financial crisis, there’s been a lot of private equity that’s entered the space and snapped up all these homes and they’re renting them … It’s definitely exacerbated this housing cycle. It’s added an element of speculation because so many of them are all cash buyers. Don’t get me wrong, they’re levered — it is borrowed money — but they’re coming in as all cash buyers, and that I think created a lot of these massive bidding wars …

DiMartino Booth discusses the risk of derivatives contagion using the example of AIG, a giant insurance company brought down by derivatives exposure in 2008:

During the financial crisis … we rescued AIG because we didn’t want to actually see what it looked like on the other side of that cliff had derivatives actually been unwound, and what that contagion might have looked like.… We never tested the derivatives market, so that risk continues to lurk out there…. I’m not a cheerleader for there being some kind of a systemic risk event, and I do hope again that the Fed succeeds in managing this unwind, in seeing risk pulled out of the system, but one company at a time, not something that makes the global financial system implode.

Financial blogger Tom Luongo takes this argument further. He maintains that Fed Chair Powell is out to break the offshore eurodollar market – the speculative, unregulated offshore money market where the World Economic Forum and “old European money” (including mega-funds Blackrock and Vanguard) get the cheap credit funding their massive spending power. That is a complicated subject, which will have to wait for another article; but the principle is the same. Without the backstop of the Fed’s virtually free dollars to satisfy a surge in demand for them, these highly-leveraged dollar investments will collapse. (“Leverage” is an investment strategy that uses borrowed capital to increase potential returns. The risk is that if the investment sours, losses are also increased.)

Pushing “Until Something Breaks”

Whether or not popping these raging speculative bubbles is the goal, the Fed’s interest rate hikes are having that effect. According to a November 25, 2022 article on CNBC.com, “Interest rate hikes have choked off access to easy capital ….” As a result, “Investors have lost roughly $7.4 trillion, based on the 12-month drop in the Nasdaq.”

House prices are also tumbling. The third quarter of 2022 saw the biggest home equity drop ($1.3 trillion) ever recorded. Fortune Magazine quotes Moody’s Analystics: “Before prices began to decline, we were overvalued [nationally] by around 25%. Now, this means prices will normalize. Affordability will be restored.”

In 2021, 25% of all real estate purchases were being made by institutional investors. In the third quarter of 2022, investor buying of homes tumbled 30%. Blackstone, a real estate income trust notorious for buying up homes and turning them into rentals, was reported on December 2 to be limiting withdrawals from its $125 billion property fund as investors rush for the exits. George Cipolloni, portfolio manager at Penn Mutual Asset Management, said the U.S. Federal Reserve’s sharp interest rate increases have not “worked all the way through the economy yet,” and that he expects to see “more Blackstone-type news events coming forward in the next year.”

In May 2022, BlackRock stock (BLK) was down 30% for the year. And by November, the cryptocurrency market cap had plummeted from $3 trillion to $900 billion, with Bitcoin, its largest component, down 77% year-over-year.

Currently featured in the news is the crypto exchange FTX and its 30-year-old billionaire owner Sam Bankman-Fried. FTX was exposed as a Ponzi scheme by the receding tide of dollar liquidity, catching Bankman-Fried and team “swimming naked when the tide went out.” According to Swiss bank UBS’ chief of investment, “FTX’s collapse shows Federal Reserve tightening is crushing speculative assets.” Outing FTX is thought to be only the beginning of a succession of exposures of financial frauds to come.

The Delicate Balancing Act

DiMartino Booth said in a live twitter presentation on December 8, “If Jay Powell breaks the Fed put and takes away the unfair ability of private capital to rape and pillage the system, he will have finally addressed income inequality in America.”

Looked at in that light, breaking the Fed put sounds like a good idea. But can it be done without breaking the whole economy? More reputable establishments than FTX are at risk. Rate hikes seriously impact local retailers and wholesalers. In September, risky leveraged bets brought UK pension funds near to collapse, forcing the Bank of England to reverse course and lower its interest rates. And there is the stress in the U.S. Treasury, which is dealing with an enormous interest tab on its debt.

Other disturbing outcomes are being envisioned. One podcaster posits that the economy is intentionally being driven to collapse, at which point the government will declare a “bank holiday” as Pres. Roosevelt did in 1933. When the banks reopen, he says, we will have a “currency reset” in the form of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The concern is that it will be a “programmable” currency, one that can be regulated or turned off altogether based on the user’s “social credit” score, as is already happening in China.

Alarmed observers note that the New York Fed recently embarked on a pilot project for a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency). But defenders point out that it is a “wholesale” CBDC, used just for transfers between banks, particularly overseas transfers. Settlement times of foreign exchange transactions typically take two days. Project Cedar, the New York Innovation Center’s pilot project, found that settlement for foreign exchange transactions using distributed ledger technology can happen in 10 seconds or less, significantly reducing risks. Whether that technology will be developed and used by the Fed has not yet been determined. DiMartino Booth observes that Powell and other Fed officials have frequently questioned the need for a “retail” CBDC, in which Fed accounts would be opened directly with the public.In a Substack article titled “A Grand Unified Theory of the FTX Disaster,” author and educator Matthew Crawford lays out a darker possibility – that the end goal of the powerful network of players behind the FTX scheme is not just a U.S. CBDC but a “Global Digital Central Bank” run by international powerbrokers. Whether or not the Federal Reserve intended it, aggressive interest rate hikes could expose this sort of parasitic corruption and remove the money machine that is its power source.

Rising from the Ashes

Meanwhile, the supply-side issues inflating the prices of food, energy and other key resources need to be addressed. Those are matters for federal and state legislatures, not the Fed. In the 1930s, a federal financial institution called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation pulled the economy out of the Great Depression, put people back to work, and crisscrossed the country with new infrastructure, including the dams and power lines that brought electricity to rural America. (See my earlier article here.) The government acted quickly and decisively because times were desperate.

A bill for a National Infrastructure Bank modeled on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is now before Congress, H.R. 3339. For a local government bank, a viable model is the publicly-owned Bank of North Dakota, which pulled that state out of a regional agricultural depression in the 1920s. (See here.) As an iconic Depression-era poster declared, “We can do it!” We just need to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

*

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 first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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.

***

Recently released figures show Canadian Public Health Agency inspectors who were empowered to issue fines cited an alarming 4,883 children for breaking government COVID quarantine rules.

As per Blacklock’s Reporter, Canada’s cabinet, in an Inquiry of Ministry brought before the House of Commons, said warnings to kids under age 18 were given in person by law enforcement officials “as a result of non-compliance identified either at the port of entry or during a police check at the traveler’s quarantine address.”

The information was requested by Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu and shows that some 58,760 minors, at one point or another mandated to stay home under Canada’s Quarantine Act, were issued warnings under the act.

The information did not say how old the children were but that the warnings were mostly made by Public Health Agency inspectors.

Gladu had asked,

“With regard to minors being warned of imprisonment or fines if they broke the previous quarantine requirements for certain individuals returning to Canada, since April 2020 broken down by year: How many travelers under age 18 received such warnings?”

The report noted the warnings, which “may be verbal or written. are issued to the parent or guardian.”

“They contain information regarding possible enforcement actions,” the report added.

In total, Canada’s Public Health Agency gave out a whopping $14.9 million in quarantine fines.

The fine amounts ranged from $100 for a child breaching a quarantine order to $275 for those who gave false or misleading information. A $500 fine was handed to those for “failure to comply with a reasonable measure.”

Those who breached a quarantine order were fined $750, and those who entered the county illegally were fined $1,000.

Canada’s Public Health Agency spent over $43 million hiring security guards who enforced COVID quarantine rules by making house calls on returning travelers.

Canada’s Quarantine Act was suspended October 1, and there are currently no COVID restrictions for entering or leaving the country. The rules had been in place since mid-2020. The much-hated ArriveCAN travel app was also made optional, and a mandate that foreigners must be jabbed to enter Canada was removed.

The Quarantine Act was used by the federal government to enact severe draconian COVID travel rules on all returning travelers to the country.

Trudeau’s use of the Quarantine Act gave his government the power to place upon Canadians “unprecedented travel and isolation” requirements.

*

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 Shutterstock


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.

***

Financial analyst and self-help entrepreneur Dr. David Martin has slammed public health authorities around the world for forcing roughly four billion people to take the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) mRNA “kill shots,” turning them into biological weapons in the process.

“The reason why [the mRNA injections] are important and distinct is that they turn your body into being what I refer to as the bioweapons factory,” Martin told “Man in America” host Seth Holehouse. “Because legally, when you actually create a thing that manufactures a known pathogen, that is actually biological weapon manufacturing and the fact that your body is doing it means you’re a bioweapons factory.”

He pointed out that this “scamdemic” that paved the way for billions people to submit to the “experimental” vaccine mandate, would cause a fundamental existential problem with humanity. “That means that we have mRNA and we have DNA modifications that are going to not only impact this generation, but will also impact generations to come,” he said.

Martin related this as well to the 10-year National Science Foundation grant that gave rise to the company now known as Moderna. Through its COVID-19 vaccine partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna picked up nearly $1 billion in research aid. Then, it joined the list of pharmaceutical companies to take a supply order from the federal government.

“So anybody who wants to sit back and pretend like this is some sort of innocuous thing and it doesn’t have any long effects is absolutely ludicrous,” he said.

According to Martin, the best-case scenario would be the death or disability of 300 million vaccinated individuals. These many people would be incapacitated and would not be able to contribute to the economy, as per his risk management analysis.

The worst case, on the other hand, would be the death of more than three billion people.

“When you think about the combination of the death rates that are coming off of the injections and the fertility and miscarriage problems coming off of people exposed to the spike protein, this is a much more catastrophic event,” he noted.

Mandatory vaccination of cows a direct attack on food supply

Elsewhere in the show, Martin also discussed with Holehouse how the mRNA technology would be eventually injected into livestock per the Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA’s) most recent standards.

According to an InfoWars article back in October, dairy farmers in Australia are now being forced to inject the gene-altering vaccine that contains spike protein into their cattle so they could remain in business. And just like in humans, the experimental jabs are causing severe damage to the animals as 35 out of 200 cows died immediately after being administered the injection. (Related: Nearly 2 in 10 cows injected with mRNA vaccine DIE almost instantly.)

Analysts consider the mandatory vaccination of cows as a direct attack on the food supply. Many of them are asking if the milk and other by-products would contain the spike protein that actually harmed the animals.

This was in line with Martin’s analysis that allowing cows to be injected would just be the gate opening for injecting the “kill shots” into other forms of food supply.

“And not unlike what we’ve seen with now, over 50 percent of the population have gastrointestinal problems because of our gene therapies in plants and crops,” he stated, adding that in case this “dangerous move” pushes through, 70 to 80 percent of the world’s population is going to be directly impacted by the mRNA modified meats and foods in the next five years.

Watch the full episode of “Man in America” with Seth Holehouse and Dr. David Martin 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 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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. David Martin Blasts Health Authorities for Turning Roughly 4 Billion People into “Bioweapons Factories”

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.

***

Any potential benefits of the COVID-19 booster fail to outweigh the harms for young people ages 18-29, according to a peer-reviewed study published Monday in The BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics.

Researchers performed a risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis using data from Pfizer, Moderna and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They concluded that “booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm.”

More than 1,000 U.S. universities and colleges mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for residential students and more than 300 mandate the booster. Students who do not comply risk disenrollment.

The authors of the BMJ study concluded universities should not enforce booster vaccine mandates.

The researchers estimated that over a six-month period, 31,207 to 42,836 young adults ages 18-29, previously uninfected with COVID-19, would have to receive a third mRNA vaccine — a booster — in order to prevent a single hospitalization.

They also anticipated there would be at least 18.5 serious adverse events among the boosted group during that time, including in males, 1.5-4.6 booster-associated cases of myopericarditis, typically requiring hospitalization.

For 32 hospitalizations prevented, there would be 593.5 serious adverse events.

The researchers also anticipated that for every hospitalization averted there would be 1,430 to 4,626 cases of adverse events serious enough to stop people from carrying out regular daily activities.

Any vaccine mandate must be based on the public health principle of “proportionality” — the benefits must outweigh the relevant risks — the authors said. Until now, no risk-benefit assessment had been done.

In April, Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine advisory board, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine called on the CDC to conduct a risk-benefit analysis of vaccines for young people.

The CDC has not yet carried out such a study. In response, lead author Kevin Bardosh, Ph.D., explained on Twitter that their team of bioethicists, epidemiologists, legal scholars and clinicians “took up the challenge.”

Building on their empirical risk-benefit assessment, the authors argued mandates are “unethical” because they may result in a net expected harm to young people.

They added that the mandates aren’t based on updated, age-stratified risk-benefit assessment and that expected harms don’t outweigh the public health benefits “given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission.”

The mandates also violate the reciprocity principle, the authors said, because vaccine harms are not reliably compensated and vaccines may result in wider social harms, including social ostracization of unvaccinated people and loss of faith in public institutions.

The authors of The BMJ study concluded that:

“General mandates for young people ignore key data, entail wider social harms and/or abuses of power and are arguably undermining rather than contributing to social trust and solidarity.”

‘Mandates have caused backlash, resistance & anger’

Controversy surrounds vaccine mandates at colleges and universities, particularly for the boosters, with some arguing the mandates are based on politics, not medicine.

Last year an FDA advisory committee voted overwhelmingly against boosting the general population, including healthy young adults, but the Biden administration and the CDC overruled this recommendation.

“There’s actually a controversy, a fundamental controversy among experts in the world of vaccinology, about the appropriateness of boosters in younger people,” Bardosh told The National Desk.

“Most people have had COVID and that provides very durable protection that’s on par with two vaccines or even three vaccines if you haven’t actually had the virus,” he added.

In February, the CDC estimated that 63.7% of adults ages 18-49, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, had infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

This, combined with increasing evidence of serious adverse effects for young people from the vaccine, which CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Pfizer both acknowledged does not stop transmission, led many to question the mandates.

Bardosh tweeted:

Calls to end the mandates have grown. The study reported that more than 50 petitions were filed against the mandates, with substantial support. Petitions on Change.org call out institutions including Stanford, George Mason, UMass, University of Scranton, University of Notre Dame, University at Buffalo, SUNY Stony Brook, Siena College, Manhattanville College, Le Moyne College, Merrimack College, DePauw University, Virginia State University, Salve Regina University, Montclair State University, and California State University.

Some university professors have filed open letters to their institutions, including a letter from University of California administrators in late November demanding an end to the booster mandate.

Last week, Yale alumni, Rhodes Scholar and journalist Dr. Naomi Wolf spoke at a rally against Yale’s vaccine mandates. “Putting Yale on notice,” she said if Yale continues to mandate the COVID-19 boosters, it will:

“have blood on its hand for damaging young healthy women and men. mRNA Covid Vaccines do not stop transmission but do cause multiple irreversible harms, so they do not make any sense to mandate.

“Yale, DO NOT coerce minors and young adults into damaging their lives and submitting to an illegal dangerous, injection that violates the Geneva Convention, that violates the Nuremberg Code, that violates basic human rights …

“Coercion is not consent!”

This week Ohio Republican State Rep. Scott Lipps introduced a bill that would ban COVID-19 vaccine mandates at Ohio colleges and universities. Lipps told the House Higher Education and Career Readiness Committee:

“By requiring vaccines and discriminating against individuals who choose not to receive one, we are not only making very intimate health decisions for our students, but we are showing them that their education, choice, and autonomy are less meaningful and not of their own control.”

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that included rescinding the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the military. The Senate still has to pass the bill. President Biden, who said he opposed eliminating the mandate, has not said he will veto it.

Despite evolving data about young people’s low risk for severe COVID-19 and high risk of mRNA vaccine adverse effects, the CDC recently launched a new grant, offering $1.5 million in research funds for colleges to study how to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake among students.

They posted the funding opportunity in November and will accept grant applications until Jan. 13, 2023.

*

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 Merrimack College/flickr


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.

***

Russia has submitted a letter to the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly offering a detailed description of recurring Ukrainian strikes on civilian targets in Donbass. The document also heavily emphasizes the role the Western-supplied weapons have played in these atrocities.

This comes ahead of a Security Council meeting expected to be held on Friday about Moscow’s initiative to discuss Western arms shipments for Ukraine, First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Dmitry Polyansky said on Telegram. The letter was drafted by the Donetsk-based public organization ‘Fair Protection’, he added.

The NGO appeals to the UN “in connection with the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in Russia’s Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, which was caused by “the inhumane shelling of the civilian population” by Kiev’s forces.

The document offers a compilation of at least a dozen major Ukrainian attacks on Donetsk and neighboring towns between late May and early December. All the destruction and casualties outlined in the report are “mainly due to the supply of weapons to Ukraine from Western countries,” the letter claims.

According to the document, in the past two weeks alone, Kiev’s forces “daily, [and] with special ferocity attack chaotically crowded places of the central districts of Donetsk, Makeevka, Gorlovka, Yasinovataya and Elenovka.” As a result, 22 civilians have been killed and 83 wounded, the report claims.

Since February 17, Ukrainian armed forces have bombed 8,897 residential buildings and 2,113 civil infrastructure facilities in Donbass, including 106 medical and 424 educational institutions, the letter says.

“The obvious purpose of these inhumane acts by Kiev is to terrorize Donbass civilians and cause maximum damage to civilian infrastructure,” the document claimed.

Apart from other weaponry, the attacks used NATO-grade 155mm artillery and US-made HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), according to the report. The West has also provided Ukraine with Caesar and PzH 2000 self-propelled artillery systems that use shells of the same caliber.

Given the recurring bombardments, ‘Fair Protection’ appealed to the UN Security Council “to consider taking immediate measures” to prevent “these massive war crimes by the armed formations of Ukraine” as well as to put an end to supporting Ukraine with weapons used in attacks.

Russia has repeatedly warned the West against pumping Ukraine with weapons, arguing that this will only prolong the conflict and “bring more suffering” to the 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.

Featured image: Men study the damage to the Donetsk City Youth Center, which was damaged as a result of artillery shelling. ©  Sputnik / Sergey Averin

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.

***

Some 36 hours after the largest raid in the history of Germany, there are increasing indications that the investigators apparently did not find the expected arsenal of weapons. The Attorney General has offered no explanation.

The massive raid continues to make waves, especially after more than 3 000 police officers searched more than 150 properties across Germany on Wednesday. At least 27 people were arrested and another 25 are being investigated. They are said to have planned an extensive armed coup.

But what have the investigators actually found in this unprecedented large-scale operation?

According to the Federal Criminal Police Office, weapons were found in 50 of the 150 locations searched. That sounds like an operation with a high risk potential, but conveys very little. In the past, baseball bats, Swiss army knives and brass knuckles were also considered “weapons” in comparable large-scale operations.

It is still not clear if the authorities have found machine guns, grenades or actual firearms. It would presumably take more than a handful of kitchen knives to launch a so-called planned military coup.

Attorney General is unusually unresponsive

Berlin weekly Junge Freiheit therefore sent the Federal Public Prosecutor a comprehensive catalog of questions about what items had been confiscated, how many firearms were among them and which of them were illegal. In view of the extent of the raid and the importance that Nancy Faeser’s (SPD) interior ministry has attached to it, it can be ruled out that the authorities do not know this already.

However, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office refuses to respond to the JF request: A spokesman asked “for your understanding that we are currently not commenting on the evidence found during the search measures – which have not yet been completed”.

It is apparently completely unclear why questions are raised in this regard or when the public will be informed. As a reminder, Faeser spoke of an “abyss of terrorist threat” from the rightwing.

These are strong words in a country where the RAF swept through Germany in the 1970s and where an Islamist with a truck killed twelve people and injured dozens more while driving into pedestrians at a Berlin Christmas market in 2016. It would be in Faeser’s interest to back up her peculiar comments with facts as soon as possible.

Service weapons found

According to German daily Welt, so far “a firearm”, stun guns, prepper supplies and thousands of euros in cash have been found. That sounds like a rather meager yield, especially since “thousands of euros” distributed over 150 houses searched certainly is no indication of the formation of a terrorist group. Notably, the Ministry of the Interior, in view of the risk of power cuts, has itself called for cash to be kept at home at all times.

The same applies to the supposed “prepper supplies”. The government has recommended that citizens prepare themselves extensively for emergencies due to risks associated with German support for the war in Ukraine.

It is therefore not clear where crisis prevention ends and supposed “prepping” starts. Since some of the suspects are said to have gun ownership cards, the discovery of stun guns is not surprising in the least. As a reminder, no parliament can be stormed with the latter.

The representatives of the Interior Committee in the Bundestag were said to have been informed a little more extensively on Friday. According to media reports, two rifles, a pistol and swords, stun guns and flare guns were confiscated. Even service weapons from accused police officers were taken. It is not yet known whether there were gun permits for the various weapons.

More and more media outlets have doubts

Meanwhile, doubts are growing in the media as to whether the historical raid was really appropriate. The editor-in-chief of Cicero, Alexander Marguier, wrote on Wednesday: “Today I spoke to a number of colleagues from other media – including those media that were at the forefront of the exuberant coverage of the treasonous plan. In unison (and of course only in confidence) it was said: It all seems completely exaggerated to us, but when the competition reacts so dramatically, we can’t take a tepid approach.”

The reporter Anna Schneider spoke on Twitter of an “extremely peculiar hysteria and staging of this spectacle”.

The former head of the parliamentary office of the Bild newspaper, Ralf Schuler, wrote on the social network that he could only hope that those responsible for the “giant raid” would also provide evidence of the alleged coup attempt.

The fact that numerous media had apparently been informed about the raids for some time can be considered proven in view of the fact that they arrived with camera teams on site at the same moment as the police task forces.

‘Organized media support’

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) commented: “The historical large-scale operation and the accompanying media reporting raise questions.”

The author noted: “In political Berlin it has been heard for days that there is ‘a big thing in the bush’. Some media obviously knew about the impending raids and arrests, because many editorial offices published extensive reports on the breaking news, which was actually quite new, almost at the same time – as if after an embargo.”

She considered the “organized media support of the operations” to be fundamentally problematic. “It indicates that the matter wasn’t that dangerous after all. In the latter case, the impression could arise that this is primarily – or also – a political public relations exercise.”

A ‘show’

The domestic policy spokeswoman for the Left Party in the Bundestag, Martina Renner, criticized the handling of the Interior Ministry with the raid by 3000 police officers. The so-called “anti-terror operation” against 25 suspects around the 71-year-old Heinrich XIII living in Frankfurt am Main, Prince Reuss shouldn’t be a “show”, said the politician, who has been in the Bundestag since 2013.

*

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: Prepper gear for a coup? Photo credit Thomas Thompson

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 Biden administration on Friday unveiled another $275 million in weapons and defense equipment for Ukraine, which crucially will come via the presidential drawdown authority.

This means the Pentagon will pull arms from its own stockpiles to send to Ukraine to fulfill this package, despite defense officials having long been on record expressing deep concern over dwindling supplies necessary to protect and defend America.

A Defense Department press release indicated the package is to include “more ammunition for high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS), 80,000 155 mm artillery rounds, counter-unmanned aerial systems equipment, counter air defenses, additional High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, ambulances and medical equipment, 150 generators and other field equipment.”

The Ukrainian government and armed forces have been especially interested in procurement of more and longer-range anti-air defense systems. A recent report in The Wall Street Journal indicated the Pentagon had altered missile systems transferred to Ukraine to limit their range at 50 miles, in order to prevent the Ukrainians from targeting Russian territory.

The Friday DoD press release stated further, “This security assistance package will provide Ukraine with new capabilities to boost its air defenses in addition to providing critical equipment that Ukraine is using so effectively to defend itself on the battlefield.”

This brings US defense aid commitment since the war’s start to $19.3 billion, while the total tab at the American taxpayer’s expense for Ukraine has reached $20 billion since the start of the Biden administration (accounting additionally for aid sent just prior to the Russian invasion).

One “lesson” on display this week (and an obvious longtime trend) is that the deep state and military-industrial complex will always opt for more spending and less accountability – even at the expense of national defense readiness. On Thursday the House passed the massive, record-setting annual defense authorization bill, which will now see the $847 billion measure go to the Senate. Its mammoth size includes plans for much more Ukraine aid to come for the next fiscal year.

Just two days prior to the House approving the massive, record-setting NDAA, the Democrat-led House Foreign Affairs Committee voted down a bill to audit the tens of billions of dollars that Congress has approved to spend on the war in Ukraine. This despite high-level admissions that much of the weaponry sent to Ukraine has little to no oversight once it enters the country, thus it could end up in the hands of terrorists or criminal gangs outside the borders.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Defense Aid to Ukraine Tops $20 Billion as New $275M Package Announced

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.

***

As Atlanticists continue their commitment to a future shaped by energy scarcity, food scarcity, and war with their nuclear-capable neighbors, most states in the Persian Gulf that have long been trusted allies of the west have quickly come to realize that their interests are best assured by cooperating with Eurasian states like China and Russia who don’t think in those zero-sum terms.

With Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-awaited three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, a powerful shift by the Persian Gulf’s most strategic Arab state toward the multipolar alliance is being consolidated. Depending on which side of the ideological fence you sit on, this consolidation is being viewed closely with great hope or rage.

Xi’s visit stands in stark contrast to US President Joe Biden’s underwhelming ‘fist bump’ meeting this summer, which saw the self-professed leader of the free world falling asleep at a conference table and demanding more Saudi oil production while offering nothing durable in return.

In contrast, Xi’s arrival was greeted by a multi-cannon salute and Saudi jets painting the red and yellow colors of China’s flag in the skies over Riyadh. Beijing’s delegation of political and business elites, in the following days, will continue to meet with Saudi counterparts to strike long-term strategic deals in cultural, economic and scientific domains.

The visit will culminate in the first ever China-Arab Summit on Friday, 9 December, where Xi will meet with 30 heads of state. The Chinese foreign ministry described this as “an epoch-making milestone in the history of the development of China-Arab relations.”

While $30 billion in deals will be signed between Beijing and Riyadh, something much bigger is at play which too few have come to properly appreciate.

Riyadh’s steps toward the BRI since 2016

Xi Jinping last visited the kingdom in 2016, to advance Riyadh’s participation in China’s newly unveiled Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). A January 2016 policy report by the Chinese government to all Arab states reads:

“In the process of jointly pursuing the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road initiative, China is willing to coordinate development strategies with Arab states, put into play each other’s advantages and potentials, promote international production capacity cooperation and enhance cooperation in the fields of infrastructure construction, trade and investment facilitation, nuclear power, space satellite, new energy, agriculture and finance, so as to achieve common progress and development and benefit our two peoples.”

It was only three months later that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) inaugurated Saudi Vision 2030 which firmly outlined a new foreign policy agenda much more compatible with China’s “peaceful development” spirit.

After decades serving as an Atlanticist client state with no viable manufacturing prospects or autonomy beyond its role in supporting western-managed terror operations, Saudi Vision 2030 demonstrated the first signs of creative thinking in years, with an outlook toward a post-oil age.

On the energy front, China Energy Corp is building a sprawling 2.6 GW solar power station in Saudi Arabia, and Chinese nuclear developers are helping Riyadh develop its vast uranium resources while also mastering all branches of the nuclear fuel cycle.

In 2016, both nations signed an MoU to build fourth generation gas-cooled nuclear reactors. This follows the UAE’s recent leap into the 21st century with 2.7 GW of energy now constructed.

By early 2017, Riyadh had firmly bought its ticket on the New Silk Road with a $65 billion agreement integrating the Saudi Vision 2030 and BRI with a focus on petrochemical integration, engineering, refining, procurement, construction, carbon capture, and upstream/downstream development.

In the new post-American epoch, signs of this spirit of cooperation and bridge building have increasingly come to be felt, even while its effects have been forcibly restrained – as millions of Yemenis suffering under seven years of war can testify.

Unlike the Atlanticist fixation on Green New Deals which threaten to annihilate industry and farming, Riyadh’s post-oil outlook is much more synergistic with China’s idea of “sustained growth” that demands nuclear power, continued hydrocarbons, and robust agro-industrial development.

China’s trade with Saudi Arabia rose to $87.3 billion in 2021, which saw a 39 percent increase over 2020, while US-Saudi trade has collapsed from $76 billion in 2012 to only $29 billion in 2021.

Some of this Beijing-Riyadh trade may now be conducted in the Chinese Yuan, which will only undermine the US-Saudi relationship further.

In the first 10 months of 2022, China’s imports from Saudi Arabia were $57 billion and exports to the kingdom rose to $30.3 billion. China is additionally building 5G systems and cultivating a vast technology hub with a focus on selling electronic goods, all while helping Saudi Arabia build up an indigenous manufacturing sector.

A trend of Harmonization

Despite the continued chaos in Yemen, and economic devastation in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, Beijing’s subtle trend has nonetheless been one of healing with Saudi Arabia – and regional power Turkiye.

Saudi Arabia and Turkiye have often acted as rivals, and front two distinct foreign agendas with broad regional ambitions that overlap on many fronts. But despite this competitive past, higher necessities have induced both nations to harmonize their foreign policy outlooks with a new “look east” focus.

This was expressed during the Saudi crown prince’s visit to Ankara in June 2022 where the two heads of state called for “a new era of cooperation” with a focus on political, economic, military and cultural cooperation outlined in a joint communique.

Only days after MbS’s return from Turkiye, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi visited Jeddah to promote regional stability stating in a press release “they changed points of view on a number of issues that would contribute to supporting and strengthening regional security and stability.”

Iraq and Saudi Arabia had only re-established diplomatic ties in November 2020 due to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait 30 years earlier.

Between 2021-2022, Iraq had worked hard to host bilateral talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran with five rounds of talks held and Kadhimi stating his belief that “reconciliation is near.” Tehran-Riyadh diplomatic ties were cut in the aftermath of the 2016 execution of outspoken Saudi Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, prompting the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran by angry protestors.

In March 2022, MbS stated that Iran and Saudi Arabia “were neighbors forever” and stated that it is “better for both of us to working it out and to look for ways in which we can co-exist.”

By August 23, 2022, the UAE and Kuwait created a new milestone by restarting diplomatic relations with Iran. And although nearly every Persian Gulf state (plus Turkiye) had devoted years to supporting regime change in Syria, a new reality has imposed itself with all Arab parties veering toward the Chinese BRI model of regional integration and economic development.

The Key Role of Iran

Not only is Iran a key player in the Greater Eurasian Partnership serving as a strategic hub for the southern route of China’s BRI, but it is also a keystone of the Russia-Iran-India-led International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) which has become a major force synergizing with the BRI.

Iraq and Iran themselves are in the final stages of building the long-awaited Shalamcheh-Basra railway which will unite the two nations by rail for the first time in decades while also offering a potential extension to the already existent 1500 km railway through Iraq to Syria’s border.

The climate for cooperation was undoubtedly made possible by the presence of Chinese economic diplomacy which established a 25 year, $400 billion energy and security deal with Iran – but also Russia, whose similar but smaller $25 billion, twenty-year deal with Tehran may easily expand to $40 billion in Russian investments in Iran’s vast oil and natural gas fields in the coming years.

Saudi Arabia and Russia’s relationship with OPEC+ demonstrated its potency this summer when Riyadh won the ire of Washington by not only denying Biden’s requests for increased oil production, but cutting overall oil production and driving up global prices of oil. Saudi Arabia benefited by vastly increased imports of discounted Russian oil which were then sold to a desperate Europe.

Furthermore, Saudi plans to join the global hub of multipolarity itself, BRICS+ (alongside Turkiye, Egypt, and Algeria), in addition to recently becoming a full-fledged Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) dialogue partner, have placed its destiny ever deeper into the growing Multipolar Alliance.

With the increased potential for stability and harmonization of interests across various power blocs, an atmosphere more conducive to long-term economic investments is finally presenting itself to Chinese investors who had long looked upon conflict-ridden West Asia with justifiable trepidation.

In August 2022, the Saudi state oil company Aramco and China’s Petroleum and Chemical Corporation Ltd signed an MOU expanding on the aforementioned $65 billion cooperation deal of 2017, which involves the construction of Fujian Refining and Petrochemical Company (FREP) and Sinopec Senmei Petroleum Company (SSPC) in Fujian, China, and Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF) in Saudi Arabia.

Rail and interconnectivity

Perhaps most exciting are prospects for interconnectivity that play directly into the development corridors tied to the BRI. In Saudi Arabia, this train has moved steadily apace with the 450 km high speed Haramain Railway built by China Railway Construction Company connecting Mecca to Medina completed in 2018.

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Discussions are well underway to extend this line to the 2400 km North South Railway from Riyadh to Al Haditha completed in 2015. Meanwhile, 460 km of rail connecting all Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members is currently under construction, which is driving reforms in engineering, trade schools, and manufacturing hubs across the Arabian Peninsula.

In 2021, all GCC states gave their full support to a $200 billion Persian Gulf-Red Sea high speed railway dubbed “The Saudi Landbridge,” which also dovetails another $500 billion megaproject with vast Chinese investments, dubbed the futuristic NEOM mega-city on the Red Sea.

The Eurasianists stand to gain

It can only be hoped that this new chemistry of harmonization and win-win cooperation may soon provide a key to ending the fires of conflict in Yemen and other regional states.

Further, with Russia and China both helping to broker diplomatic backchannels, and with Iran playing an active role within this process, perhaps negotiations for reconstruction can begin in this war-torn zone of conflict.

It is not an extreme stretch of the imagination to see the new Persian Gulf-Red Sea rail project extending north into Egypt and south into Yemen.

Looking at a map of the region, one can imagine the reactivation of the “Bridge of the Horn of Africa” first unveiled in 2009, that would have extended rail across the 25 km Bab el Mandeb strait connecting pipelines and rail lines into Djibouti and East Africa, more broadly.

While a western-manipulated Arab Spring derailed that concept in 2011, and the Saudi war against Yemen drove it further under ground since 2015, perhaps this new spirit of inter-civilizational cooperation under a new economic architecture liberated from the Atlanticist-dominated dollar system may provide just what it takes to revive the idea once again.

*

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.

Matthew Ehret the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas trilogy. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide FoundationHe is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle


The Clash of the Two Americas

Vol. 1 & 2

by Matthew Ehret

In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.

Click here to order.

Important article by Michael Snyder

I suppose that we should have known that this was inevitable.  After establishing a precedent during the pandemic, now the elite apparently intend to impose lockdowns for other reasons as well. 

What I have detailed in this article is extremely alarming, and I hope that you will share it with everyone that you can.  Climate change lockdowns are here, and if people don’t respond very strongly to this it is likely that we will soon see similar measures implemented all over the western world.  The elite have always promised to do “whatever it takes” to fight climate change, and now we are finding out that they weren’t kidding.

Over in the UK, residents of Oxfordshire will now need a special permit to go from one “zone” of the city to another.  But even if you have the permit, you will still only be allowed to go from one zone to another “a maximum of 100 days per year”

Oxfordshire County Council yesterday approved plans to lock residents into one of six zones to ‘save the planet’ from global warming. The latest stage in the ’15 minute city’ agenda is to place electronic gates on key roads in and out of the city, confining residents to their own neighbourhoods.

Under the new scheme if residents want to leave their zone they will need permission from the Council who gets to decide who is worthy of freedom and who isn’t. Under the new scheme residents will be allowed to leave their zone a maximum of 100 days per year, but in order to even gain this every resident will have to register their car details with the council who will then track their movements via smart cameras round the city.

Are residents of Oxfordshire actually going to put up with this?

 

I never thought that we would actually see this sort of a thing get implemented in the western world, but here we are.

Of course there are a few people that are loudly objecting to this new plan, but one Oxfordshire official is pledging that “the controversial plan would go ahead whether people liked it or not”.

Ouch.

Meanwhile, France has decided to completely ban certain short-haul flights in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions…

France can now make you train rather than plane.

The European Commission (EC) has given French officials the green light to ban select domestic flights if the route in question can be completed via train in under two and a half hours.

The plan was first proposed in 2021 as a means to reduce carbon emissions. It originally called for a ban on eight short-haul flights, but the EC has only agreed to nix three that have quick, easy rail alternatives with several direct connections each way every day.

This is nuts.

But if the French public accepts these new restrictions, similar bans will inevitably be coming to other EU nations.

In the Netherlands, the government is actually going to be buying and shutting down approximately 3,000 farms in order to “reduce its nitrogen pollution”… 

The Dutch government is planning to purchase and then close down up to 3,000 farms in an effort to comply with a European Union environmental mandate to slash emissions, according to reports.

Farmers in the Netherlands will be offered “well over” the worth of their farm in an effort to take up the offer voluntarily, The Telegraph reported. The country is attempting to reduce its nitrogen pollution and will make the purchases if not enough farmers accept buyouts.

“There is no better offer coming,” Christianne van der Wal, nitrogen minister, told the Dutch parliament on Friday.

This is literally suicidal.

We are in the beginning stages of an unprecedented global food crisis, and the Dutch government has decided that now is the time to shut down thousands of farms?

I don’t even have the words to describe how foolish this is.

Speaking of suicide, Canada has found a way to get people to stop emitting any carbon at all once their usefulness is over.  Assisted suicide has become quite popular among the Canadians, and the number of people choosing that option keeps setting new records year after year

Last year, more than 10,000 people in Canada – astonishingly that’s over three percent of all deaths there – ended their lives via euthanasia, an increase of a third on the previous year. And it’s likely to keep rising: next year, Canada is set to allow people to die exclusively for mental health reasons.

If you are feeling depressed, Canada has a solution for that.

And if you are physically disabled, Canada has a solution for that too

Only last week, a jaw-dropping story emerged of how, five years into an infuriating battle to obtain a stairlift for her home, Canadian army veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier was offered an extraordinary alternative.

A Canadian official told her in 2019 that if her life was so difficult and she is ‘desperate’, the government would help her to kill herself. ‘I have a letter saying that if you’re so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAiD, medical assistance in dying,’ the paraplegic ex-army corporal testified to Canadian MPs.

“Medical assistance in dying” sounds so clinical.

But ultimately it is the greatest lockdown of all.

Because once you stop breathing, you won’t be able to commit any more “climate sins”.

All over the western world, authoritarianism is growing at a pace that is absolutely breathtaking.

If they can severely restrict travel and shut down farms today, what sort of tyranny will we see in the future?

Sadly, most people in the general population still do not understand what is happening.

Hopefully they will wake up before it is too late.

***

Our thanks to Michael Snyder. 

It is finally here! Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

 

***

 

Biden Regime Secretary of State Blinken has blocked negotiations between Russia and Ukraine by declaring it is US policy to drive Russia out of the reincorporated territories, including Crimea.

Biden’s announcement that the US will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear threats, and the knowledge that US nuclear weapons are deployed close to Russia are forcing Putin to abandon his no first use of nuclear weapons pledge.

In other words, unlike the 20th century Cold War, today there is a hair-trigger on nuclear war.

People who say nuclear war is impossible because there are no winners are out to lunch.

Wars are the product of humans, and humans are emotional and stupid. They make mistakes hand over fist. Error is the human way.

During the Cold War, US presidents assured the Kremlin that the US had no intention of initiating a war.  Today this assurance does not exist.

A Russian official has charged that the CIA and NSA were involved in the attack by drones deep inside Russia.

So here we see the total validity of my warnings that Putin’s Goody Two Shoes behavior invites more and more reckless provocations.  It is the inability of Putin to understand that Russia is at war with Ukraine and the US/NATO and that his “limited military operation” is nothing but his own delusion that is leading to nuclear war.

The United States government has now attacked Russia twice, not counting the attacks on the former Russian territory Russia has reincorporated

The attack on the Nord Stream pipelines and now drone attacks deep inside Russia are beyond Ukraine’s unassisted capability.

Washington feels comfortable in these reckless acts, because Washington has dismissed Putin’s declared, but never defended, “red lines” as meaningless.  

One wonders what is wrong with Putin and with the Kremlin in general that Russia forever complains but never acts. It should be self evident to the Kremlin that the longer the conflict and anti-Russian propaganda continue, the harder for the West to bow out.  

Prestige and predictions are at risk. a network of relationships develops.

Powerful interest groups such as armaments corporations acquire  stake in the conflict. With Ukraine facing defeat, there will be agitation for committing US and European soldiers.

At first the claim will be that only one division is needed to bolster Ukraine at this or that point.  Then to save that division another will be needed.  We saw it all in Vietnam.

Will Putin finally realize that Russia is at war when Moscow goes up in smoke?

That would be a bit too late.

Putin now admits that he waited too late to intervene in Ukraine, thus giving Washington time to build a Ukrainian military force.  So why wait too late again?  Can Putin learn from his mistakes?

My fear is that Putin is unrealistic and does not comprehend the likely consequences of his Goody Two Shoes behavior.

Putin’s restrained behavior gives the green light to greater provocations from Washington. These provocations are accelerating. Russia needs to use the force necessary to quickly end the war before it spins out of control.

Some years ago I wrote that Russia was disadvantaged, because Putin and the Russian liberals overestimated the humanity of the West.

Now Putin says that “we may have realized too late” that Russia was being deceived.

Nevertheless, he is still willing to negotiate and to be deceived again.

Russian liberals, alienated from the Soviet government, were easy victims of American propaganda presenting the US as a light unto the world.  This has had a disarming effect on the Russian ability to comprehend the West.

The Kremlin complains endlessly but never acts.  Russia complains to the UN Security Council that weapons supplied by the West are used to hit Russian schools and homes.  Why does Russia think the Security Council cares or will do anything about it?  The real question is why does Putin by pulling Russia’s punches permit Ukraine the latitude to use the “foreign-supplied” weapons?  The Russians are too diplomatic to say “West-supplied.” Russia says there will be legal consequences for the war crimes in the future.  Why not military consequences now?  Until Putin gets serious about the war, provocations will continue their escalation.

Another mistake Putin is making is not having a large professional standing army.

Notice how long it took for Russia to mobilize 300,000 soldiers for reinforcing the “limited” operation in Ukraine.

This should have taught the Kremlin something, but no, Putin announces no further need for more mobilization.

Consequently, if the Ukraine situation does spin out of control, Putin has nothing to fight with except nuclear weapons.

Perhaps Putin fears domestic opposition from Americanized Russian youth that the Kremlin permitted American-financed NGOs to indoctrinate unhampered for years, or perhaps the Kremlin is “saving money.”

How does Putin reconcile his statements that the West seeks the destruction of Russia with the absence of a large professional Russian army?  That leaves him with only the nuclear option.

Commentators scoffed at my warnings that Western intervention in Ukraine was cooking up nuclear war.

Now Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General says

“I fear that the war in Ukraine will spiral out of control and become a major war between NATO and Russia. If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong.” 

Amazing how long it took him to realize that.  With dumbshits like Stoltenberg and the American neoconservatives running the show, how can war be avoided?

To come back to my 8 year old question:

Why does Putin refuse to act and bring the conflict to a quick close before it widens out of control?

The “limited operation” has not limited anything.  It has expanded the war into attacks on Russia herself.  Foreign Minister Lavrov has admitted that Washington and NATO are “directly involved” in war against Russia.

How can the Kremlin make such an admission and do nothing about it?

How provocative will the next attack be?  Why not go ahead and win the war before the next provocation happens?

Yes, I would rather  Russia win the war than for the conflict to escalate into nuclear war.

Until recently, Ukraine was a part of Russia for centuries. During the 20th century Soviet leaders attached parts of Russia to their Ukrainian province.

These Russians were suffering under the neo-Nazi regime established by Washington in 2014, formed independent republics and asked to be returned to Russia.  This legitimate request is no basis for a nuclear war.

Washington and Europe need to consider that sooner or later Putin will have to act if US/NATO keep pushing him into a corner.

The harder and further Putin is pushed, the more limited his options.

As Stoltenberg now realizes, the situation can spin out of control.

Are American neoconservatives capable of this realization?  Does Putin realize the situation is spinning out of control because of his inaction?

I was involved in the 20th Century Cold War.  I helped President Reagan end it. The situation was never as dangerous as the current situation.  In those days there were still intelligent people in Washington.  Today there are none.

In those days no one doubted that the Soviets would act. Today Russia is seen as all talk and no action.  Consequently, push is coming to shove.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned economist and author, U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Image Professor Peter Dale Scott

This article was originally published in November 2011

“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”   — Senator Frank Church (1975)

I would like to discuss four major and badly understood events – the John F. Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11. I will analyze these deep events as part of a deeper political process linking them, a process that has helped build up repressive power in America at the expense of democracy.

In recent years I have been talking about a dark force behind these events — a force which, for want of a better term, I have clumsily called a “deep state,” operating both within and outside the public state. Today for the first time I want to identify part of that dark force, a part which has operated for five decades or more at the edge of the public state. This part of the dark force has a name not invented by me: the Doomsday Project, the Pentagon’s name for the emergency planning “to keep the White House and Pentagon running during and after a nuclear war or some other major crisis.”1

My point is a simple and important one: to show that the Doomsday Project of the 1980s, and the earlier emergency planning that developed into it, have played a role in the background of all the deep events I shall discuss.

More significantly, it has been a factor behind all three of the disturbing events that now threaten American democracy. The first of these three is what has been called the conversion of our economy into a plutonomy – with the increasing separation of America into two classes, into the haves and the have-nots, the one percent and the 99 percent. The second is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, which has become more and more routine and predictable, to wage or provoke wars in remote regions of the globe. It is clear that the operations of this American war machine have served the one percent.2

The third – my subject today — is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history of structural deep events: mysterious events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which violate the American social structure, have a major impact on American society, repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, and in many cases proceed from an unknown dark force.

There are any number of analyses of America’s current breakdown in terms of income and wealth disparity, also in terms of America’s increasing militarization and belligerency. What I shall do today is I think new: to argue that both the income disparity – or what has been called our plutonomy — and the belligerency have been fostered significantly by deep events.

We must understand that the income disparity of America’s current economy was not the result of market forces working independently of political intervention. In large part it was generated by a systematic and deliberate ongoing political process dating from the anxieties of the very wealthy in the 1960s and 1970s that control of the country was slipping away from them.

This was the time when future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, in a 1971 memorandum, warned that survival of the free enterprise system depended on “careful long-range planning and implementation” of a well-financed response to threats from the left.3 This warning was answered by a sustained right-wing offensive, coordinated by think tanks and funded lavishly by a small group of family foundations.4 We should recall that all this was in response to serious riots in Newark, Detroit, and elsewhere, and that increasing calls for a revolution were coming from the left (in Europe as well as America). I will focus today on the right’s response to that challenge, and on the role of deep events in enhancing their response.

What was important about the Powell memorandum was less the document itself than the fact that it was commissioned by the United States Chamber of Commerce, one of the most influential and least discussed lobbying groups in America. And the memorandum was only one of many signs of that developing class war in the 1970s, a larger process working both inside and outside government (including what Irving Kristol called an “intellectual counterrevolution”), which led directly to the so-called “Reagan Revolution.”5

It is clear that this larger process has been carried on for almost five decades, pumping billions of right-wing dollars into the American political process. What I wish to show today is that deep events have also been integral to this right-wing effort, from the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 to 9/11. 9/11 resulted in the implementation of “Continuity of Government” (COG) plans (which in the Oliver North Iran Contra Hearings of 1987 were called plans for “the suspension of the U.S. constitution”). These COG plans, building on earlier COG planning, had been carefully developed since 1982 in the so-called Doomsday Project, by a secret group appointed by Reagan. The group was composed of both public and private figures, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

I shall try to show today that in this respect 9/11 was only the culmination of a sequence of deep events reaching back to the Kennedy assassination if not earlier, and that the germs of the Doomsday Project can be detected behind all of them.

More specifically, I shall try to demonstrate about these deep events that

1) prior bureaucratic misbehavior by the CIA and similar agencies helped to make both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 happen;

2) the consequences of each deep event included an increase in top-down repressive power for these same agencies, at the expense of persuasive democratic power;6

3) there are symptomatic overlaps in personnel between the perpetrators of each of these deep events and the next;

4) one sees in each event the involvement of elements of the international drug traffic – suggesting that our current plutonomy is also to some degree a narconomy;

5) in the background of each event (and playing an increasingly important role) one sees the Doomsday Project — the alternative emergency planning structure with its own communications network, operating as a shadow network outside of regular government channels.

Bureaucratic Misbehavior as a Factor Contributing to both the JFK Assassination and 9/11

Both the JFK assassination and 9/11 were facilitated by the way the CIA and FBI manipulated their files about alleged perpetrators of each event (Lee Harvey Oswald in the case of what I shall call JFK, and the alleged hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in the case of 9/11). Part of this facilitation was the decision on October 9, 1963 of an FBI agent, Marvin Gheesling, to remove Oswald from the FBI watch list for surveillance. This was shortly after Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans in August and his reported travel to Mexico in September. Obviously these developments should normally have made Oswald a candidate for increased surveillance.7

This misbehavior is paradigmatic of the behavior of other agencies, especially the CIA, in both JFK and 9/11. Indeed Gheesling’s behavior fits very neatly with the CIA’s culpable withholding from the FBI, in the same month of October, information that Oswald had allegedly met in Mexico City with a suspected KGB agent, Valeriy Kostikov.8 This also helped ensure that Oswald would not be placed under surveillance. Indeed, former FBI Director Clarence Kelley in his memoir later complained that the CIA’s withholding of information was the major reason why Oswald was not put under surveillance on November 22, 1963.9

A more ominous provocation in 1963 was that of Army Intelligence, one unit of which in Dallas did not simply withhold information about Lee Harvey Oswald, but manufactured false intelligence that seemed designed to provoke retaliation against Cuba. I call such provocations phase-one stories, efforts to portray Oswald as a Communist conspirator (as opposed to the later phase-two stories, also false, portraying him as a disgruntled loner). A conspicuous example of such phase-one stories is a cable from the Fourth Army Command in Texas, reporting a tip from a Dallas policeman who was also in an Army Intelligence Reserve unit:

Assistant Chief Don Stringfellow, Intelligence Section, Dallas Police Department, notified 112th INTC [Intelligence] Group, this Headquarters, that information obtained from Oswald revealed he had defected to Cuba in 1959 and is a card-carrying member of Communist Party.”10

This cable was sent on November 22 directly to the U.S. Strike Command at Fort MacDill in Florida, the base poised for a possible retaliatory attack against Cuba.11

The cable was not an isolated aberration. It was supported by other false phase-one stories from Dallas about Oswald’s alleged rifle, and specifically by concatenated false translations of Marina Oswald’s testimony, to suggest that Oswald’s rifle in Dallas was one he had owned in Russia.12

These last false reports, apparently unrelated, can also be traced to officer Don Stringfellow’s 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.13 The interpreter who first supplied the false translation of Marina’s words, Ilya Mamantov, was selected by a Dallas oilman, Jack Crichton, and Deputy Dallas Police Chief George Lumpkin.14 Crichton and Lumpkin were also the Chief and the Deputy Chief of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.15 Crichton was also an extreme right-winger in the community of Dallas oilmen: he was a trustee of the H.L. Hunt Foundation, and a member of the American Friends of the Katanga Freedom Fighters, a group organized to oppose Kennedy’s policies in the Congo.

We have to keep in mind that some of the Joint Chiefs were furious that the 1962 Missile Crisis had not led to an invasion of Cuba, and that, under new JCS Chairman Maxwell Taylor, the Joint Chiefs, in May 1963, still believed “that US military intervention in Cuba is necessary.”16 This was six months after Kennedy, to resolve the Missile Crisis in October 1962, had given explicit (albeit highly qualified) assurances to Khrushchev, that the United States would not invade Cuba.17 This did not stop the J-5 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the JCS Directorate of Plans and Policy) from producing a menu of “fabricated provocations to justify military intervention.”18 (One proposed example of “fabricated provocations” envisioned “using MIG type aircraft flown by US pilots to … attack surface shipping or to attack US military.”)19

The deceptions about Oswald coming from Dallas were immediately post-assassination; thus they do not by themselves establish that the assassination itself was a provocation-deception plot. They do however reveal enough about the anti-Castro mindset of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit in Dallas to confirm that it was remarkably similar to that of the J-5 the preceding May – the mindset that produced a menu of “fabricated provocations” to attack Cuba. (According to Crichton there were “about a hundred men in [the 488th Reserve unit] and about forty or fifty of them were from the Dallas Police Department.”)20

It can hardly be accidental that we see this bureaucratic misbehavior from the FBI, CIA, and military, the three agencies with which Kennedy had had serious disagreements in his truncated presidency.21 Later in this paper I shall link Dallas oilman Jack Crichton to the 1963 emergency planning that became the Doomsday Project.

Analogous Bureaucratic Misbehavior in the Case of 9/11

Before 9/11 the CIA, in 2000-2001, again flagrantly withheld crucial evidence from the FBI: evidence that, if shared, would have led the FBI to surveil two of the alleged hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaz al-Hazmi. This sustained withholding of evidence provoked an FBI agent to predict accurately in August, 2001, that “someday someone will die.”22 After 9/11 another FBI agent said of the CIA: “They [CIA] didn’t want the bureau meddling in their business—that’s why they didn’t tell the FBI….  And that’s why September 11 happened. That is why it happened. . . . They have blood on their hands. They have three thousand deaths on their hands”23 The CIA’s withholding of relevant evidence before 9/11 (which it was required by its own rules to supply) was matched in this case by the NSA.24

Without these withholdings, in other words, neither the Kennedy assassination nor 9/11 could have developed in the manner in which they did. As I wrote in American War Machine, it would appear that

Oswald (and later al-Mihdhar) had at some prior point been selected as designated subjects for an operation. This would not initially have been for the commission of a crime against the American polity: on the contrary, steps were probably taken to prepare Oswald in connection with an operation against Cuba and al-Mihdhar [I suspect] for an operation against al-Qaeda. But as [exploitable] legends began to accumulate about both figures, it became possible for some witting people to subvert the sanctioned operation into a plan for murder that would later be covered up. At this point Oswald (and by analogy al-Mihdhar) was no longer just a designated subject but also now a designated culprit.25

Kevin Fenton, in his exhaustive book Disconnecting the Dots, has since reached the same conclusion with respect to 9/11: “that, by the summer of 2001, the purpose of withholding the information had become to allow the attacks to go forward.”26 He has also identified the person chiefly responsible for the misbehavior: CIA officer Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit. Blee, while Clinton was still president, had been one of a faction inside CIA pressing for a more belligerent CIA involvement in Afghanistan, in conjunction with the Afghan Northern Alliance.27 This then happened immediately after 9/11, and Blee himself was promoted, to become the new Chief of Station in Kabul.28

How CIA and NSA Withholding of Evidence in the Second Tonkin Gulf Incident, Contributed to War with North Vietnam

I will spare you the details of this withholding, which can be found in my American War Machine, pp. 200-02. But Tonkin Gulf is similar to the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, in that manipulation of evidence helped lead America – in this case very swiftly – into war.

Historians such as Fredrik Logevall have agreed with the assessment of former undersecretary of state George Ball that the US destroyer mission in the Tonkin Gulf, which resulted in the Tonkin Gulf incidents, “was primarily for provocation.”29 The planning for this provocative mission came from the J-5 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the same unit that in 1963 had reported concerning Cuba that, “the engineering of a series of provocations to justify military intervention is feasible.”30

The NSA and CIA suppression of the truth on August 4 was in the context of an existing high-level (but controversial) determination to attack North Vietnam. In this respect the Tonkin Gulf incident is remarkably similar to the suppression of the truth by CIA and NSA leading up to 9/11, when there was again a high-level (but controversial) determination to go to war.

Increases in Repressive Power After Deep Events

All of the deep events discussed above have contributed to the cumulative increase of Washington’s repressive powers. It is clear for example that the Warren Commission used the JFK assassination to increase CIA surveillance of Americans. As I wrote in Deep Politics, this was the result of

the Warren Commission’s controversial recommendations that the Secret Service’s domestic surveillance responsibilities be increased (WR 25-26). Somewhat illogically, the Warren Report concluded both that Oswald acted alone (WR 22), . . . and also that the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, should coordinate more closely the surveillance of organized groups (WR 463). In particular, it recommended that the Secret Service acquire a computerized data bank compatible with that already developed by the CIA.31

This pattern would repeat itself four years later with the assassination of Robert Kennedy. In the twenty-four hours between Bobby’s shooting and his death, Congress hurriedly passed a statute— drafted well in advance (like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 and the Patriot Act of 2001) — that still further augmented the secret powers given to the Secret Service in the name of protecting presidential candidates.32

This was not a trivial or benign change: from this swiftly considered act, passed under Johnson, flowed some of the worst excesses of the Nixon presidency.33

The change also contributed to the chaos and violence at the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968. Army intelligence surveillance agents, seconded to the Secret Service, were present both inside and outside the convention hall. Some of them equipped the so-called “Legion of Justice thugs whom the Chicago Red Squad turned loose on local anti-war groups.”34

In this way the extra secret powers conferred after the RFK assassination contributed to the disastrous turmoil in Chicago that effectively destroyed the old Democratic Party representing the labor unions: The three Democratic presidents elected since then have all been significantly more conservative.

Turning to Watergate and Iran-Contra, both of these events were on one level setbacks to the repressive powers exercised by Richard Nixon and the Reagan White House, not expansions of them. On the surface level this is true: both events resulted in legislative reforms that would appear to contradict my thesis of expanding repression.

We need to distinguish here, however, between the two years of the Watergate crisis, and the initial Watergate break-in. The Watergate crisis saw a president forced into resignation by a number of forces, involving both liberals and conservatives. But the key figures in the initial Watergate break-in itself – Hunt, McCord, G. Gordon Liddy, and their Cuban allies — were all far to the right of Nixon and Kissinger. And the end result of their machinations was not finalized until the so-called Halloween Massacre in 1975, when Kissinger was ousted as National Security Adviser and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller was notified he would be dropped from the 1976 Republican ticket. This major shake-up was engineered by two other right-wingers: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in the Gerald Ford White House.35

That day in 1975 saw the permanent defeat of the so-called Rockefeller or liberal faction within the Republican Party. It was replaced by the conservative Goldwater-Casey faction that would soon capture the nomination and the presidency for Ronald Reagan.36 This little-noticed palace coup, along with other related intrigues in the mid-1970s, helped achieve the conversion of America from a welfare capitalist economy, with gradual reductions in income and wealth disparity, into a financialized plutonomy where these trends were reversed.37

Again in Iran-Contra we see a deeper accumulation of repressive power under the surface of liberal reforms. At the time not only the press but even academics like myself celebrated the termination of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, and the victory there of the Contadora peace process. Not generally noticed at the time was the fact that, while Oliver North was removed from his role in the Doomsday Project, that project’s plans for surveillance, detention, and the militarization of the United States continued to grow after his departure.38

Also not noticed was the fact that the US Congress, while curtailing aid to one small drug-financed CIA proxy army, was simultaneously increasing US support to a much larger coalition of drug-financed proxy armies in Afghanistan.39 While Iran-Contra exposed the $32 million which Saudi Arabia, at the urging of CIA Director William Casey, had supplied to the Contras, not a word was whispered about the $500 million or more that the Saudis, again at the urging of Casey, had supplied in the same period to the Afghan mujahedin.40 In this sense the drama of Iran-Contra in Congress can be thought of as a misdirection play, directing public attention away from America’s much more intensive engagement in Afghanistan – a covert policy that has since evolved into America’s longest war.

We should expand our consciousness of Iran-Contra to think of it as Iran-Afghan-Contra. And if we do, we must acknowledge that in this complex and misunderstood deep event the CIA in Afghanistan exercised again the paramilitary capacity that Stansfield Turner had tried to terminate when he was CIA Director under Jimmy Carter. This was a victory in short for the faction of men like Richard Blee, the protector of al-Mihdhar as well as the advocate in 2000 for enhanced CIA paramilitary activity in Afghanistan.41

Personnel Overlaps Between the Successive Deep Events

I will never forget the New York Times front-page story on June 18, 1972, the day after the Watergate break-in. There were photographs of the Watergate burglars, including one of Frank Sturgis alias Fiorini, whom I had already written about two years earlier in my unpublished book manuscript, “The Dallas Conspiracy” about the JFK assassination.

Sturgis was no nonentity: a former contract employee of the CIA, he was also well connected to the mob-linked former casino owners in Havana.42 My early writings on the Kennedy case focused on the connections between Frank Sturgis and an anti-Castro Cuban training camp near New Orleans in which Oswald had shown an interest; also in Sturgis’ involvement in false “phase-one” stories portraying Oswald as part of a Communist Cuban conspiracy.43

In spreading these “phase-one” stories in 1963, Sturgis was joined by a number of Cubans who were part of the CIA-supported army in Central America of Manuel Artime. Artime’s base in Costa Rica was closed down in 1965, allegedly because of its involvement in drug trafficking.44 In the 1980s some of these Cuban exiles later became involved in drug-financed support activities for the Contras.45

The political mentor of Artime’s MRR movement was future Watergate plotter Howard Hunt; and Artime in 1972 would pay for the bail of the Cuban Watergate burglars. The drug money-launderer Ramón Milián Rodríguez has claimed to have delivered $200,000 in cash from Artime to pay off some of the Cuban Watergate burglars; later, in support of the Contras, he managed two Costa Rican seafood companies, Frigorificos and Ocean Hunter, that laundered drug money.46

It is alleged that Hunt and McCord had both been involved with Artime’s invasion plans in 1963.47 It was I believe no accident that the organization of Hunt’s protégé Artime became enmired in drug trafficking. Hunt, I have argued elsewhere, had been handling a U.S. drug connection since his 1950 post in Mexico City as OPC (Office of Policy Coordination) chief.48

But McCord not only had a past in the anti-Castro activities of 1963, he was also part of the nation’s emergency planning network that would later figure so prominently in the background of Iran-Contra and 9/11. McCord was a member of a small Air Force Reserve unit in Washington attached to the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP); assigned “to draw up lists of radicals and to develop contingency plans for censorship of the news media and U.S. mail in time of war.”49 His unit was part of the Wartime Information Security Program (WISP), which had responsibility for activating “contingency plans for imposing censorship on the press, the mails and all telecommunications (including government communications) [and] preventive detention of civilian ‘security risks,’ who would be placed in military ‘camps.’”50 In other words, these were the plans that became known in the 1980s as the Doomsday Project, the Continuity of Government planning on which Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld worked together for twenty years before 9/11.

A Common Denominator for Structural Deep Events: Project Doomsday and COG

McCord’s participation in an emergency planning system dealing with telecommunications suggests a common denominator in the backgrounds of almost all the deep events we are considering. Oliver North, the Reagan-Bush OEP point man on Iran-Contra planning, was also involved in such planning; and he had access to the nation’s top secret Doomsday communications network. North’s network, known as Flashboard,  “excluded other bureaucrats with opposing viewpoints…[and] had its own special worldwide antiterrorist computer network, … by which members could communicate exclusively with each other and their collaborators abroad.”51

Flashboard was used by North and his superiors for extremely sensitive operations which had to be concealed from other dubious or hostile parts of the Washington bureaucracy. These operations included the illegal shipments of arms to Iran, but also other activities, some still not known, perhaps even against Olof Palme’s Sweden.52 Flashboard, America’s emergency network in the 1980s, was the name in 1984-86 of the full-fledged Continuity of Government (COG) emergency network which was secretly planned for twenty years, at a cost of billions, by a team including Cheney and Rumsfeld. On 9/11 the same network was activated anew by the two men who had planned it for so many years.53

But this Doomsday planning can be traced back to 1963, when Jack Crichton, head of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit of Dallas, was part of it in his capacity as chief of intelligence for Dallas Civil Defense, which worked out of an underground Emergency Operating Center. As Russ Baker reports, “Because it was intended for ‘continuity of government’ operations during an attack, [the Center] was fully equipped with communications equipment.”54 A speech given at the dedication of the Center in 1961 supplies further details:

This Emergency Operating Center [in Dallas] is part of the National Plan to link Federal, State and local government agencies in a communications network from which rescue operations can be directed in time of local or National emergency. It is a vital part of the National, State, and local Operational Survival Plan.55

Crichton, in other words, was also part of what became known in the 1980s as the Doomsday Project, like James McCord, Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney after him. But in 1988 its aim was significantly enlarged: no longer to prepare for an atomic attack, but now to plan for the effective suspension of the American constitution in the face of any emergency.56 This change in 1988 allowed COG to be implemented in 2001. By this time the Doomsday Project had developed into what the Washington Post called “a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing ‘continuity of operations plans.’”57

It is clear that the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP, known from 1961-1968 as the Office of Emergency Planning) supplies a common denominator for key personnel in virtually all of the structural events discussed here. This is a long way from establishing that the OEP itself (in addition to the individuals discussed here) was involved in generating any of these events. But I believe that the alternative communications network housed first in the OEP (later part of Project 908) played a significant role in at least three of them: the JFK assassination, Iran-Contra, and 9/11.

This is easiest to show in the case of 9/11, where it is conceded that the Continuity of Government (COG) plans of the Doomsday Project were implemented by Cheney on 9/11, apparently before the last of the four hijacked planes had crashed.58 The 9/11 Commission could not locate records of the key decisions taken by Cheney on that day, suggesting that they may have taken place on the “secure phone “ in the tunnel leading to the presidential bunker – with such a high classification that the 9/11 Commission was never supplied the phone records.59 Presumably this was a COG phone.

It is not clear whether the “secure phone” in the White House tunnel belonged to the Secret Service or (as one might expect) was part of the secure network of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA). If the latter, we’d have a striking link between 9/11 and the JFK assassination. The WHCA boasts on its Web site that the agency was “a key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy.”60  However it is not clear for whom this documentation was conducted, for the WHCA logs and transcripts were in fact withheld from the Warren Commission.61

The Secret Service had installed a WHCA portable radio in the lead car of the presidential motorcade.62 This in turn was in contact by police radio with the pilot car ahead of it, carrying DPD Deputy Chief Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.63 Records of the WHCA communications from the motorcade never reached the Warren Commission, the House Committee on Assassinations, or the Assassination Records Review Board.64 Thus we cannot tell if they would explain some of the anomalies on the two channels of the Dallas Police Department. They might for example have thrown light upon the unsourced call on the Dallas Police

tapes for a suspect who had exactly the false height and weight recorded for Oswald in his FBI and CIA files.65

Today in 2011 we are still living under the State of Emergency proclaimed after 9/11 by President Bush. At least some COG provisions are still in effect, and were even augmented by Bush through Presidential Directive 51 of May 2007. Commenting on PD-51, the Washington Post reported at that time,

After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers [including Cheney] to rotate secretly to [COG] locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation’s survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing “continuity of operations plans.”66

Presumably this “shadow government” finalized such long-standing COG projects as warrantless surveillance, in part through the Patriot Act, whose controversial provisions were already being implemented by Cheney and others well before the Bill reached Congress on October 12.67 Other COG projects implemented included the militarization of domestic surveillance under NORTHCOM, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Project Endgame—a ten-year plan to expand detention camps at a cost of $400 million in fiscal year 2007 alone.68

I have, therefore, a recommendation for the Occupy movement, rightfully incensed as it is with the plutonomic excesses of Wall Street over the last three decades. It is to call for an end to the state of emergency, which has been in force since 2001, under which since 2008 a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team has been stationed permanently in the United States, in part to be ready “to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”69

Democracy-lovers must work to prevent the political crisis now developing in America from being resolved by military intervention.

Let me say in conclusion that for a half century American politics have been constrained and deformed by the unresolved matter of the Kennedy assassination. According to a memo of November 25 1963, from Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, it was important then to persuade the public that “Oswald was the assassin,” and that “he did not have confederates.”70 Obviously this priority became even more important after these questionable propositions were endorsed by the Warren Report, the U.S. establishment, and the mainstream press. It has remained an embarrassing priority ever since for all succeeding administrations, including the present one. There is for example an official in Obama’s State Department (Todd Leventhal), whose official job, until recently, included defense of the lone nut theory against so-called “conspiracy theorists”71

If Oswald was not a lone assassin, then it should not surprise us that there is continuity between those who falsified reports about Oswald in 1963, and those who distorted American politics in subsequent deep events beginning with Watergate. Since the deep event of 1963 the legitimacy of America’s political system has become vested in a lie — a lie which subsequent deep events have helped to protect.72

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War.

His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan.

His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here http://www.peterdalescott.net/q.html  

Peter Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

Notes

1 Tim Weiner, “The Pentagon’s Secret Stash,” Mother Jones Magazine Mar-Apr 1992, 26.

2 J.A. Myerson “War Is a Force That Pays the 1 Percent: Occupying American Foreign Policy,” Truthout, November 14, 2001, link. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 6, etc.

3 Scott, Road to 9/11, 22, 29, 98.

4 Scott, Road to 9/11, 22, 97.

5 Scott, Road to 9/11, 21, 51-52; Kristol as quoted in Lewis H. Lapham, “Tentacles of Rage: The Republican Propaganda Mill, a Brief History,” Harper’s Magazine, September 2004, 36.

6 E.g. Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine, 204-05.

7 Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy, 354.

8 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics II, 30-33; Scott, The War Conspiracy, 387; Scott, American War Machine, 152.

9 Clarence M. Kelley, Kelley: The Story of an FBI Director (Kansas City, MO:

Andrews, McMeel, and Parker, 1987), 268, quoted in Scott, The War Conspiracy (2008), 389.

10 Scott, Deep Politics, 275; Scott, Deep Politics II, 80, 129n; HSCA Critics Conference of 17 September 1977, 181, link. Stringfellow worked under Jack Revill in the Vice Squad of the DPD Special Services Bureau. As such he reported regularly to the FBI on such close Jack Ruby associates as James Herbert Dolan, a “known hoodlum and strong-arm man” on the FBI’s Top Criminal list for Dallas (Robert M. Barrett, FBI Report of February 2, 1963, NARA#124-90038-10026, 12 [Stringfellow]; cf. NARA#124-10212-10012, 4 [hoodlum], NARA#124-10195-10305, 9 [Top Criminal]). Cf. 14 WH 601-02 Ruby and Dolan]. Robert Barrett, who received Stringfellow’s reports to the FBI, had Ruby’s friend Dolan under close surveillance; he also took part in Oswald’s arrest at the Texas Theater, and claimed to have seen DPD Officer Westbrook with Oswald’s wallet at the site of the Tippit killing [Dale K. Myers, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit (Milford, MI: Oak Cliff Press, 1998), 287-90]).

11 It was sent for information to Washington, which received it three days later (Scott, Deep Politics, 275; Scott, Deep Politics II, 80, 129n; Scott, War Conspiracy, 382).

12 Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383. (Marina’s actual words, before mistranslation, were quite innocuous: “I cannot describe it [the gun] because a rifle to me like all rifles” (Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383; discussion in Scott, Deep Politics, 168-72).

13 Stringfellow himself was the source of one other piece of false intelligence on November 22: that Oswald had confessed to the murders of both the president and Officer Tippit (Dallas FBI File DL 89-43-2381C; Paul L. Hoch, “The Final Investigation? The HSCA and Army Intelligence,” The Third Decade, 1, 5 [July 1985], 3),

14 9 WH 106; Scott, Deep Politics, 275-76; Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 119-22.

15 Rodney P. Carlisle and Dominic J. Monetta, Brandy: Our Man in Acapulco (Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 1999), 128.

16 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1 May 1963, NARA #202-10002-10018, 12. Cf. pp. 15-16: “The United States should intervene militarily in Cuba and could (a) engineer provocative incidents ostensibly perpetrated by the Castro regime to serve as the cause of invasion…”

17 Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life, 568; James A. Nathan, The Cuban missile crisis revisited, 283; Waldron and Hartmann, Legacy of Secrecy, 9.

[18 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1 May 1963, NARA #202-10002-10018, 12.

19 “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” NARA #202-10002-10018, 20. I see nothing in this document indicating that the President should be notified that these “fabricated provocations” were false. On the contrary, the document called for “compartmentation of participants” to insure that the true facts were not leaked (“Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” NARA #202-10002-10018, 19).

20 Quoted in Baker, Family of Secrets, 122. One of these, DPD Detective John Adamcik, was a member of the party which retrieved a blanket said to have contained Oswald’s rifle; and which the Warren Commission used to link Oswald to the famous Mannlicher Carcano. Adamcik was later present at Mamantov’s interview of Marina about the rifle, and corroborated Mamantov’s account of it to the Warren Commission. There is reason to believe that Mamantov’s translation of Marina’s testimony was inaccurate (Scott, Deep Politics, 268-70, 276).

21 See James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).

22 9/11 Commission Report, 259, 271; Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower:

Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 352–54 (FBI agent).

23 James Bamford, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies (New York: Doubleday, 2004, 224. For a fuller account of the CIA’s withholding before 9/11, see Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots; Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski, “Insiders Voice Doubts about CIA’s 9/11 Story,” Salon, October 14, 2011, link.

24 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 7-12, 142-47, etc.

25 Scott, American War Machine, 203.

26 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 371, cf. 95. Quite independently, Richard Clarke, the former White House Counterterrorism Chief on 9/11, has charged that “There was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information” (Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski, “Insiders Voice Doubts about CIA’s 9/11 Story,” Salon, October 14, 2011).

27 Coll, 467-69.

28 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 107-08.

29 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, 201. Cf. Fredrik Logevall, Choosing War: The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 200, citing John Prados, The Hidden History of the Vietnam War (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995), 51.

30 “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 1, 1963, JCS 2304/189, NARA #202-10002-10018, link.

31 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 280.

32 Public Law 90-331 (18 U.S.C. 3056); discussion in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L.

Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Random

House, 1976), 443–46.

33 Army intelligence agents were seconded to the Secret Service, and at this time there was a great increase in their number. The Washington Star later explained that “the big build-up in [Army] information gathering…did not come until after the shooting of the Rev. Martin Luther King” (Washington Star, December 6, 1970; reprinted in Federal Data Banks Hearings, p. 1728).

34 George O’Toole, The Private Sector (New York: Norton, 1978), 145, quoted in

Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 278–79.

35 Scott, Road to 9/11, 52-53.

36 Scott, Road to 9/11, 53-54.

37 Scott, Road to 9/11, 50-64.

38 Peter Dale Scott, “Northwards without North,” Social Justice (Summer 1989). Revised as “North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project: The Original Congressional Cover Up of Continuity-of-Government Planning,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, February 21, 2011.

39 Scott, Road to 9/11, 132.

40 Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott, and Jane Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection, 13 (Contras); Richard Coll, Ghost Wars, 93-102 (mujahedin).

41 Richard Coll, Ghost Wars, 457-59, 534-36,

42 According to testimony from CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters, only “Hunt and McCord had ever been CIA full-time employees. The others [including Sturgis] were contract employees for a short duration or a longer duration” (Watergate Hearings, 3427). Cf. Marshall, Scott, and  Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection, 45 (casino owners).

43 Peter Dale Scott, “From Dallas to Watergate,” Ramparts, December 1973; reprinted in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond, 356, 363.

44 Peter Dale Scott, Crime and Cover-Up, 20.

45 Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 25-32, etc.

46 Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press  (London: Verso, 1998), 308-09; Martha Honey, Hostile Acts: U.S. Policy in Costa Rica in the 1980s (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1994), 368 (Frigorificos).

47 Tad Szulc, Compulsive Spy: The Strange Career of E. Howard Hunt (New York: Viking, 1974), 96-97.

48 Scott, American War Machine, 51-54. Hunt helped put together what became the drug-linked World Anti-Communist League. Artime’s Costa Rica base was on land whose owners were part of the local WACL chapter (Scott and Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 87, 220).

49 Woodward and Bernstein, All the President’s Men (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 23

50 Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda (New York: Random House, 1984), 16, citing Department of Defense Directive 5230.7, June 25, 1965, amended May 21, 1971.

51 Peter Dale Scott, “North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project: The Original Congressional Cover Up of Continuity-of-Government Planning,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, February 21, 2011. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, “Northwards Without North: Bush, Counterterrorism, and the Continuation of Secret Power.” Social Justice (San Francisco), XVI, 2 (Summer 1989), 1-30; Peter Dale Scott, “The Terrorism Task Force.” Covert Action Information Bulletin, 33 (Winter 1990), 12-15.

52 Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 140-41, 242 (Iran, etc.); Ola Tunander, The secret war against Sweden: US and British submarine deception in the 1980s, 309 (Sweden).

53 Scott, Road to 9/11, 183-87.

54 Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 121.

55 “Statement by Col. John W. Mayo, Chairman of City-County Civil Defense and Disaster Commission at the Dedication of the Emergency Operating Center at Fair Park,” May 24, 1961, link.

Six linear inches of Civil Defense Administrative Files are preserved in the Dallas Municipal Archives; a Finding Guide is viewable online here.  I hope an interested researcher may wish to consult them.

56 Scott, Road to 9/11, 183-87.

57 Washington Post, May 10, 2007.

58 9/11 Report, 38, 326, 555n9; Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, 224.

59 Scott, Road to 9/11, 226-30. A footnote in the 9/11 Report (555n9) says:

“The 9/11 crisis tested the U.S. government’s plans and capabilities to ensure the continuity of constitutional government and the continuity of government operations. We did not investigate this topic, except as needed to understand the activities and communications of key officials on 9/11. The Chair, Vice Chair, and senior staff were briefed on the general nature and implementation of these continuity plans.”

The other footnotes confirm that no information from COG files was used to document the 9/11 report. At a minimum these files might resolve the mystery of the missing phone call which simultaneously authorized COG, and (in consequence) determined that Bush should continue to stay out of Washington. I suspect that they might tell us a great deal more.

60 “White House Communications Agency,” Signal Corps Regimental History, link.

61 The Warren Commission staff knew of the WHCA presence in Dallas from the Secret Service (17 WH 598, 619, 630, etc.).

62 Statement of Secret Service official Winston Lawson, 17 WH 630 (WHCA radio).

63 Pamela McElwain-Brown, “The Presidential Lincoln Continental SS-100-X,” Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 3, Issue 2, 23, link (police radio); Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 272-75 (Lumpkin).

64 In the 1990s the WHCA supplied statements to the ARRB concerning communications between Dallas and Washington on November 22 (NARA #172-10001-10002 to NARA #172-10000-10008).  The Assassination Records Review Board also attempted to obtain from the WHCA the unedited original tapes of conversations from Air Force One on the return trip from Dallas, November 22, 1963. (Edited and condensed versions of these tapes had been available since the 1970s from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library in Austin, Texas.) The attempt was unsuccessful: “The Review Board’s repeated written and oral inquiries of the White House Communications Agency did not bear fruit. The WHCA could not produce any records that illuminated the provenance of the edited tapes.” See Assassinations Records Review Board: Final Report, chapter 6, Part 1, 116, link. In November 2011 AP reported that Gen. Chester Clifton’s personal copy of the Air Force One recordings was being put up for sale, with an asking price of $500,000 (AP, November 15, 2011, link).

65 See Scott, War Conspiracy (2008), 347-48, 385-87.

66 Washington Post, May 10, 2007.

67 Dick Cheney, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir (New York: Threshold Editions, 2011), 348: “One of the first efforts we undertook after 9/11 to strengthen the country’s defenses was securing passage of the Patriot Act, which the president signed into law on [sic] October 2001.” Cf. “The Patriot Act, which the president signed into law on October 2001,″ link; “Questions and Answers about Beginning of Domestic Spying Program; link.

68 Scott, Road to 9/11, 236-45; Peter Dale Scott, “Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society,” November 28, 2010, http:/1/japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3448.

69 “Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1,” Army Times, September 30, 2008, link. As part of the Army’s emergency plan GARDEN PLOT in the 1960s, there were until 1971 two brigades (4,800 troops) on permanent standby to quell unrest.

70 “Memorandum for Mr. Moyers” of November 25, 1963, FBI 62-109060, Section 18, p. 29, link. Cf. Nicholas Katzenbach, Some of It Was Fun (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008), 131-36.

71 Leventhal’s official title is (or was) “Chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team, U.S. Department of State” (link). In 2010 the U.S. State Department “launched an official bid to shoot down conspiracy theories….The “Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation” page… insists that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy alone, and that the Pentagon was not hit by a cruise missile on 9/11” Daily Record [Scotland], August 2, 2010, (link). The site still exists here, (“Conspiracy theories exist in the realm of myth, where imaginations run wild, fears trump facts, and evidence is ignored.”) The site still attacks 9/11 theories, but a page on the Kennedy assassination has been suspended (link). Cf. Robin Ramsay, “Government vs Conspiracy Theorists: The official war on “sick think,” Fortean Times, April 2010, link; “The State Department vs ‘Sick Think’

The JFK assassination, 9/11, and the Tory MP spiked with LSD,” Fortean Times, July 2010, link; William Kelly, “Todd Leventhal: The Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza,” CTKA, 2010, link.

72 For Nixon’s sensitivity concerning the Kennedy assassination, and the way this induced him into some of the intrigues known collectively as Watergate, see e.g. Scott, Hoch, and Stetler, The Assassinations, 374-78; Peter Dale Scott, Crime and Cover-up (Santa Barbara, CA: Open Archive Press, 1993), 33, 64-66.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article 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 October 11, 2022

***

On March 11, 2022, President Biden reassured the American public and the world that the United States and its NATO allies were not at war with Russia. “We will not fight a war with Russia in Ukraine,” said Biden. “Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent.”

It is widely acknowledged that U.S. and NATO officers are now fully involved in Ukraine’s operational war planning, aided by a broad range of U.S. intelligence gathering and analysis to exploit Russia’s military vulnerabilities, while Ukrainian forces are armed with U.S. and NATO weapons and trained up to the standards of other NATO countries.

On October 5, Nikolay Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, recognized that Russia is now fighting NATO in Ukraine. Meanwhile, President Putin has reminded the world that Russia has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them “when the very existence of the state is put under threat,” as Russia’s official nuclear weapons doctrine declared in June 2020.

It seems likely that, under that doctrine, Russia’s leaders would interpret losing a war to the United States and NATO on their own borders as meeting the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.

President Biden acknowledged on October 6 that Putin is “not joking” and that it would be difficult for Russia to use a “tactical” nuclear weapon “and not end up with Armageddon.” Biden assessed the danger of a full-scale nuclear war as higher than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Yet despite voicing the possibility of an existential threat to our survival, Biden was not issuing a public warning to the American people and the world, nor announcing any change in U.S. policy. Bizarrely, the president was instead discussing the prospect of nuclear war with his political party’s financial backers during an election fundraiser at the home of media mogul James Murdoch, with surprised corporate media reporters listening in.

In an NPR report about the danger of nuclear war over Ukraine, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons expert at Harvard University, estimated the chance of Russia using a nuclear weapon at 10 to 20 percent.

How have we gone from ruling out direct U.S. and NATO involvement in the war to U.S. involvement in all aspects of the war except for the bleeding and dying, with an estimated 10 to 20 percent chance of nuclear war? Bunn made that estimate shortly before the sabotage of the Kerch Strait Bridge to Crimea. What odds will he project a few months from now if both sides keep matching each other’s escalations with further escalation?

The irresolvable dilemma facing Western leaders is that this is a no-win situation. How can they militarily defeat Russia, when it possesses 6,000 nuclear warheads and its military doctrine explicitly states that it will use them before it will accept an existential military defeat?

And yet that is what the intensifying Western role in Ukraine now explicitly aims to achieve. This leaves U.S. and NATO policy, and thus our very existence, hanging by a thin thread: the hope that Putin is bluffing, despite explicit warnings that he is not. CIA Director William Burns, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and the director of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, have all warned that we should not take this danger lightly.

The danger of relentless escalation toward Armageddon is what both sides faced throughout the Cold War, which is why, after the wake-up call of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, dangerous brinkmanship gave way to a framework of nuclear arms control agreements and safeguard mechanisms to prevent proxy wars and military alliances spiraling into a world-ending nuclear war. Even with those safeguards in place, there were still many close calls – but without them, we would probably not be here to write about it.

Today, the situation is made more dangerous by the dismantling of those nuclear arms treaties and safeguards. It is also exacerbated, whether either side intends it or not, by the twelve-to-one imbalance between U.S. and Russian military spending, which leaves Russia with more limited conventional military options and a greater reliance on nuclear ones.

But there have always been alternatives to the relentless escalation of this war by both sides that has brought us to this pass. In April, Western officials took a fateful step when they persuaded President Zelenskyy to abandon Turkish- and Israeli-brokered negotiations with Russia that had produced a promising 15-point framework for a ceasefire, a Russian withdrawal and a neutral future for Ukraine.

That agreement would have required Western countries to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, but they refused to be party to it and instead promised Ukraine military support for a long war to try to decisively defeat Russia and recover all the territory Ukraine had lost since 2014.

U.S. Defense Secretary Austin declared that the West’s goal in the war was now to “weaken” Russia to the point that it would no longer have the military power to invade Ukraine again. But if the United States and its allies ever came close to achieving that goal, Russia would surely see such a total military defeat as putting “the very existence of the state under threat,” triggering the use of nuclear weapons under its publicly stated nuclear doctrine.

On May 23rd, the very day that Congress passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine, including $24 billion in new military spending, the contradictions and dangers of the new U.S.-NATO war policy in Ukraine finally spurred a critical response from The New York Times Editorial Board. A Times editorial, titled “The Ukraine War is Getting Complicated, and America Is Not Ready,” asked serious, probing questions about the new U.S. policy:

“Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war…? Without clarity on these questions, the White House…jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.”

The NYT editors went on to voice what many have thought but few have dared to say in such a politicized media environment, that the goal of recovering all the territory Ukraine has lost since 2014 is not realistic, and that a war to do so will “inflict untold destruction on Ukraine.” They called on Biden to talk honestly with Zelenskyy about “how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain” and the “limit to how far the United States and NATO will confront Russia.”

A week later, Biden replied to the Times in an Op-Ed titled “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.” He quoted Zelenskyy saying that the war “will only definitively end through diplomacy,” and wrote that the United States was sending weapons and ammunition so that Ukraine “can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

Biden wrote, “We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia.…the United States will not try to bring about [Putin’s] ouster in Moscow.” But he went on to pledge virtually unlimited U.S. support for Ukraine, and he did not answer the more difficult questions the Times asked about the U.S. endgame in Ukraine, the limits to U.S. involvement in the war or how much more devastation Ukraine could sustain.

As the war escalates and the danger of nuclear war increases, these questions remain unanswered. Calls for a speedy end to the war echoed around the UN General Assembly in New York in September, where 66 countries, representing most of the world’s population, urgently called on all sides to restart peace talks.

The greatest danger we face is that their calls will be ignored, and that the U.S. military-industrial complex’s overpaid minions will keep finding ways to incrementally turn up the pressure on Russia, calling its bluff and ignoring its “red lines” as they have since 1991, until they cross the most critical “red line” of all.

If the world’s calls for peace are heard before it is too late and we survive this crisis, the United States and Russia must renew their commitments to arms control and nuclear disarmament, and negotiate how they and other nuclear armed states will destroy their weapons of mass destruction and accede to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, so that we can finally lift this unthinkable and unacceptable danger hanging over our heads.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute

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

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

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

First published on November 30, 2022

***

That the economic sanctions resulting from the invasion of Ukraine affect Europe more than Russia is an annoying fact. But now a recent study by The Economist suggests that because of high fuel prices, the additional death toll in Europe in the coming winter could exceed the number of soldiers killed in combat in Ukraine so far. Food for thought. 

Before the war, Russia supplied about 40 percent of the European Union’s total gas consumption. In response to the war and in order to reduce dependence on Russian gas, Ukraine and Poland have shut down some pipelines bringing gas from Russia to Western Europe.

Countries, such as Finland, Bulgaria and Poland, that were unwilling to pay for their gas in rubles were disconnected by Russia. In addition, the maintenance required to keep the important Nord Stream I pipeline at full capacity was also compromised.

The sharply reduced gas supply, which for now cannot be fully offset by imports from elsewhere, has sent gas prices and indirectly electricity prices in Europe skyrocketing.

Due to the very mild autumn and because Europe has built up a large gas stock, market prices have meanwhile fallen compared to their peak in the summer. Yet the average price for gas today is almost two and a half times as much as in the period 2000-19. For electricity, it is almost double.

And now winter is upon us. It is a well-known phenomenon that more people die in winter, because of the cold, than in summer. In both Europe and the US, the number of deaths is about 20 per cent larger on average.

In the past, energy prices had little or no impact on excess mortality, because price fluctuations were very small. But now the cost increases are remarkably large and therefore a much greater impact is expected.

To calculate that impact, The Economist has built a statistical model. Besides the price of energy, there are three other factors that cause the number of extra deaths: the most important is how severe the winter is, in addition to that, the severity of the flu season (which is partly determined by how cold it is) and, finally, the compensation of the governments to households for absorbing the price hikes.

High fuel prices can exacerbate the effect of low temperatures on deaths by discouraging people from using heating and making people more exposed to cold. The same applies significantly to the government’s support to households meant to absorb the energy shock.

According to The Economist’s model, the “firm conclusion” is that the impact “will prove highly potent” and the death toll “could exceed the number of soldiers who have died so far in combat”.

If energy prices remain at current levels, about 147,000 more people in Europe would die in a typical winter than under a situation with “normal” prices. With mild temperatures – assuming the warmest winter of the past 20 years for each country – this figure drops to 79,000. In a severe winter, using the coldest winter for each country since 2000, the extra excess mortality rises to 185,000.

Supposedly, about 25,000 to 30,000 military personnel on both sides died in the war and another 6,500 Ukrainian civilians were killed. In total, this is less than in the best-case scenario from The Economist’s model.

The magazine notes that the effect can vary greatly from country to country. In countries that have set maximum prices or a maximum bill, there will be hardly any additional mortality or the mortality rate may even fall. This is the case for France, Britain, Spain and Austria, among others.

Much larger numbers of deaths are predicted in countries where government support is (for now) low, such as Italy, Estonia and Finland. The Economist does not explicitly mention Belgium, the country where I live. In terms of government support, the country is somewhere between the two extremes.

In the long run, the sanctions against Putin will most certainly weaken the Russian economy. But so far that is absolutely not the case. Expected revenues from Russian energy exports will be a third higher this year than last year.

It is mainly the European countries that are shooting themselves in the foot with the sanctions. Recent data shows that the Russian ‘current activity indicator’ (measure of economic activity) is higher than in other major European countries.

As a result of high energy prices, many companies may have to close or relocate to other regions, where energy costs are lower. Moreover, to combat inflation, which in turn is mainly due to high energy prices, we are almost certainly heading for a full-blown recession in Europe.

In addition to the economic self-flagellation, the toll in human lives in Europe will be extremely high. It may be time to think deeply about the sense or nonsense of the economic sanctions against Russia.

*

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.

Marc Vandepitte is a Belgian economist and philosopher. He writes on North-South relations, Latin America, Cuba, and China. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

The ‘Twitter Papers’ Reveal the Totalitarians Among Us

December 11th, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

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 6, 2022

***

I admit to being skeptical of Elon Musk as a free speech hero. He has moved from one US government-subsidized business to another on his path to becoming the world’s richest person. But there is no denying that his release of the “Twitter Papers” this past weekend, which blew the lid off government manipulation of social media, has been a huge victory for those of us who value the First Amendment.

The release, in coordination with truly independent journalist Matt Taibbi, demonstrated indisputably how politicians and representatives of “official Washington” pressed the teams that were then in charge of censorship at Twitter to remove Tweets and even ban accounts that were guilty of nothing beyond posting something the power-brokers did not want the general public to read. Let’s not forget that many of those demanding Twitter censorship were US government officials who had taken an oath to the US Constitution and its First Amendment.

It is important to understand that both US political parties were involved in pushing Twitter to censor information they didn’t like. There is plenty of corruption to go around. However, as the Twitter Papers demonstrated, vastly more Tweets were censored at the demand of Democratic Party politicians simply because Twitter employees on the censorship team were overwhelmingly Democratic Party supporters.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence released in this first installment of the Twitter Papers was a series of Tweets from the Biden 2020 campaign to its contact inside Twitter asking that the social media censor them. An internal Twitter document shows that the censor team “handled these,” meaning censored them.

Elon Musk himself openly stated before the release that, prior to his taking control of the company and engaging in mass firing, Twitter had been manipulating elections. So all those years we heard lies from the Washington elites that Russia was interfering in our elections when after all it was Twitter. Of course that raises the question about other large social media companies like Facebook. Will Mark Zuckerberg come clean about his own company’s election interference? Will anyone have the courage to demand that he do so?

How did they get away with all of this? As another truly independent journalist, Glenn Greenwald, pointed out on the Tucker Carlson show the night the “Twitter Papers” were released, while it was once controversial for the CIA to attempt to manipulate what Americans consume in the mainstream media, nowadays these outlets openly hire “former” US intelligence leaders and officers as news analysts. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and the rest of them all bring on “former” members of the intelligence services to tell Americans what to think. “Big tech censorship is a critical tool of the national security state,” Greenwald told Tucker. “Whenever anyone tries to do anything about it these former people from the CIA and the Pentagon and the rest jump up and say ‘we cannot allow you to restore free speech.’”

This is a corruption scandal so massive that it is almost guaranteed to never be properly investigated. Government itself is among the most guilty and we know “government commissions” are really about covering up rather than uncovering the crimes committed. But the truth is powerful. Some 58 years after the Warren Report whitewashed the assassination of President Kennedy, polls show that few Americans believe the “official” narrative.

Truth is powerful and we must always seek it. No amount of lies can withstand the disinfectant of truth. Thanks to Elon Musk for his courage and we encourage him to continue.

*

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 OneWorld

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

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

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

First published on November 16, 2022

***

For decades the world has been exposed to US-weaponized dollar-economics – US sanctions dished out left and right, whenever an autonomous, sovereign regime refuses to do Washington’s bidding.

These “sanctions” – as they call them benignly – were and are anything but benign. They bring untold human suffering and kill people. The most vulnerable, the infirm, elderly, children and women, are most affected by US sanctions.

For example, reports from UNICEF and different other sources, on children killed by sanctions in Iraq during the 1990s, put the death rate of children alone at between 500,000 and a million.

When then US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was later confronted by a journalist, questioning the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of children, Albright said “it was well worth it.”

You may not find this statement anymore on internet. It has been white-washed by “fact-checkers” or outright eliminated. This killer mindset – devoid of any humanitarian conscience – is still omni-prevalent in US foreign policy.

It is high time that this instrument of fraud and death, the US-dollar, and the self-declared US economic world dominance, is broken, once and for all.

“Sanctions” are economic measures that have so far, in the course of the last at least half a century, caused millions if not tens of millions of deaths around the world. It is difficult to assess an exact number, because sanctions come with many faces, and different and multiple consequences, but they always, hit the innocent and the weak, the poor and the sick.

Economic sanctions are possible only because the world has been – and to a large extent remains dependent on the US-dollar which still controls to about 60% the world’s trade and monetary transactions. This figure was close to 100% only some 25 years ago. So, the peace-thinking world – the East with its de-dollarization policy, is moving in the right direction.

Sanctions are a crime against humanity. But so far, nobody dares stopping the crime. With a few exceptions, the entire UN system dances to the tune of Washington. Why? – Many governments are afraid to speak up, precisely because of fear of sanctions. Others are coerced by Washington to follow the US sanction regimes applied to third countries, or else….

This has been slowly changing in the past ten years or so, and a major shift in scenery, in effective resistance, is imminent.

Several new Asian strategic and economic partnerships are being created and old ones enhanced.

A new one is, for example, the strategic partnership between Russia and Iran that emerged from a recent meeting of the two respective Security Officers, Russian Nikolai Patrushev and Iran’s Ali Shamkhani, who is the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Their vision goes way beyond agreements on a tight security alliance; it leads into a close cooperation within different Asian coalitions, covering defense strategies, trade, as well as economic development schemes. We may see more formations of such alliances as time progresses, where the West meets the East, in a quest of peaceful, mutually beneficial cohabitation.

Strategic and economic alliances include the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which Iran is already a member; the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU or EEU), fostering closer economic cooperation among Republics of the former Soviet Union – and more.

Eurasia is emerging as a fluid Continent, where resurgent great power politics by Russia and China are marginalizing Europe and the western imposed neoliberal order.

Brussels take note: The magnitude of Eurasia and her trade and economic potential, may be best summarized by her sheer size of 55 million square kilometers (km2), more than a third of the world’s land surface (149 million km2); and about 5.4 billion people, close to 70% of the world’s population.

Simultaneously, Moscow and Beijing are enhancing their Eurasian integration projects, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Funding for BRI and other inter-Asian projects may come from the Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) – delinked from the dollar.

To avoid the loss of Europe’s trade potential in Eurasia, the EU, led by Germany, might want to adjust their Asia strategy, by abandoning the Washington-vassal status and seeking peaceful, sanction-free alliances with Eurasian countries and trade organizations.

So far, under pressure from Washington, they are doing exactly the contrary.

Eurasia should be newly defined as a European approach seeking connectivity towards China and Russia. It is now the time – rather than following the dictate of Washington / NATO / WEF, and the huge capital power behind them. Vanguard, BlackRock, StateStreet, et al, are powerless if governments decide collectively and in unison not to follow their monetary, fiat-dollar-based blackmail.

The challenge is breaking lose from the Dark Cult Matrix, the fiat dollar-backed currency ties, and joining up with the dawning new eastern horizon, where, no doubt, a peaceful and prosperous future is grounded, with steadfast economy-backed currencies.

Even North Korea will defy the US sanctions regime, as her ties with China and Russia may guarantee food and health security. If the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) leader, Kim Jong-un, and the people of the DPRK, feel secure, there will be no nuclear threat emanating from North Korea.

President Trump demonstrated clearly that peaceful relations with Kim Jong-un are possible.

When all is said and done, US sanction warnings may be nothing more than propaganda, when confronted with an ethical European and Global South leadership, rather than the corrupted, WEF-educated and infiltrated Young Global Leadership.

Eurasia Economic Force

Asian within-trading is a new asset of the Eurasia economic force. Take the ASEAN-plus Five Free Trade Agreement – the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the largest ever Free Trade Agreement, negotiated during 8 years and having enteredinto effect on 1 January 2022.

The trade deal will encompass some 2.2 billion people, commanding some 30% of the world’s GDP. It is expected that the ASEAN-plus 5 free trade agreement may within 5 years control a fourth to a third of all world trade. See this and this.

China’s Belt and Road

The Chinese Belt and Road, initiated in 2013, consists already of over 130 member countries and 30-plus international organizations. It is an economic instrument of PEACEFUL cooperation and connection of the world’s sovereign nation-states, as a win-win approach to socioeconomic development and improved standards of living.

While the Washington-driven west shuns and despises the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), alias the New Silk Road, there are ever-more western countries, mostly in Europe and Latin America – let alone of the Global South – which see their future in an alliance with the east and connect to the BRI. They know that with the BRI there are a myriad of Asian economic and strategic associations protecting them from western sanctions – which are progressively fading into a cloudy sunset.

Asian economic blocks will become increasingly attractive to non-Asian nations, as the latter seek national securities, independent of the insecure and rapidly decaying US “shield”.

The shift from the western unipolar hegemony to an eastern multipolar world in which national sovereignties will be maintained, is already in full swing – and unstoppable.

Clearly, the coercive power of the west is abating. Last ditch efforts of wildly bashing Russia, China and eastern alliances in general, with propaganda and nuclear threats, are losing their punch.

In a multi-polar world with Asian economies and currencies being delinked from the US-dollar / Euro realm, as well as with a production and service apparatus ever-more independent form the west, takes the power out of the trillions of dollar-based assets that has been the command stick for the Washington / NATO force.

Manipulative instruments, such as fake diseases, i.e., covid and whatever other plandemics may be invented by the west, as well as false energy crises, manufactured inflation and food shortages, proxy wars, all fearmongering instruments to intimidate people with the goal to reducing populations – so that more resources will be available for a small elite that pretends to be in charge of the remaining useless eaters, albeit transformed into insect-eating transhumans.

Add to this the climate change narrative – also fear and guilt-mongering of a hapless misinformed western population – is losing its luster as more people are waking up to the fact that “climate change” is indeed man-made – not by CO2 emissions, but by geoengineering which has been going on for decades – and, as per a Pentagon paper, will allow the US to control the weather worldwide by 2025.

Owning the weather for military use

It is confirmed by a US Air Force document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

Screen Shot from the Report submitted to Air Force 2025

Weaponizing the weather can be a powerful killing machine. But the science to control the weather is no longer just a US-western monopoly; it may be used with equal force by the eastern powers. The geo-manipulation has proliferated in similar ways as did nuclear power some sixty years ago.

 The Spanish State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) has recently admitted that Spain is being sprayed with chemicals and heavy metals to influence the weather. They added that there are today at least 50 countries mastering the technology of geoengineering, meaning weather manipulation.

In the end, what counts is peaceful cohabitation of peoples, nations and societies; and a growing equilibrium of wellbeing throughout the world. It is all in reach and well under way. If based on truth, the People-Power is unbeatable.

*

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

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

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

Russia’s Winter Offensive and NATO’s Response

December 11th, 2022 by James W. McConnell

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.

Important article first published on November 30, 2022

***

Russia has decided to use the force necessary in Ukraine. The Russians have begun to destroy the Ukrainian lines of communications — the power grid, bridges, roads and railroads — without which Ukraine’s forces can’t be resupplied. Once the destruction of the lines of communication is completed, Russia’s army, particularly its extensive artillery, will present Ukrainian forces with the unpleasant reality that they are vastly outgunned and outnumbered.

How far west Russia chooses to advance is an open question but it must be assumed that in addition to the four oblasts already claimed — Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhya and Kherson — they’d want at least Mykolayiv and Odesa. With those two additional oblasts Russia would have absorbed most of the territory referred to as Novorossiya (New Russia) and deprive what’s left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea. In addition, Odesa shares a border with Transnistria, a breakaway Moldovan state which has hosted a small (two battalions) Russian Army presence since 1995.

Once the Russian advance begins, NATO can either accept Russia’s victory or engage the Russians with NATO forces. While a compelling case can be made that this conflict should have been seen as a local matter with an inevitable outcome, there’s little to suggest NATO’s leadership is capable of drawing that conclusion.

Unfortunately, Russia is a formidable adversary. Russia leads the world in air defense systems. NATO air forces would be engaging Russia’s S-400 air defense system. The S-400 is generally regarded as the world’s best widely fielded system. NATO member Turkey, for example, purchased the export version of the S-400 over NATO objections and in preference to the US Patriot system. The Russian S-500, an improvement of the S-400, has only recently entered production and is currently deployed at critical sites in Russia.

Russia has an estimated five year lead over the US in hypersonic missiles. The US has no defense against hypersonic missiles, which travel at hypersonic speed and can vary their flight paths. While the US is still conducting hypersonic tests, Russia has fielded four different hypersonic missiles within their existing missile system families — Kinzhal, Kalibr, Iskander and Tsirkon — so far. They also have a hypersonic glide vehicle, the Avengard.

Among the highest value military targets anywhere is a US Navy aircraft carrier. Should NATO enter a war with Russia, the US Navy’s carrier task force in the Ionian Sea is an obvious Russian target. How can it successfully defend itself against Russia’s simultaneous and probably massive hypersonic and conventional missile attack?

The inability of a carrier task force, the linchpin of the US Navy’s surface fleet, to survive a missile attack would have enormous implications and an immediate real-world impact.

Should the Russians sink a carrier task force, Taiwan would, for example, have to rethink any illusions it has about the US coming to its aid in a conflict with China and become far more amenable to a soft conquest similar to the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong.

The US Navy’s core missions are Power Projection, Sea Control, Strategic Deterrence and Strategic Sea Lift. While the US Navy has excellent submarines which play an important role, the Navy’s core missions require a powerful surface fleet, currently built around aircraft carriers.

Building capable and survivable modern warships is a complex and time consuming process. It’s what makes the Navy the most inelastic and capital intensive service. When it comes to defending the United States against a capable adversary, the Navy is also America’s most essential service.

The US currently has in excess of 850 bases around the world. Boots on the ground give the US influence of a sort the Navy can’t match and are essential to those who see the US as the world’s policeman. Inexcusably, the cost of these bases and the extended (and counterproductive) efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and now Ukraine, have come at the expense of the Navy and America’s defense.

While the US Navy is, by far, the world’s largest Navy in tonnage, China’s Navy has more ships and an ambitious naval construction program. China’s fleet is expected to continue its rapid growth while the US Navy is expected to shrink. Congress has begun to address the US Navy’s limited ship yard capacity but continues to limit the Navy’s budget in preference to the other services.

Funding and ship yard capacity aren’t the only serious problems which need to be addressed. The Buy American Act of 1933, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and the Berry Amendment — which has existed since the beginning of WWII and became permanent law in 1993 — are the principal military construction domestic content laws. While this is a complex legal subject constrained by a number of factors, waivers of critical components which permit the use of foreign components in domestic military construction are overdue for review, as America’s deindustrialization has greatly expanded the need for waivers. The case for additional waivers is also furthered by permitting consideration of the cost of components. All of this combines to leave military construction vulnerable in a future conflict. Congress should recognize the necessity of quickly moving to 100% US components and understand that initial costs incurred in domestic production are a one time cost. Military construction requirements can be an important catalyst for US manufacturing which, in a conflict, will prove essential.

For the last twenty years, the Russians and the Chinese have sought to strengthen their armed forces while America’s leadership has, on a bipartisan basis, been obsessed with the Middle East. As a result, a persuasive argument suggests the US is no longer unbeatable. Let’s hope it isn’t too late to change course.

*

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.

McConnell is a Colonel, US Army Reserves, Retired and graduate of the US Army War College. Formerly a Member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Le Catene del “Libero Mercato”

December 11th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

Il “libero mercato è il Verbo del pensiero globalista, il metro con cui si misura il grado di democrazia di un paese. Ma sono proprio i suoi predicatori a dimostrare quanto sia effettivamente libero. Emblematica la situazione dell’Italia. Mentre i prezzi di benzina e gasolio continuano a salire, provocando un aumento generalizzato del costo della vita pagato da tutti noi, NATO e UE ci proibiscono di acquistare il petrolio e i prodotti petroliferi libici che il Governo di Bengasi ci offre a prezzi stracciati. A Bengasi – mostra Michelangelo Severgnini nel documentario trasmesso da Byoblu il 12 dicembre – la benzina costa alla pompa 3 centesimi di euro al litro, circa 60 volte meno che in Italia.

Ci viene allo stesso tempo proibito di acquistare il gas che la Russia ci offre a prezzi estremamente inferiori rispetto a quelli che paghiamo in base alle quotazioni determinate dalla Borsa di Amsterdam, controllata da un potente gruppo finanziario statunitense. L’entrata in produzione di un nuovo giacimento di gas nella Siberia occidentale, con una capacità di oltre 320 miliardi di metri cubi di riserve recuperabili, porta a un livello record la produzione russa di gas.

La Russia esporta sempre più il suo gas a basso prezzo in Cina, India e altri paesi asiatici, data l’impossibilità di esportarlo in Europa. L’Unione Europea si sta muovendo per bloccare, dopo il sabotaggio del Nord Stream, l’unico gasdotto che ancora porta in Europa gas russo, fino in Ungheria e Austria, attraverso i Balcani. Nel vertice a Tirana tra la UE e Balcani Occidentali, la Ursula Von der Leyen ha dichiarato che i paesi di questa regione devono “uscire dal ricatto del gas di Putin”, ossia bloccare l’arrivo del gas russo in Europa attraverso i Balcani. “I Balcani Occidentali – ha ingiunto la Von der Leyen con tono minaccioso – “devono decidere da che parte stare: o con l’Unione Europea o con la Russia”. 

Manlio Dinucci

 

STASERA ALLE 20:30

SUL CANALE TV 262 BYOBLU

GRANDANGOLO

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.

***

 

 

 

 

 

Controversial New Documentary Reveals How A Teenage Army Physicist Named Ted Hall Saved The Russian People From A Treacherous U.S. Sneak Attack In 1950-51—And May Well Have Prevented A Global Nuclear Holocaust

The provocative documentary “A Compassionate Spy” tells the amazing but almost unknown story of a “near-genius” Harvard physics major, who at age 17, was selected to help develop an atom bomb before the Nazis did.

At 18, after graduating from Harvard, Ted was the youngest physicist to work on the atomic bombs at Los Alamos, New Mexico. He worked with uranium and the implosion system for the plutonium bomb used in the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, one month before that bomb type killed tens of thousands of civilians at Nagasaki.

Between the bombings at Hiroshima, August 6, and Nagasaki, August 9, somewhere around 200,000 civilians were killed, and a similar number died within some months afterwards from radiation sickness and injuries.

The film also illustrates why and how Ted shared his knowledge with the Soviets: to prevent a post-war U.S. perhaps heading toward fascism and/or world domination intoxicated by having a nuclear monopoly. He foresaw correctly because, by 1946, Wall Street bankers and weapons industrialists had convinced President Harry Truman, as the film shows, to produce 400 more atomic bombs to attack the Soviet Union in 1950-51, kill millions of its people, and take over its huge land and natural resources.

Nine months after beginning work on the bomb, in October 1944, Ted received leave to celebrate his 19th birthday in New York City. It was there that he made his first contact with a Russian, Sergei Kurnakov, who was a writer and an undercover intelligence officer. Ted gave detailed plans for the plutonium bomb to the Russians, sometimes using his enthusiastic friend Saville Sax, whom he roomed with at Harvard, as courier.

In transmitting communications, the two novice spies used Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. Ted’s Soviet spy code name was MLAD (youth).

Ted’s information corroborated what the Russians were receiving independently from scientist Klaus Fuchs. So critical was this to Soviet scientists’ ability to develop an atom bomb of their own that they made a virtual copy of the Nagasaki bomb, which was Ted’s specialty.

They exploded a test bomb on August 29, 1949, between two and five years earlier than otherwise expected by U.S. experts. According to the film, Truman was then forced to cancel his plans to pre-emptively invade Russia because retaliation by the Soviets would be likely.

(A similar dilemma was faced by President John F. Kennedy during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when Wall Street capitalists, the Pentagon and the CIA, which was created under Truman in 1947, saw a chance to annihilate Soviet peoples in several areas. The U.S. had sought to destroy the Soviet Union ever since the Wilson administration invaded Russia following the 1918 Bolsehvik revolution. When Kennedy chose another path, a naval blockade of Cuba, it worked. The missiles were withdrawn. Yet Kennedy had also signed his death warrant).

President Kennedy with U.S. Army officials during the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. (Credit: Corbis via Getty Images)

JFK with army officials during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. [Source: history.com]

This documentary, however, is not a political film per se. Central is the passionate, durable love story of Ted and his wife Joan, intermeshed with the history of the atomic bomb-making, its use and near-use.

Journalist and producer Dave Lindorff initiated the film idea in 2018. He, together with director Steve James and fellow producer Mark Mitten, started with three days of interviews with Joan, now 93. Joan also gave the team a video cassette which Ted, at his attorney’s suggestion, made for the “historical record.” Ted explains his reasoning for volunteering as a Soviet asset at Los Alamos.

Lindorff received the I.F. Stone “Izzy Award” for “Outstanding Independent Journalism” over his five-decade career and specifically for his exposé: “Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed,” The Nation, December 2018.

Steve James, two-time Academy Award nominee, was called “Chicago’s documentary poet laureate,” by The Hollywood Reporter in its September 2 review of the first film showing, which took place at the Venice Film Festival. One thousand viewers filling the Lido Hall rose to applaud for five minutes at its conclusion. A day later, the U.S. premiere was held in four full theaters at Colorado’s Telluride Film Festival.

So far, the film has been presented at six U.S. and European film festivals with at least two more to come. The funding comes from Participant Media, which is receiving bids for general distribution.

This reviewer, and my companion-photographer Jette Salling, saw the film in Cambridge where Joan and Ted lived from 1962 until his death in 1999. She still lives in the same house.

Although I am not a professional film reviewer, my six decades of peace and racial equality activism, and five decades of professional journalism lead me to the conclusion that A Compassionate Spy is both a horrendous and great film.

Horrendous because the United States of America, claiming to be the greatest democracy in the world, killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the Pacific War gratuitously.

Horrendous, all the more, because the U.S. elite and their politicians callously targeted millions more to die in the Soviet Union just as World War II was won, primarily by the USSR.

Greatest because of what two men, Ted, and Klaus Fuchs (see below) did to prevent the genocidal action. Ted Hall, and a handful of other scientists and couriers, deserve world-wide recognition by all humans who have any sense of brotherhood, sisterhood, solidarity and world peace.

One of the last public statements Ted Hall made just before he died was to encourage the next generations to demand government policies that do not put the world at such risk again.

Film Sequences

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\los alamos national laboratory.jpg

Main gate at Los Alamos. [Source: newmexico.org]

The gripping film flows smoothly, comprehensively. It opens in Cambridge, 1998, with witty, introspective and ever-feisty Joan interviewing Ted. When he arrived at remote Los Alamos, physicist Robert Oppenheimer was the scientist in charge, but the whole Manhattan Project was under the military with General Leslie Groves, a hawk, in charge. There were no sidewalks and one waded through the mud. Oppenheimer made a deal with Groves: You get your request to recruit younger scientists into the Army (less pay), and you get some streets and sidewalks paved.

Ted hated the Army and its uniform, but he had no choice.

Besides Joan, there are many interviews: her daughters; Sax’s children; the authors of Bombshell: The Secret Story of America’s Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy (1997) Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel; and co-author of To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans Daniel Axelrod.

Actors portray the loving couple and their friend Saville in several re-enactments narrated by Joan and Ted.

In one taped interview, Ted tells Joan: The Russians were warm, helpful, charming, even funny; not authoritarian at all. They agreed on how to conduct communication, which went on for nearly two years. One method was to make codes out of passages of Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass.

When the Los Alamos test occurred on July 16, 1945, the allied leaders were at the Potsdam Conference: Truman, Stalin and Churchill plus Clement Attlee, who had just overwhelmingly defeated Churchill for the prime minister post. They were planning how to divide Europe post-war, and Stalin reiterated to Truman the agreement with Roosevelt at Yalta that he would send Soviet troops to help defeat Japan. That was not what Truman wanted. He planned to use the atomic bomb, in large part to prevent the Russians from sharing victory.

Ted kept to his room, away from the cheering party-makers, glad to see that their bomb worked.

Manhattan Project Scientists

Many Manhattan Project scientists did not want the bomb to be dropped on Japan, especially on civilians. When Gen. Groves told a few top scientists about that plan, one of them, Joseph Rotblat, resigned. Albert Einstein and Danish physicist-philosopher Niels Bohr, who had received the 1922 Nobel Prize for Physics, wanted FDR to share bomb information with the Soviets.

Bohr had fled Denmark early in the war upon learning that occupying Nazi forces were about to arrest him. He became part of the British component in the Manhattan Project. Bohr encouraged both Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt to share knowledge. Churchill and Roosevelt viewed him as crazy or naïve. FDR had the FBI surveil him.

(Churchill, in fact, was soon to develop his own plan—Operation Unthinkable—formulated just after the war ended in Europe. He sought to use captured but rearmed German troops and British troops to invade Eastern Europe cities under Soviet control, and bomb three cities in the Soviet Union with Truman’s atomic bombs. Truman said they had to wait as he had only enough for Japan.)

A number of other nuclear scientists wrote a letter to President Truman asking him not to drop the bomb on civilians but to invite Japanese leaders to watch the upcoming test and thus encourage a surrender. They gave the letter to Gen. Groves, who decided not to forward it to the president.

Even the top, most hardened U.S. generals did not want the bomb dropped. They had just finished firebombing and devastating 64 cities. They knew first-hand that Japan was finished.

U.S. commander in Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, explained:

“Secretary of War Stimson visited my Secretary of War headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act—dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I [also] thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’ The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

Generals Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay had just bombed nearly all Japanese cities. They both held the same view as did Eisenhower. Furthermore, its use could lead to further nuclear proliferation. Nine countries now possess nuclear bombs, and some extremist terrorist jihad organizations seek them.

Despite all the protests and evidence that there was no need, Truman held fast. He claimed the bombing would save 20,000 American soldiers’ lives by not being killed in battle. We do not know how he came to that figure, but it was too low to justify the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by the two atomic bombs. Within a few years, propaganda had fabricated a figure of one million lives saved.

Truman and other U.S. chiefs learned from their main propagandist Nazi enemy, Joseph Goebbels.

To win over the masses: Tell a lie, a big lie, repeat it everywhere over and over. You win.

As Joan says in the film: The public is not taught to think. They form opinions as told by the mass media and at schools.

Film Sequences

The shattering information about U.S. cruelty toward Japanese civilians, and its ruthless genocidal plans to decimate millions of the 193 ethnic peoples in Russia, is supported in the film by archival newsreels and declassified information, including illustrated Pentagon plans of attack.

We see that major bank owners-CEOs and weapons industrialists urged Truman to take over the Soviet Union (15 republics), in order to engorge Wall Street profits.

In contrast, war-time government propaganda and media were quite favorably inclined toward the Soviets. They were suffering many millions of deaths, and after three years of German Nazi troops and Axis ally Finnish troops occupying much of Russia and Ukraine, the Soviets were turning the tide.

Besides many favorable newsreels, Mission to Moscow is a 1943 film based on a 1941 book by the former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E. Davies. The film used clips from that government-funded Hollywood film to chronicle Davies’ experiences in the USSR, in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt who wanted the book and film made. The book sold 700,000 copies and was translated into 13 languages.

Source: imdb.com

On February 14, 1945, just three months before the end of the war in Europe, Life magazine ran a favorable cover story about the Soviet Union, how well people lived, how much they suffered under the war and how brave they were. Within a year of Life magazine’s praise, several nuclear war operations were in the works, among them Operation Dropshot. It called for making 300-400 nuclear bombs, and 29,000 highly explosive bombs to be dropped on 200 targets in 100 cities of the Soviet Union.

The War Tally

The war caused between 70 and 85 million deaths (3% of the world’s population) and untold numbers of seriously wounded. Soviet Union and China citizens accounted for half of the deaths. The Chinese lost 15-20 million, ca. 3-4% of its population. The Soviets lost 16-18 million civilians, and 9-11 million soldiers ca. 14% of its population.

A similar number were seriously wounded. It lost 70,000 villages, 1,710 towns and 4.7 million houses. Of the 15 republics comprising the Soviet Union, Russia lost 12.7% of its population: 14 million, just over half were civilians. Ukraine lost nearly seven million, over five million civilians, a total of 16.3% of its population.

The U.S. lost just 12,000 civilians, 407,300 military, i.e., 1/3 of one percent of its population. England lost just 1% of its population.

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\Dropshot Bombing attack plan.png

Source: Image courtesy of A Compassionate Spy

In 2015, the National Security Archive, located at George Washington University, published declassified government files revealing that, in 1956, after trashing its earlier plans to drop atomic bombs on the Soviet Union, the U.S. planned to employ the new hydrogen bomb against the populations of the USSR, Eastern Europe and China.

“Plans to target people violated international legal norms. [The Air Force Strategic Air Command] wanted a 60 Megaton bomb, equivalent to over 4,000 Hiroshima atomic weapon. Strategic Air Command Declassifies Nuclear Target List from 1950s (gwu.edu)

What plans do they have today?

Meeting Joan

After the war, Ted enrolled in the University of Chicago to earn a doctorate in bio-physics. Then 20, he met Joan, 17, who was taking general courses at the university. Saville was also there. The three were good friends, and both men were initially in love with Joan.

One day, cuddling on a bare wooden floor, listening to Mozart, Ted asked Joan to marry him. Yes. Joan had otherwise thought she would wait to marry until she was 28 years old, but she could not resist Ted. However, he had one catch. He had to tell her what he had done with his Los Alamos work. Only Saville knew. She had to swear to secrecy. Joan listened and felt proud of him. (Her grandparents were Russian Jews.) Then, she recalled, they went back to what they were doing on the floor.

They got married, and joined the Communist Party. They viewed Chicago communists as good people, supporting Black people and unions, and world peace. Ted later pioneered important techniques in X-ray microanalysis, and kept in contact with the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) at their suggestion so they could get him out of the U.S. if he were to be in danger.

Ted and Joan were happy: Ted doing important work, getting graduate degrees, immersed in love.

Then the FBI came knocking.

Venona Project

The U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service Venona Project (precursor to the National Security Agency) decrypted some Soviet messages. In January 1950, they uncovered two cables, one identifying Hall and Sax, and another Klaus Fuchs, as Soviet spies.

Until the encrypted documents’ public release in early 1995, nearly all of the espionage regarding the Los Alamos nuclear program was attributed to Klaus Fuchs. He had been arrested in Britain by national intelligence MI5. He caved in during interrogation to protect his sister from arrest. Fuchs served nine years of a 14-year sentence, and went to live in East Germany.

Dave Lindorff, writing in The Nation magazine on January 4, 2022, obtained, on appeal in 2021 through the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI file for Ted’s 11-year older brother Edward Nathaniel Hall. The Air Force needed to protect Ed Hall so he could continue with his rocket-making science. He was the father of the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program and Minuteman missile.

This 130-page FBI file on Ed Hall included communications between FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and the head of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, a former FBI agent. The file shows how Carroll had blocked Hoover’s intended pursuit of Ted Hall and Saville Sax, fearing that Hall’s arrest would have, in the political climate of the McCarthy era, forced the Air Force to lose their top missile expert, Ted’s brother.

Instead, the Air Force promoted Ed Hall to Lt. Colonel and later Colonel, and stopped the FBI from arresting any of them. The FBI also needed to keep the Soviets in the dark about how the U.S. had broken the Soviet encrypted code. So, the FBI settled for a one-time interrogation of Ted and Saville, in March 1951, which the two stone-walled. They tried again with Ted a few days later, but he just walked away as agents looked on. The FBI then kept a rather low-key surveillance of Ted and Joan, and Saville, which included tapping the Halls’ telephone.

The day after Ted and Saville had been interrogated, and the Air Force had asked Ed what he knew about Ted, Ed came to visit Ted and Joan. A telephone “repairman” was “fixing” their phone, which was not broken. Once the “repairman” left, Ed detected the bug.

Ed and Ted simply shared that they had been questioned. Ed did not ask if Ted had done anything. Ed died in 2006, seven years after his brother. Ed had known since Bombshell was published what Ted had done, but he never criticized him for his action.

After Ted earned his Ph.D., he and Joan believed they had to flee the FBI. Ted left the University of Chicago’s Institute for Radiobiology and Biophysics to do research in biophysics at Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City.

Driving to a party of Ted’s work colleagues, they passed by Sing Sing Prison where, it turned out, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were to be executed that day. Julius had allegedly been involved in transmitting some Manhattan Project information to the Soviets, although he did not work there.

Ted later reflected with Joan that he felt remorseful. He should have turned himself in to save the Rosenbergs. Joan did not waver. The authorities, she told her husband, would simply have taken you away from me and the children, and continued the execution of Ethel and Julius. Ted knew his wife was right.

Ted and Joan had three daughters in the 1950s: Ruth, Debbie and Sara. Years later in Cambridge, Debbie died when a truck driver hit her bicycle. Joan, who became a poet and artist, read a poem in the film about Ted:

What If

What if I had died instead
and left you here behind
alone in your eighties?

How would you have lived
Would you have solved the riddle
of quantum mechanics?

Of course you’d have kept the audio
system in working order, go on
listening to your music.

Always a better housekeeper than I, you’d
have kept things much tidier. Though
come to think of it when I recall

the state of your study I sometimes wonder.
And would you have learnt to cook?
Frozen ready meals, I suppose.

But no doubt you’d have been invited
to dinner every day by one or another
of your women friends, who once

were my women friends. How would you
have remembered me? Anyway, soon
you’d surely have married again, one

of those women who loved you and envied me.
And for long years of Indian summer you
would drive along together and talk

in the car and in bed, my grey ashes melted
silently into the earth under that tall tree
in the park. Ah, now I’m jealous.

I want to be your second wife.

Their children were attending schools in Connecticut where they lived during the 1950s.

In 1962, Ted and Joan, to get away from the anti-Red hysteria in the U.S., decided to move to Cambridge University in England where Ted had been offered a research position by Vernon Ellis Cosslett’s electron microscopy research laboratory.

He created the Hall Method of continuum normalization, developed for the specific purpose of analyzing thin sections of biological tissue. Joan went to Cambridge College to learn the Russian language and its literature, and Italian. She soon taught Italian at the college, and substituted in Russian, for the next 20 years.

When some Venona files were released in 1995, Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel wrote Bombshell: The Secret Story of America’s Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy. This was the first public exposure about these whistle-blowing spies. Written in 1996, it was published in 1997.

The mass media encircled Ted and Joan’s house in Cambridge. He was maligned by the media as a traitor. Samuel T. Cohen, father of the neutron bomb, and a good friend of Ted’s at Los Alamos, turned on Ted and said in one film about atomic spying that he should be recalled to the Army, court-martialed and executed.

In a never-aired portion of the 1998 CNN-TV series “Cold War” used in the film A Compassionate Spy, Ted Hall stated:

“I decided to give atomic secrets to the Russians because it seemed to me that it was important that there should be no monopoly, which could turn one nation into a menace and turn it loose on the world as…Nazi Germany developed. There seemed to be only one answer to what one should do. The right thing to do was to act to break the American monopoly.”

Asked in another interview, what motivated him to share information, Ted pondered, and simply replied: “compassion.” Toward the end of A Compassionate Spy, Joan says, “the arms race was a farce at the expense of the American people and the world. First nuke strike was the U.S. goal.”

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\Tree where Teds ashes are.png

Ruth (l), Joan and Sara stand by Ted’s favorite tree—common beech—near their home. His ashes are buried by the tree, and Joan will lie beside him. [Source: Photo courtesy of Ron Jette Salling]

Steve James, in an interview in Cambridge following the British premiere of the film, said: “The threat of nuclear warfare remains. None of the nine nuclear powers signed the United Nations’ 2021 treaty to ban nuclear weapons.”

Only Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev had sought dismantling all nuclear weapons in the 1980s, and wanted to join NATO as partners, a proposal rejected by the Pentagon, CIA and President Ronald Reagan.

Steve James, Joan Hall, and Dave Lindorff talked at Joan’s home the day after the film showing. During end-of-film comments, Dave said Ted deserved the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. Coincidentally, photographer Jette Salling had earlier suggested that we present a Peace Lily to Joan at the film showing.

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\peace lily and remembering.jpg

Steve James, left, Joan Hall, center, and Dave Lindorff, right. [Source: Photo courtesy of Ron Ridenour]

Ted died November 1, 1999, of Parkinson’s disease and renal cancer. He likely acquired cancer precursor elements from the plutonium he had worked with to make the atom bomb.

*

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.

Ron Ridenour is a U.S.-born author and journalist, anti-war and civil rights activist since 1961. After joining the U.S. Air Force at 17, he saw the inner workings of U.S. imperialism first hand and resigned. In the 1980s and 1990’s he worked with the Nicaraguan government and on Cuban national media. Ron can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Poster for A Compassionate Spy showing photo of Ted Hall. K-19 was his badge number at Los Alamos. [Source: imdb.com]

Today December 10, 2022 we commemorate assassination of San Jose Mercury News journalist Gary Webb.

This article by the late award winning journalist Robert Parry was first published on December 13, 2004

***

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy — the Reagan-Bush administration’s protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb’s marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, died of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb’s death, American history owes him a huge debt.

Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb’s contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal — the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal — but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA’s inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush’s case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA’s confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA’s “executive summary,” which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz’s findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA’s report was published, though Webb’s initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times’ cover-up has now continued after Webb’s death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA’s inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb’s death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb’s allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up — even after the CIA’s had admitted the facts — the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media — the chief competitor to the mainstream press — isn’t going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth.”

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a “randy conspiracy buff.” [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Contra-Cocaine Chapter.”]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled “Dark Alliance,” editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News’ sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb’s series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb’s series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early “crack” production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb’s conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb’s series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But — in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years — the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb’s story.

The Post’s approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news — “even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers,” the Post reported — and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted — that it had not “played a major role in the emergence of crack.” A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to “conspiracy fears.”

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA’s internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA’s decade-old cover-up began to crack on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. “Oliver Stone, check your voice mail,” Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb’s suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North’s emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. “Few of the so-called leaders of the movement … really care about the boys in the field,” Owen wrote. “THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM.” [Capitalization in the original.]

Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series “fell short of my standards.” He criticized the stories because they “strongly implied CIA knowledge” of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. “We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship.”

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos’s retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News’ continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national “Ethics in Journalism Award” by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

Probes Advance

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA’s defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz’s findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz’s Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb’s allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA’s knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth”]

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA’s weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.

Justice Report

Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb’s series, Bromwich’s report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA’s Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb’s series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb’s series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses’s operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich wrote: “We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport.”

CIA’s Volume Two

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning disclosures in the CIA’s Volume Two..

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan’s National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.

Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz’s evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking

In Volume Two, the CIA’s defense against Webb’s series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA’s own analytical division.

Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN’s leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb’s series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz’s report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.

Priorities

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn’t want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had “one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. … [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program.” One CIA field officer explained, “The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war.”

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA’s analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that “only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking.” That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations — serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Though Hitz’s report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.

Two days after Hitz’s report was posted at the CIA’s Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb’s work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA’s Volume Two.

Consequences

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb’s career never recovered.

At Webb’s death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he — along with angry African-American citizens — forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.

But the real tragedy of Webb’s historic gift — and of his life cut short — is that because of the major news media’s callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It’s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’

Copyright © 2004 The Consortium for Independent Journalism

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Contra-Cocaine Drug Trade: America’s Debt to Journalist Gary Webb

Today we commemorate the death Gary Webb on December 10 2004. The following article by Kurt Nimmo was written on December 12 2004

***

Write about the CIA and drugs, end up dead. You may recall Webb’s 1996 series in the San Jose Mercury about how the CIA sold coke in Los Angeles and used the money to fund the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s. He received a Pulitzer Prize in 1990 for his coverage of the Loma Prieta earthquake. Even so, he had a difficult time keeping a job, mostly because editors and publishers are a timid lot these days.

“Webb was found Friday morning at his home in Sacramento County, dead of an apparent suicide. Moving-company workers called authorities after discovering a note posted on his front door that read, ‘Please do not enter. Call 911 and ask for an ambulance,’” reports the Associated Press . “Webb died of a gunshot wound to the head, according to the Sacramento County coroner’s office.”

A post on the Indybay forum notes:

Four Bush biographers, Mark Lombardi, J.H. Hatfield, Danny Casalaro, and now Gary Webb—all “suicide” victims. What are the odds all of these people actually committing suicide?

… Examining the male U.S. suicide rate for recent years, we can extrapolate a conservative estimate of 17 male suicides per 100,000 people, or 0.017%. The odds of 4 specific, male biographers committing suicide would be the 4th power of 17/100000, or 8.3521 4.913 x 10^-17… roughly 1 chance 10,000,000,000,000,000. About as good a definition of impossible as you can get. A person would stand a better chance of playing the Canadian lottery 6/49 exactly twice in one’s lifetime and winning ther grand jackpot BOTH TIMES! (That is, picking 6 numbers out of 49 possible numbers and matching all 6 numbers out of 6 random draws, on 2 separate occasions, and having only purchased two Canadian lottery tickets ever.) This calculation should be regarded as a conservative estimate: the actual odds against such a “coincidence” would be much greater. For example, if any of the biographers were female, the odds would be even greater.

Now that Bush has his “mandate,” we will probably see other critics fall victim to accidents and suicides.

Crime families usually deal harshly with their enemies—and so does the CIA.

Wie Mitmenschen verstandes- und gefühlsmäßig erreichen?

December 10th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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.

***

Immer wieder stehen mutige Aufklärer vor der Frage, wie sie ihre Mitmenschen intellektuell und gefühlsmäßig erreichen können, um ihnen die individuellen und kollektiven Vorurteile nehmen zu können. In einer Zeit, in der laut Präsident Putin die Gefahr eines Atomkrieges wächst (1) und die Selbstvernichtung der Menschheit möglich ist, bedürfen wir mehr denn je Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger, die uns sagen, was Wahrheit und was Lüge ist.

Erkenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie noch wenig gefragt

Die Antwort der humanistischen Psychologie auf die aufgeworfene Frage könnte lauten: Vor den Mitmenschen keine Angst haben, sich mit ihnen zusammenschließen, sich in sie einfühlen und ohne Zwang an sie appellieren.

Welche segensreichen Auswirkungen würde es für unsere Kinder und unser gesellschaftliches Zusammenleben haben, wenn wir die Angst vor den Mitmenschen aufgeben könnten und sie freilassen würden. Der Mensch ist ein harmloses Wesen und von Natur aus nicht böse, sondern gut (Alfred Adler). Die Menschen – auch die seelisch kranken – würden gesund werden. Einige reife Menschen haben das bereits im vorletzten Jahrhundert erahnt und die Tiefenpsychologie hat ihnen Recht gegeben (2).

Zwar wird die Aufklärung durch alternative Medien als wichtig empfunden, doch immer weniger Menschen sind in der Lage, die eigenen Lebensprobleme wegen des wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Niedergangs im Land zu lösen. Deshalb wird eine friedliche Welt erst bei einer tiefgreifenden Änderung der gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse entstehen. Für eine solche Welt setzen sich die Menschen aber erst dann in Bewegung, wenn sie in der Lage sind, ihre eigenen Probleme zu lösen. Die humanistische Psychologie und nicht-spekulative Psychotherapien bieten hierfür Erfolg versprechende Lösungen an.

In einer Zeit, in der die grenzenlose soziale Not und Ungerechtigkeit weiter aufrecht erhalten bleibt und sich sogar verstärken wird, weltbedrohende Kriege inszeniert und der gewaltige Fortschritt von Natur und Technik zum Nachteil und Schaden der Menschen missbraucht werden, sind wir erst recht auf die Einsichten der modernen tiefenpsychologischen Forschung angewiesen.

Doch das Wissen der psychologischen Fakultät ist bis heute noch wenig gefragt, da ihre Forschungsergebnisse relativ neu, wenig bekannt und schwer vermittelbar sind. Überdies werden sie von den Herrschenden nicht geschätzt oder sogar bekämpft. Erst wenn man erkannt hat, dass die Menschheit ohne Psychologie nicht vorankommt, wird man auf ihre Erkenntnisse dankbar zurückgreifen.

Ausgangspunkt für das anstehende Problem sollte nach Erkenntnissen der Tiefenpsychologie die Erziehung sein.

Kasernenhof in der Erziehung – „da liegt der Hund begraben“

Natürlich lehren die Eltern das Kind die Regeln des Anstands: Wie sich zum Beispiel bei Tisch gut benehmen und sich zuvor die Hände gründlich waschen. Aber die meisten Eltern nehmen sich nicht die Mühe, dem Kind zu vermitteln, „komm mit mir, schau, wie ich die Hände wasche!“ und erklären ihm, warum es die Hände waschen soll.

In der Regel ist in der Erziehung Zwang im Spiel: „Gehe zuerst die Hände waschen, bevor du zu Tisch kommst, sonst bekommst du eine Ohrfeige!“ Die ganze Haltung der Eltern ist der Zwang, die Gewalt, der Kasernenhof. Und das macht die Kinder krank, verdirbt bereits in jungen Jahren ihre Seele. Man muss die Menschen nicht zum Kooperieren zwingen, das Kind kooperiert ohne Zwang gerne. Es sind gerade Zwang und Gewalt, die beim Kind das natürliche Bedürfnis zur Mitarbeit ersticken.

Als Erwachsene finden sich diese Menschen dann nicht zurecht; sie können mit dem Partner nicht zusammenleben und die Ehen gehen zugrunde, weil sie verschiedene Meinungen über die Erziehung, über die anderen Menschen und die Welt haben.

Die Welt wird nur dann genesen und die Menschheit weiterkommen – das zeigt uns die Geschichte –, wenn sich die Menschen auf freiwilliger Basis assoziieren; wenn sie sich zusammensetzen und überlegen, wie sie die Probleme gemeinsam lösen können. Die Freiheit im Sinne der Freiwilligkeit ist ein wesentlicher Teil der sozialen Natur des Menschen. Missbraucht man sie, kann das schwerwiegende Konsequenzen haben.

Negativ-Beispiel der Russischen Revolution und des Umgangs mit religiösen Menschen

In Russland haben die Führer der Revolution die Menschen verkannt und Zwang angewandt; sie konnten die Menschen nicht frei lassen. Hätte Russland auch nur zum Teil den humanistischen Weg gewählt, wäre eventuell der Zweite Weltkrieg verhindert worden.

Die Menschen machen ja mit, sie wollen leben. In Russland haben sich die Menschen in der Oktoberrevolution befreit, aber anschließend sind sie nicht unabhängig geworden. In einer Gesellschaft, die sich in zwei Klassen organisiert – in eine, die regiert und in eine, die regiert wird – entwickeln sich zwei Ideologien, zwei Mentalitäten: die Mentalität der Sklaven / Knechte und die des Meisters. Ein solche Organisation verunmöglicht die Freiheit.

Und wie haben sich die Bolschewiki religiösen Menschen gegenüber verhalten? Sie haben die Kirchen zugesperrt und daraus Versammlungslokale gemacht. Damit verletzten sie die Menschen in ihrem tiefsten Inneren, in ihrem Glauben, in ihrer Abhängigkeit, in ihrer Angst. Wurde der russische Bauer dadurch bekehrt? Nein! Er war unwillkürlich dagegen. Heute weiß man, dass man den Menschen die Religion nicht nehmen muss: „Willst du beten?“ Ja, bete nur!“

An die Bauern hätte man appellieren können: „Was, du willst deinen Acker, dein Korn nicht versichern? Dein Nachbar bekommt einen möglichen Schaden von der Versicherung in Rubel ausbezahlt und kann sich neues Korn kaufen. Und du? Wer wird dir helfen, wenn du in der Gemeinschaft der Versicherten nicht mitmachst?“ Die russischen Revolutionäre waren eben nicht so weit, weil das Problem der Psychologie noch nicht bekannt war.

Menschen die Freiheit geben, damit sie gerne mitmachen und gesund werden

Mit Freiheit ist nicht die Freiheit der Herrschenden gemeint. Diese nehmen sich die „Freiheit“ heraus, den Menschen auszubeuten: Eine Clique von Kapitalisten beutet die anderen Menschen aus. Diese haben dann kein Lebensrecht, die Freiheit wird ihnen nur vorgespielt. Ein Knecht zum Beispiel muss sein ganzes Leben Knecht bleiben; er kann nicht heiraten, keine Familie gründen, weil er eben Knecht ist. Aber wenn der Präsident oder Führer ruft, dann kann er nicht NEIN sagen. Er könnte sagen: „Ich habe doch nichts, deshalb habe ich auch nichts zu verteidigen!“

„Freiheit“ ist in dem Sinn zu verstehen, dass die Menschen ihre Sicherheit haben und nicht betteln müssen. Stellen wir uns das Prinzip der Freiheit so vor, dass jeder arbeitende Mensch weiß, dass wenn er nicht mehr arbeiten kann, wenn er zum Beispiel erkrankt oder alt wird, dass er dann dieselbe Möglichkeit hat zu leben, dass er den Lohn, den er heute hat, weiter bekommt, dass er seine Wohnung und eventuell sein kleines Häuschen behalten und dass er weiter leben kann. Im kapitalistischen System haben die Menschen keine Ruhe und keine Sicherheit. Das würden sie in einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft haben.

Der Mensch ist doch ein harmloses Wesen – besonders derjenige in der heutigen kapitalistischen Gesellschaft. Er ist eingestellt auf das Arbeiten. Für ein bisschen Freiheit wäre er froh. Auch mit den Kranken würde man fertig werden, sie würden nicht stören. Wenn seelisch kranke Menschen eine andere Gesellschaft vorfinden, eine andere Situation, eine andere Moralauffassung, dann werden sie gesund und verhalten sich anders.

Lassen wir die Menschen frei, verlangen wir nichts von ihnen. Sie werden das gerne aufnehmen. Assoziieren wir uns mit den Menschen, glauben wir an sie, fühlen wir uns ein in sie und appellieren an sie. Der andere will so gut leben wie ich. Dann wird er mitmachen. Wir müssen keine Angst haben vor unseren Mitmenschen.

An die Menschen appellieren und sie frei entscheiden lassen

Die Menschen werden von allen Institutionen – angefangen von der Erziehung zuhause und in der Schule bis hinauf zur Rekrutenschule – so programmiert, dass sie in der Regel alles machen, was die Machthaber von ihnen verlangen. Das ist Programm, das ist bewusst. Und in dieser Stimmung werden sie ein Leben lang gehalten – sowohl sogenannte Intellektuelle als auch die Masse der Bevölkerung. So liefern sich heute junge wie auch ältere „Handy-Süchtige“ ganz und gar den Wertvorstellungen großer, übelmeinender Tech-Giganten aus.

Doch gleichzeitig kann man feststellen, dass sowohl Jugendliche als auch ältere Mitbürger gerne bereit sind, sich im Kaffee oder Bus auf ein persönliches Gespräch von Angesicht zu Angesicht einzulassen, wenn man nicht als Besserwisser auftritt, der schon weiß, wenn man sich wirklich für ihre persönlichen Probleme interessiert und eine Ausdrucksweise wählt, die jeder verstehen kann. Dabei ist es ganz wichtig, nur an sie zu appellieren und sie frei entscheiden zu lassen.

Auch in schriftlichen Äußerungen geht es darum, selbst schwierigste tiefenpsychologische Erkenntnisse und Befunde in einer Sprache zu vermitteln, die nicht allein dem Fachmann, sondern auch dem interessierten Laien verständlich sein kann.

Es bleibt die zu Beginn gestellte Frage, wie man möglichst viele Mitmenschen intellektuell und emotional erreichen dann, damit sie eines Tages gegen das Unrecht aufstehen – gedanklich, gefühlsmäßig und politisch.

Basis- oder Graswurzel-Bewegungen entstehen aus der Basis der Bevölkerung

Die interessante Idee der Gründung einer Graswurzel-Bewegung wurde während einer internationalen Webinar-Debatte von einem Freund geäußert.

Eine Graswurzel-Bewegung ist laut „Wikipedia“ eine gesellschaftliche Initiative oder Bewegung, die aus der Basis der Bevölkerung entsteht:

„Graswurzelbewegungen haben typischerweise basisdemokratische und konsensorientierte Strukturen, da sie den gewöhnlichen lobbyistischen oder parteipolitischen Meinungsbildungsprozess umgehen wollen. Der Wandel soll durch engagierte Artikulation von Bürgerinteressen (…) erreicht werden. (…).

Das Ziel von einigen Graswurzel-Initiativen ist es, gesellschaftliche Alternativen zum Bestehenden aufzubauen, bis hin zum revolutionären Anspruch, grundsätzliche Systemveränderungen zu bewirken. Dabei wird sowohl auf den langfristigen Aufbau von Netzwerken gesetzt als auch auf spektakuläre Einzelaktionen, die in erster Linie Öffentlichkeit schaffen sollen. Nicht selten bedient man sich hierbei der Methoden des zivilen Ungehorsams.“ (3)

*

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 Lehrer (Rektor), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Viele Jahrzehnte unterrichtete er und bildete Fachkräfte fort. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und zum Frieden. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Global Research.

Noten

1. https://de.rt.com/kurzclips/video/156642-putin-bedrohung-atomkrieges-waechst-russischer/

2. http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=28358; https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-with-whom-can-we-reorganise-society/5800536

3. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graswurzelbewegung

Das Bild stammt von The Free Farm

 

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wie Mitmenschen verstandes- und gefühlsmäßig erreichen?

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 peaceful dissolution of the USSR according to the agreement between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in 1988 in Reykjavik brought a new dimension of global geopolitics in which up to 2008 Russia, as a legal successor state of the USSR, was playing an inferior role in global politics when an American Neocon concept of Pax Americana became the fundamental framework in international relations. Therefore, for instance, Boris Yeltsin’s Russia capitulated in 1995 to the American design regarding an outcome of the USA/EU policy of the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia in November 1995 (the Dayton Agreement) followed by even worse political capitulation in the case of Washington’s Kosovo policy that became ultimately implemented in June 1999 (the Kumanovo Agreement).

Russia in the 1990s was geopolitically humiliated by the USA and its West European clients to such an extent that we can call the period of Boris Yeltsin’s servile policy toward the West a Dark Time in the history of Russian international relations when the main losers became the Serbs who were and still are (since February 2022 together with Russians) extremely demonized by the Western mass-media and academic institutions.[i]

An ideological-political background of Boris Yeltsin’s foreign policy of Russia was Atlanticism – an orientation in foreign policy that stresses the fundamental need to cooperate (at any price) with the West, especially in the area of the politics and economy. In other words, the integration with the West and its economic-political standards became for Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, governed by the Russian Liberals, an order of the day. This trend in Russia’s foreign policy in the 1990s had its roots in the 19th century’s geopolitical and cultural orientation of Russian society by the so-called Russian „Westerners“ who became the opponents to the Russian „Slavophiles“ for whom the ultimate aim of the Russian foreign policy was to create a Pan-Slavonic Commonwealth with the leadership of Russia.

The actual outcome of the Russian Liberals „in the years following Yeltsin’s election was catastrophic as, for instance, Russia’s industrial production dropped by nearly 40%, over 80% of Russians experienced a reduction in their living standards, health care disintegrated, life expectancy fell along with the birth rate, and morale overall collapsed“.[ii]

However, the political influence of the Russian Liberals became drastically weakened by Vladimir Putin’s taking power in Russia from 2000 onward and especially from 2004. A new global course of Russia’s foreign policy after 2004 became directed toward the creation of a multipolar world but not a unipolar Pax Americana one as the American Neocons wanted. Therefore, the Caucasus, Ukraine, and Syria became currently directly exposed to the Russian-American geopolitical struggle while Kosovo is up to now still left to the exclusive US sphere of interest.

Nevertheless, after 2022−? the special military operation in East Ukraine (Russia Minor) by Moscow, it can be expected in the nearest future that post-Yeltsin’s Russia will take decisive geopolitical steps concerning Kosovo as from the year 2000 the Russian exterior policy is constantly becoming more and more imbued with the neo-Slavophile geopolitical orientation advocated by Aleksandar Solzhenitsyn (1918−2008) as a part of a more global Eurasian geopolitical course of the post-Yeltsin’s Russian Federation supported by many Russian Slavophile intellectuals like a philosopher Aleksandar Dugin.

Ivan L. Solonevich, probably, gave one of the best explanations of Russia’s geopolitical situation and peculiarity in comparison to those of the USA and the UK focusing his research on the comparative analysis of geography, climate, and levels of individual freedoms between these countries:

„The American liberties, as well as American wealth are determined by American geography. Our [Russia’s] freedom and our wealth are determined by Russian geography. Thus, we’ll never have the same freedoms as the British and Americans have, because their security is guaranteed by the seas and oceans, but ours could only be guaranteed by military conscription“.[iii]

*

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. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] As a very example of such moral, cultural and civilizational demonization of the Serbs by the Western academic writings is [John Hagan, Justice in the Balkans: Prosecuting War Crimes in The Hague Tribunal, Chicago−London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003].

[ii] John Baylis, Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Second edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 124.

[iii] Irina Isakova, Russian Governance in the Twenty-First Century: Geo-strategy, Geopolitics and Governance, London−New York: Frank Cass, 2005, 12.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 1991 Dissolution of the USSR: Will Russia Take Decisive Geopolitical Steps Regarding Kosovo?
  • 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.

***

Research by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that 35% of European citizens want the Ukraine war to end as soon as possible.  Their EU government has called on citizens to give up their lifestyle of abundance in order finance Kiev’s war. Europeans are bearing the cost of economic sanctions on Russia and spending more on weapons and aid sent to Ukraine while Europeans are suffering from the economy and home heating costs.

Washington knows that Kiev can be unpredictable, as evidenced by the Ukrainian missile shot into Poland in November which took the lives of two Polish civilians and threatened an escalation based on Ukrainian mistakes.

US General Mark Milley suggested that the coming cold winter weather could present an opportunity for peace negotiations to begin.  Milley admitted that Kiev has very little chance of removing Russian troops from occupied areas.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscource interviewed international Human Rights Lawyer Arnaud Develay to understand the current issues surrounding the Ukraine conflict.

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  On Tuesday, Ukraine used drones to attack locations far inside Russia. In your opinion, what will be the Russian response?

Arnaud Develay (AD):  The Russian Federation has been quite clear in at least one of the objectives it pursues in Ukraine: The Special Military Operation aims to disable the war-making (demilitarization) abilities of the Kiev regime. This means that Moscow will not only continue to take out the constant supplies of weaponry supplied by NATO to Zelensky and his cronies, it will likely continue its campaign of raids on Ukraine’s energy infrastructures in order to coax Kiev to come to the realization that the only way out of the conflict is to call for negotiations. It is a delicate balancing act in that while Russia certainly cannot afford to leave attacks on its own territory unanswered, it must retaliate in a way that does not lead to an escalation and thus avoid an open conflict with the United States which would be catastrophic. It bears noting that some reports indicate that the next deliveries of HIMARS will feature built-in mechanisms preventing Kiev from using the systems into Russian territories. (The latest attacks were carried out through the use of drones). Make no mistake about it: Washington is perfectly aware that Kiev is an unpredictable player (as seen recently in the matter of the “Russian missile” in Poland).

SS:  Recently the EU announced a $ 60 cap on Russian oil. In your opinion, how will this effect Russia and will they respond?

AD:  Russia has been quite clear on this issue: it will not accept to supply oil under these conditions under any circumstances. Moscow will thus merely reorient its oil deliveries to customers which are willing to pay market prices. The reasoning is that if the EU is bent on (completely) downgrade its own economies (and thus pay a higher price to intermediaries), it should be forced to confront the absurdity of its own decisions rather than expect Moscow to comply with what amounts to (yet) another unacceptable injunction.

SS:  Are there any divisions among the EU and NATO member states concerning the support for the war in Ukraine?

AD:  While on the whole the political class in the Collective West appears to display unity of the Ukraine issue, Hungary and Serbia have taken great heed in not angering Moscow. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called for the organization of a referendum in his country on the issue of imposing sanctions on Russia. Brussels was quick to sanction Budapest in withdrawing 7.5 billion euros in EU funds to Hungary albeit on the pretext of completely unrelated matters. The divide in Europe has more to do with the ever-increasing schism between the people and its leaders. Unqualified assistance to the criminal regime in Kiev has led to EU government calling for their citizens to accept “the end of abundance”. Energy prices have led to the closure of hundreds of thousands of small and medium size businesses. Inflation has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, leaving many to struggle making ends meet. Trudeau, Sunak and Macron have not only branded protesters a threat to democracy; these DAVOS puppets have expressed a willingness to use emergency legislation in order to justify the unleashing of massive police/military powers to crush dissent.

SS:   The Azov Battalion professes Nazi political ideology. In your opinion, do the Neo-Nazis in Ukraine have wide support from the Ukrainian population?

AD:  It is difficult to estimate the level of support for these militias in the Ukrainian population. Obviously, one would assume that support for the “integral nationalism” ideology is strongest in the Western part of the country. One must however get a grasp of the (often Western-financed) indoctrination programs imposed in Ukraine these past 9 years. Former SBU operative Vassili PROSOROV recently produced a documentary (Culturocide) in which he describes in particularly vivid details how Ukraine’s school manuals depict an altogether completely alternate version of history. Infamous figures such as Stepan BANDERAS are glorified while the rejection of anything related to Russia and its culture is turned into a central fixture of Ukraine’s “identity”.

SS:  The special operation in Ukraine is now in the 10th month. In your opinion, as winter grows colder, will there be any peace negotiations?

Obviously, the answer to this question resides in Washington. There are currently reports of divergent tactical opinions as to what should be expected in the coming months. Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Milley is said to favor a “freeze” of the current front lines until Spring while neocons in the State Department call for continued military operations. Obviously, the Ukraine conflict is as much an informational war as it is a military conflict per se. Neocons (for ideological reasons) and those who benefit from the gigantic grift going on in Ukraine needs to prevent “Ukraine fatigue” from settling in. (There are reports that the incoming Republican House of Representatives will demand an audit on the distribution circuits of the various aid packages). In order to do that, they need to keep feeding the propaganda machine with Kiev’s “military exploits”. At the end of the day, war is a serious matter and conditions on the ground are the ultimate arbiter. While the mainstream media continues its hysterical rant about Russian “retreat”, Moscow is methodically reorganizing its military for what could be a massive Winter offensive.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Ukraine conflict is an informational war as well as a military conflict.” Interview with Arnaud Develay
  • Tags:

Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?

December 10th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra shares data on the Big Pharma takeover of modern medicine

Due to Big Pharma’s stronghold over health care, we’re facing what Malhotra calls a pandemic of misinformed doctors and unwittingly harmed and misinformed patients

Drug companies and medical device manufacturers aren’t in business to make patients happy; they’re beholden to their shareholders, for whom they have a financial obligation to produce a profit

Malhotra shares data showing why he believes COVID-19 shots should be suspended

Malhotra notes that political involvement and policy advocacy, combined with social participation and social movements, can together lead to the creation of relevant knowledge to protect public health

*

Fear inhibits your ability to think critically. This is a central point made by cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra in his London presentation November 14, 2022. Many people were gripped by unprecedented fear during the COVID-19 pandemic, which shaped attitudes about the pharmacological interventions offered.

Willful blindness is another phenomenon to be aware of. It’s when people turn a blind eye to the truth. Also known as conscious avoidance, this tactic has historically been used in legal trials to avoid criminal liability by ignoring or purposely staying unaware of key facts.

However, Malhotra notes, people also engage in willful blindness in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige or, in some cases, “precious, fragile egos.”1

The Illusion of Knowledge Is Worse Than Ignorance

Malhotra quoted the late Stephen Hawking, who stated, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”2 In terms of health care, evidence-based medicine has been hijacked by Big Pharma; it’s now an illusion. There’s also an illusion that we’re at the forefront of medicine, with prestigious organizations leading the helm, when in reality multiple health crises are upon us.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of health is a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”3 Public health, too, is not only about preventing disease, but also promoting health and prolonging life, while helping populations reach the highest possible level of well-being. But are public health agencies actually helping to achieve these goals?

Malhotra, a cardiologist trained by the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS), as well as a visiting professor of evidence based medicine at Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health in Salvador, Brazil,4 cited a 2020 study published in the British Medical Bulletin.5

It used data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics from 2010 to 2020, which showed a “dramatic slowdown in life expectancy and diverging trends in infant mortality in the UK as a whole and England and Wales, respectively.” Health trends in the U.K., the study concluded, “are worrying and raise important questions about government policies.”6

Throughout his career, Malhotra has tried to call attention to failures in treating heart disease. “Despite so-called modern science,” heart disease remains the No. 1 cause of death globally.7 “So clearly there’s something that we’ve done wrong on that front,” Malhotra said.8

More recently, he’s focused on using real evidence-based medicine to share the truth about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. His two-part paper on the topic was published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, specifically,9,10 because this journal does not accept money from the pharmaceutical industry.11

A Pandemic of Misinformed Doctors and Patients

Due to Big Pharma’s stronghold over health care, we’re facing what Malhotra calls a pandemic of misinformed doctors and unwittingly harmed and misinformed patients. This misinformation comes from a variety of sources, including:12

Malhotra describes John Ioannidis, professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, as the “Stephen Hawking of medicine.”13 Ioannidis cowrote a paper in 2017 titled, “How to Survive the Medical Misinformation Mess.”14 At the time, he described four key problems:

  1. Much published research is unreliable, offers no benefit to patients or is not useful to decision makers
  2. Most health care professionals are not aware of this problem with published research
  3. Health care professionals lack the necessary skills to evaluate the reliability of medical evidence
  4. Patients and families lack accurate medical evidence and skilled guidance when they need to make medical decisions

The solution, according to Ioannidis, involves focusing efforts on “making health care professionals more sensitive to the limitations of the evidence, training them to do critical appraisal, and enhancing their communication skills so that they can effectively summarize and discuss medical evidence with patients to improve decision-making.”15

Ioannidis also wrote a 2005 paper about why most published research findings are false. Not surprisingly, one factor that makes a research finding less likely to be true is “greater financial and other interest and prejudice.”16

Drug Companies Are Beholden to Their Shareholders

Drug companies and medical device manufacturers aren’t in business to make patients happy; they’re beholden to their shareholders, for whom they have a financial obligation to produce a profit.17 There’s no legal requirement for them to offer patients the “best” treatment.

Further, regulators regularly fail at their duty to prevent industry misconduct, while doctors and medical journals — which do have a responsibility to put patients’ interests and scientific integrity first — collude with industry for financial gain.18

Recently, Malhotra was heavily involved in campaigning to end NHS COVID-19 shot mandates. But prior to this he spoke to the European Parliament in 2018 to warn them of the epidemic of misinformed doctors and patients, stating, “Honest doctors can no longer practice honest medicine. We have a complete health care system failure …”19

In fact, in 2016, Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Institute for Scientific Freedom, stated prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death — most of them preventable.20 “The reason for that,” Malhotra said, “is the information that comes from drug companies — essentially the results of clinical trials — exaggerate the benefits and the safety of the drugs.”21

Corporate crime and fraud are also rampant — from 2009 to 2014, Gotzsche noted that most of the top 10 drug companies committed fraud, totaling about $14 billion, including hiding data on drug harms and illegally marketing drugs.

Yet, the fines the drug companies had to pay for their crimes were miniscule in comparison to the profits they made from the drugs. Since then, however, nobody was fired and “nothing has changed to stop them from committing these crimes again.”22

Tobacco Tactics Revisited During COVID Pandemic

Malhotra is among those who early on during the pandemic that poor diet can increase your risk of dying from COVID-19, by increasing obesity risk, chronic disease and disrupting your gut microbiome.23 In April 2020, he tweeted, “The government and public health England are ignorant and grossly negligent for not telling the public they need to change their diet now.”24

Not only did they not publicly share the importance of healthy weight and diet to ward off COVID-19, but they glamorized and encouraged junk food consumption via their official social media channels. At one point during the pandemic, Royal Free Hospital, which is part of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, tweeted the following along with a photo showing dozens of doughnut boxes:25

“You guys at @krispykremeUK Enfield sure know how to put a smile on our staff’s faces!1,500 doughnuts delivered to our staff at Barnet Hospital-#glazeamaze.”

“I’ve got nothing against people having a treat,” Malhotra said. “But hospitals shouldn’t be promoting … and essentially advertising the fact that we are giving 1,000 free Krispy Kreme doughnuts to nurses in the middle of the pandemic. I don’t think that was very productive considering what we know about the influence on COVID.”26

That hospitals were promoting junk food and junk food companies instead of healthy food is reminiscent of Big Tobacco’s tactics, which not only suppressed the harmful effects of cigarettes but also recruited doctors to promote them, using slogans such as, “More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette.”

“We see the same tactics repeating themselves,” Malhotra continued. “What Krispy Kreme is doing is using the NHS as a branding opportunity for what are essentially addictive, toxic foods that should just be treats but not part of the regular diet.”27

How COVID Shots Were Oversold

Malhotra was one of the first to take Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, and he’s double-jabbed. Initially, he was in favor of the shots but a study published in Circulation, which found an increased incidence of inflammatory markers linked to heart attacks in people who’d received mRNA COVID-19 shots,28gave him pause.

Then, a whistleblower from a prestigious British institution contacted him and said a group of researchers had found inflammation of coronary arteries after the mRNA shot. However, the researchers had a meeting and decided not to share their findings because it might affect their funding from the drug industry.29 He then learned of data from Scotland that showed an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks.

He went to the media, armed with data, to share his concerns in October 2021, calling for an investigation. It received a lot of attention, but Malhotra was soon targeted by anonymous complaints to a medical organization, which put his medical license at risk. At that point, he decided to gather other experts and critically review the data — then publish the truth.

In November 2020, Pfizer claimed their COVID-19 shot was 95% effective against COVID-19, but this was highly misleading and, according to Malhotra, based on flawed methodology:30

“‘Relative risk reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention … which would be in the interest of people trying to sell you something — in this case, the pharmaceutical industry.

So if, for example, you have 1,000 people in a trial that didn’t have the vaccine versus 1,000 people that did in the placebo group … you may have two people dying. And in the intervention group, you may have just one person dying. And that’s a reduction of 50%. One over two is a 50% relative risk reduction. But actually, you’ve only saved one life out of 1,000.

So, the absolute risk reduction is only 1 in 1,000. It’s a big difference. The guidance has been for many years that we must always use absolute risk reduction in conversations with patients, not just relative risk reduction alone; otherwise, it’s considered unethical,’ Malhotra said.

The accusation is that governments acted on Pfizer’s relative risk figure of 95% efficacy, when the absolute risk was a mere 0.84%. In other words, you’d have to vaccinate 119 people to prevent just one from catching COVID. ‘So we were basically sold on something that ultimately, and in retrospect now, was very, very misleading.'”

Big Pharma Provides Majority of Budget for Leading Regulators

If there were ever any doubt that regulatory agencies are captured by industry, consider that significant portions of regulatory agencies’ budgets come from the pharmaceutical industry that these agencies are supposed to regulate. For instance:31

Data and health advice from these agencies cannot be considered independent or trustworthy when it’s clouded by vested interests. What did one study32 — conducted by people who do not take money from the drug industry — find?

It reanalyzed data that led to the original approval of the shots, and subsequent shot mandates, revealing people were more likely to suffer a serious adverse, disability, hospitalization or life-changing event after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 shot than be hospitalized with COVID.33Malhotra shared additional facts about COVID-19 shots that are now known based on the best available evidence:34

  • COVID-19 shots offer no protection against infection now
  • No reduction in COVID mortality
  • Natural immunity is very protective
  • Shot side effects are nearly three times more likely if you get the shot after having COVID-19
  • Unprecedented harms have been reported from the shots

“We have pulled vaccines in the past for much less,” Malhotra said. “… This vaccine needs to be suspended completely, pending an inquiry.”35 So why haven’t you heard about this? It’s clear that willful blindness has taken over. Malhotra notes that political involvement and policy advocacy, combined with social participation and social movements can together lead to the creation of relevant knowledge.

“We need to make sure we’ve got clear, relevant, concrete knowledge in a way that can be disseminated and understandable to the public.”

Toward that end, Malhotra states that it’s crucial for the integrity of public health for the facts to be acknowledged and for regulators to state that they’ve changed their minds too. Moving forward, in order to ensure access to real, evidence-based medicine, key changes need to be made, according to Malhotra, including:

  • Drug industry should play no role in testing drugs
  • Drug industry should not be able to hide raw data from trials
  • All results of all trials in humans must be made publicly available
  • Regulators such as the FDA and MHRA should not get any money from the drug industry

What Can You Do to Help?

To help enact change, Malhotra is calling for citizen power in the U.K. to use social media, calling for the suspension of mRNA shots. Specifically, he suggests tweeting and sharing the following, which can be tweaked depending on your location:

“My name is … and I call on the Secretary of State for Health, @SteveBarclay to #SuspendTheMRNAjabsnow until the raw data is released for independent analysis.”

Further, in order to beat the psychopathic corporate tyranny that has taken over, we must act virtuously, which involves embracing the following to keep moving forward:

  1. Wisdom
  2. Courage
  3. Moderation
  4. Justice

*

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 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 2:43

2 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 3:20

3 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 3:41

4 Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Biography

5, 6 Br Med Bull. 2020 May 15;133(1):4-15. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldz041

7 World Health Organization, Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs)

8 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 5:30

9 Journal of Insulin Resistance. 2022; 5(1): a71

10 Journal of Insulin Resistance. 2022; 5(1): 72

11 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 6:20

12 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 8:50

13 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 9:33

14, 15 Eur J Clin Invest. 2017 Nov;47(11):795-802. doi: 10.1111/eci.12834. Epub 2017 Sep 28

16 PLOS Medicine August 30, 2005

17 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 12:31

18 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 12:52

19 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 13:18

20 The BMJ Opinion June 16, 2016

21 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 13:45

22 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 14:29

23 Science Daily May 29, 2019

24 Twitter, Dr Aseem Malhotra

25 Twitter, Royal Free London April 21, 2020

26 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 35:00

27 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 36:00

28 Circulation November 8, 2021

29 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 38:50

30 Rumble, Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion September 28, 2022, 15:11

31 YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, WHO, YouTube and funding November 7, 2022, 10:34

32 Vaccine. 2022 Sep 22;40(40):5798-5805. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036. Epub 2022 Aug 31

33 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 49:28

34 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 52:15

35 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 52:23

Featured image is from Global Justice Now

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?
  • Tags:

Ukraine, Russia, and the New World Order

December 10th, 2022 by Fyodor A. Lukyanov

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.

***

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, marked the re-emergence of war on the European continent, and an ultimate attempt to correct the Western-led system prevailing since the end of the Cold War. Fyodor A. Lukyanov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, clarifies the motives behind the Russian leadership’s decisions in Ukraine. He also shares how Russia views shifts to the new world order and how global governance could be improved. This article is part of Ukraine Shifting the World Order.

Institut Montaigne: Several rationales have been advanced by President Putin and his circle to justify the attack on Ukraine. How do you assess the respective weight of the motivations behind Russia’s move?

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: The launching of a military campaign against Ukraine is undoubtedly a groundbreaking event in post-Soviet history – perhaps the most significant. Many intertwined motivations guided this decision. We can try to summarize the most important ones.

  • First, there was development both inside and around Ukraine pointing to increased military cooperation between Ukraine, NATO and the US. During the war, many things from the previous period came up, confirming the Kremlin’s suspicious belief that military interaction between Ukraine and the West had been essential and growing after 2014. Now the secret is out in the open and has become a matter of pride for the US, the British and NATO. Since Moscow noticed this dynamic for a protracted while, a conclusion was made that either Ukraine (or Ukraine together with NATO) may try to challenge Russia one day in the foreseeable future. So, when Russian leaders said that the February move was a preemptive strike, they meant it.
  • Ukraine is the culmination of a long history of Russian attempts to limit NATO expansion, which started in the 1990s and never stopped since. From the Russian point of view, NATO abused its exceptional position obtained after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The alliance de facto positioned itself as equal to the European security system. Its expansion was presented as the consistent extension of the security zone in Europe despite Russian claims that this went against the overall consensus on indivisible securities. Starting from the late 1990s, Russia came up with several proposals about how to adapt the European security architecture to address Russia’s concerns as a country never considered a potential NATO ally. All Russian ideas were consistently dismissed by Western allies without proper discussions. The assumption that security arrangements (as they emerged in the wake of the collapse of communism and the USSR) were non-negotiable was seen by Western powers as an axiom. Russian bitter irritation grew with each new state joining NATO, and it was clear since 2008 that Moscow considered Ukraine as an absolute red line when it came to NATO membership, Putin warned about that during NATO’s Bucharest summit. The 2014 Euromaidan in Ukraine, passionately supported by the West, contributed to the feeling that the West decided to disregard any red lines drawn by Russia.

The specific part of this decision clearly outlined in President Putin’s article in July 2021 is a perception in Russia that Ukraine in its current borders, and with its current identity based on sharp distancing from Russia, is an artificial creature with no real historical grounds. This is a complicated reckoning with the Soviet past, considered in today’s Russia in an ambivalent way – both as a historic peak of Russian might and an experiment that undermined traditional Russia and encouraged quasi-ethnic separation. Some call the current situation a postponed Russian civil war: one which the nation avoided immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but with growing internal tensions fueled by what was described above.

IM: Was NATO not de facto in decline? Was the NATO threat not exaggerated by the Russian leadership?

FAL: I would not deny that Russia’s leadership and strategic community were excessively focused on the NATO threat. But Moscow had reasons to grow suspicious of this organization. How should one define the decline of NATO? 1991 – 16 member states, 2022 – 30. Is this decline? NATO did not engage in any military campaign during the Cold War, but starting from the 1990s, NATO (or at least NATO countries like Iraq) launched several big campaigns, including a big military operation in Europe (Kosovo war) immediately after the first post-Soviet enlargement in 1999. Obama was supposed to be reluctant to make any new military commitments but he made new ones.

Trump was presented as friendly to Russia, but he proclaimed in his strategic doctrine the new era of great power rivalry between China and Russia. NATO officially stated in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia will be members of the alliance and did stick to this commitment all the way. Should leaders of those countries and Russian leadership have seen those statements as jokes? Chancellor Scholz said in a recent interview that he told Putin privately that Ukraine had no chance to join NATO within the next 30 years. Well, why not declare this publicly? It was exactly what Russia asked for: denounce the open-door policy.

Especially given the fact that the Kremlin had the experience of oral and private commitments about NATO, which were just abandoned by the US and its allies when they didn’t need them anymore. And, of course, the military support for Ukraine was rapidly growing over several years, regardless of the probability of formally joining NATO. We see it now in the war.

IM: Do you agree that shaking up a world order still dominated by the West (more specifically the US) was an important motivation for the Russian leadership?

FAL: Allow me to formulate it differently. Russia did not want to shake up the Western-led world order. Rather, as it saw signs of a weakening world order due to multiple objective reasons (while remaining pushy when it came to expansionist moves), Russia wanted to use this decline to get rid of post-Cold War arrangements. It is hard to deny that Russia raised this issue many times in different forms – from polite and constructive suggestions in the early 2000s until the ultimatum in December 2021. Until the end, the West assumed that Russia had no legitimate right to demand something beyond the “rules-based order”, whereas rules were formulated without real Russian participation. It should be emphasized that Russia literally turned to arms after decades of other, peaceful attempts to correct (not destroy) the Western-led system and find a proper place there. It did not produce any meaningful response from the West, because the West was fully convinced that the existing scheme was fine for all. And those who thought differently were just wrong.

IM: Seen from Moscow, what kind of developments, triggered by the war in Ukraine, should produce a real weakening of the grip of the West on the main pillars of the world order?

FAL: The most remarkable result so far is that the US failed to recruit any country beyond its official allies to join the anti-Russian coalition. Given the severity of the crisis and the heavy human consequences of it, one could expect the broader scope of countries to support Western attempts to punish Russia. It did not happen; a majority of nations preferred not to join anti-Russian measures. It does not mean they support what Russia is doing, but they flatly rejected to follow prescriptions from the West. And this is a sign of a changing constellation of forces in international relations, and certain Western fatigue among the “Rest”. US monopoly after the Cold War was too overwhelming. The lack of alternatives that did exist during the bipolar era prompted many to aspire to more diversity. The movement towards a new order and away from the hegemonic one has started and will continue.

The way in which the US and its allies orchestrated economic warfare against Russia, which is primarily based on the monopoly of the US dollar, and almost monopoly of the Western financial infrastructure (international payment systems, insurance, currency reserves), moved many nations to question how to avoid such a critical dependence. It will not happen very soon, but sooner than we could imagine, profoundly shifting the international landscape.

The movement towards a new order and away from the hegemonic one has started and will continue.

On the other hand, Russia was not able to get strong support from many countries, including for instance in Central Asia.

Russia is implementing its own security agenda with very harsh methods. This is a national task as formulated by the leadership and basically supported by a large part of the population. Russia did not consult anybody and did not ask for advice because Russian leadership is convinced that it should be done, despite how the rest of the world views it. In such a situation it would be strange to expect “strong support” from anybody. But the very fact that many countries remain neutral or express understanding is important per se.

As far as Central Asia is concerned, expectations that this region will become an apple of discord between Russia and China are not new. As always, the reality is finer and more nuanced. The main reason why it is not happening is that Central Asian countries are much more sophisticated than one suggests. All of them know that they:

  • Need to keep friendly and balanced relations with powerful neighbors;
  • Feel more comfortable with Russia due to cultural and historical closeness and the economic gravity of Russian space;
  • Try to use economic opportunities offered by China, but know exactly that there is no such thing as free cheese;
  • Follow changes in the international environment to finetune their policies. To ask who will overtake Central Asia means to be arrogant vis-à-vis those states.

IM: Even if Russia wins on the ground in Ukraine, it looks like it is doomed to end up in bad shape i.e, more dependent on China,  isolated from the West, maybe keeping some support in the Global South, but with less capacity for influence. Do you have a different view?

FAL: Russia is facing enormous challenges, no doubt about that. The Russian leadership decided that the path of the last thirty years was wrong and should change. The Soviet Union, by the end of its history, experienced a sharp political and economic decline, but paradoxically, was at the peak of countries’ technological capacities and strategic self-sufficiency. The decision to open up and integrate into a globalized international environment led to improved conditions for a part of the population, but a loss of many skills and rapidly increasing dependency on international markets.

The Russian economy thirty years after the Soviet Union’s collapse became more simplistic, and raw material based than in the Soviet time. Expectations that the technological level can be improved through cooperation and interdependence faced obvious limitations because technological leaders were predictably not keen to share the most advanced developments. Rather the opposite, the post-Soviet period was marked by the massive brain drain and leak of technologies, additionally weakening Russia (as the other former Soviet Republic’s) innovative potential.

While small or even middle-sized countries could base their strategies on integration into other powers’ technological spheres, Russia was too big to count on that. And too ambitious to take a subordinated position.

Of course, the next question arises, whether Russia will be able to catch up with its technological level being cut from the West and increasingly dependent on China. One can have well-grounded doubts about that. But Russian history showed that the country can produce unexpected results in the situation of force-majeure while comfortable prosperity leads to strange apathy. Second, the peaceful and linear development of globalization started to show signs of disruption well before the Ukrainian conflict, interdependence has been replaced by the growing rivalry between great powers, and the conclusion made by Russian leadership was that strengthening independent sovereign capacities is the only way to be prepared for the next stage of international development – a Hobbesian style fierce competition on all levels.

As far as China is concerned, the Sino-Russian rapprochement will have the same limits as the Russian-Western one. When Russia starts to feel that there is a chance to lose strategic independence (which is not the case by far yet), it will start to distance itself and seek counterbalances.

IM: Retaining the hypothesis of a relatively weakened Russia – politically and economically vis-à-vis the US and China – will Moscow increasingly rely on military power and social control to assert dominance? Will destabilizing Europe be the solution for Russian strategists to offset the relative weakening vis-à-vis the US and China?

FAL: Relying more on military power and domestic societal control is undoubtedly the path forward for Russia in the foreseeable future. There is simply no other alternative in this crisis environment. The question is whether Russia will be unique in this sense, or whether those trends in various forms will prevail universally. The more crisis and instability worldwide, the more inclined to rely on force and control; this is a universal trend, although forms can differ depending on the political system.

Russia is certainly not capable of breaking the EU, even if this scenario may be seen as desirable in certain constituencies in Moscow. There is another issue that the European integration process shows multiple signs of internal crisis, mostly unconnected to Russian affairs. In the current stage of relations, the European Union is clearly of no value to Russia. So, there is no reason to believe that Moscow will do something to strengthen ties with the European Union anytime soon.

Russia is certainly not capable of breaking the EU, even if this scenario may be seen as desirable in certain constituencies in Moscow.

There are different views in Russia on how to behave vis-à-vis Europe in the next period – to take distance as much as possible and stress differences with Europe at all levels, or to contribute to European transformation towards a more traditional “Europe of nations“. There is an open debate, but no result yet.

IM: To what extent is the “special relationship” with China counted in Russia’s strategic calculations? What does it mean for Taiwan’s future? Would such a showdown be anticipated as the “last nail” in the coffin of Western dominion over the world order?

FAL: The “special relationship” with China is crucial for Russian development in the next period for several reasons. Conflict with the West is the obvious one, but there are other motives of equal importance. China’s position in world affairs fluctuating between being the first or the second superpower is likely under any circumstances. China is Russia’s biggest neighbor, this simple logic suggests that good relations are indispensable. Both economic and geopolitical gravitation of China is in place, this is fact of life. China carefully avoids any allied status in relations with Russia, but objectively, countries move towards each other as both of them are labeled as dangerous revisionists by the US. In the case of Taiwan, China sees the US as an ultimate provocateur who is ready to destroy any mutually beneficial interdependence for its own sake. Russian views on the US, and especially the EU in the Ukrainian context are similar. So, the interests of Russia and China are not coinciding, but the logic of how the West sees them brings Moscow and Beijing ever closer together.

IM: Finally, for the Russian leadership, what new order should replace the current one? Any alternative to the last 30 years? How can global governance for our most pressing issues be assured in a new world?

FAL: The second half of the 20th century was a unique period in the history of international relations. Institutions played a defining role in how to shape relations between states, it has never been the case before (not to that extent at least), and there are doubts that this will be repeated in the future. The international constellation of powers was too specific and exceptional between 1945 and 1991. The more traditional and “normal” situation in international relations is a much more chaotic stance with situational arrangements and agreements based on changing power balances – both regionally and now even globally. It does not mean a high degree of stability, on the contrary, but at least the permanent awareness of all important players, that they should be cautious and always think about the intended and unintended consequences. The universalist ideological framework as it emerged after the end of the Cold War (i.e. after the end of the period with two competing ideological frameworks) can’t stay without an overwhelming dominance of a superpower, the polycentric system requires a “peaceful coexistence” of different ethical and cultural frameworks, based on pragmatic balance and mutual benefits, not on the perception of sides of history, which are “right” or “wrong”.

If this picture is correct, one conclusion follows: the order as we knew it from the previous decades is unlikely to be restored any time soon. All major international problems (including those which used to be called “global”) should be addressed on a much more flexible transactional base, in the process of permanent adjustment of interests and possibilities. This does not promise a very stable future. But in the situation of a deeply asymmetric international environment (multiple players of different caliber and characteristics) without a chance to install anybody’s solid control (be it institutions or great powers) each country should be prepared for a protracted period with very limited ability to strategize.

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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 discussion was held in the US Senate today with distinguished doctors and scientists from major universities and medical centers. The story they told of corruption and mismanagement of the COVID pandemic is a turning point for humanity. I summarize some of the highlights here, and plan to conclude tomorrow.

Most of the people on today’s panel suffered loss of income, loss of status, or loss of their jobs because they publicized truths about COVID and COVID policies that were anathema to the medical establishment and detrimental to pharmaceutical profits.

COVID policy has been a crime against humanity, and underlying that crime has been a crime against science. Science is held in high public regard, even as the reputations of most other institutions have declined in recent decades. The reputation of science is based on open debate and logical evaluation of evidence. Debate has been stifled by people with money and power, and those same people then claim to speak for “science”. The public is gradually recognizing the enormity of this fraud. I fear the public support for science will crumble.

Sen Ron Johnson introduced the hearing by reminding us that promising drugs for early treatment of COVID were made known to him by some of the people at today’s hearing already in the spring of 2020, and yet our government agencies were advising against their use, despite long and assuring safety records.

Liz Willner created a website to make the CDC’s vaccine safety data available in a more accessible format. According to VAERS data reported to CDC, vaccine injuries increased twenty-fold in 2021 and vaccine-related deaths increased fifty-fold.

Aaron Siri, a lawyer for Del Bigtree’s ICAN, described how the CDC created a system called V-Safe for recording a large sample of vaccine safety data, and then hid the data from the public. Siri pressed through the Freedom of Information Act to obtain that data for more than 1½ years before some of it was released. Much still remains secret. Risk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and autoimmune disorders was recognized and reported early in the Pfizer trials, and these conditions were in early specifications for the V-Safe system. In the end, none of these conditions were included, suggesting that CDC made a deliberate decision not to create a paper trail for them.

Ed Dowd, a securities analyst, reported data from Group Life insurance policies that cover healthy, employed people ages 18 to 64. The death rate in this group jumped 40% in the third quarter of 2021, coincident with Federal vaccine mandates for large employers who buy these Group Life policies. [Note: The death rate for healthy, employed people is quite low, so the absolute number of deaths continued to be dominated by people who are old and sick. The overall death rate in America increased only a little during this time, but the Group Insurance companies took a big hit. —JJM]

Josh Stirling, another security analyst, summarized data from Britain’s Office of National Statistics. To date, vaccinated people in the UK are dying at a rate 26% higher than the unvaccinated. The increase was concentrated in young people, who have suffered 49% increased risk of mortality to date.

Lt Col Theresa Long, MD, MPH, reported that alarming increases in disabling conditions for the US Army were reported right after vaccination was mandated, and these signals were dismissed as a “computer glitch”. The glitch was fixed, abut disabling illnesses and injuries continue in the Army, where they are now occurring at almost twice the pre-vaccination rate of 2020. The number of military deaths from the COVID vaccines is about 50% higher than the deaths from COVID itself.

Dr Ryan Cole reported that coronaviruses as a class mutate rapidly, and that’s why we have never had a vaccine for any coronavirus in the past. A largely vaccinated public drives the virus to mutate even faster. The current COVID vaccines immunize against a variant of COVID that was extinct more than a year ago.

Dr Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of epidemiology from Yale, reminded us that for young, healthy people, the risk of serious COVID is lower than the risk of injury from the COVID vaccines. Vaccine mandates can only be justified for vaccines that lower risk of transmitting the virus, and the current vaccines do not prevent transmission, even in the old and vulnerable groups where they protect against serious COVID.

Dr Pierre Kory specialized in pulmonary medicine and critical care as a professor at University of Wisconsin before he was dismissed from the UW medical school for advocating early treatment for COVID. He reminded us that early treatment has always been our best line of defense for everything from the common cold to cancer. (This include the original SARS virus of 2003.) 30% of the world’s people live in countries where hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin is taken daily as preventives, and these countries have had much lower rates of COVID mortality than the “developed world”, where these medicines were discouraged. Why were early treatments for COVID disparaged by the authorities?

Dr Paul Marik, with 300 peer-reviewed publications, is the second most published expert on critical care in the world. He estimated that hundreds of thousands of American deaths would have been avoided if HCQ and IVM had been adopted as early treatments beginning in 2020. He reported that in his hospital, he was forbidden from using safe, effective treatments for COVID, including vitamin C. Instead, he was encouraged to prescribe Remdesivir. Remdesivir is a patented antiviral drug and costs about $3,000 per patient. But Remdesivir can only be administered in a hospital, and antivirals are useless by the time a patient gets to the hospital, because he is well past the stage where the virus has been vanquished, and the patient is threatened by its after effects, including lung damage, low blood oxygenation, and sepsis. Remdesivir is highly toxic to the kidney. According to WHO, Remdesivir increases risk of kidney failure twenty-fold. Dr Marik claimed that there are no legitimate medical uses for Remdesivir, and yet Federal reimbursement to hospitals is boosted 20% (for the entire bill) if Remdesivir is included in the treatment plan.

Dr Kory talked straight to doctors and medical researchers: “High-impact journals have been under the control of the pharmaceutical industry…We’ve seen repeated cases of manipulation of the data to show that a company’s product is effective and, conversely, manipulated trials to try to prove to everyone that safe, effective repurposed drugs that offered no profit were ineffective or dangerous. There is an immense amount of corruption in medical publishing and in the conduct of science.”

Dr Peter McCullough, MD, MPH is a heart specialist with a degree in epidemiology, and was professor at Baylor College of Medicine before he was dismissed for his vocal stance on early treatment of COVID. America suffered 250,000 deaths before the COVID vaccines. Normally, the second year of a pandemic is milder, both because the virus evolves to be less deadly and because the most vulnerable people were killed in the first year. But since the vaccine rollout, we have had 750,000 additional COVID deaths in America. This is not the record of a successful vaccine.

Paul Alexander, PhD, reported that the COVID vaccines lose their efficacy and dip into negative efficacy after a few months, such that people who have been vaccinated are more likely to get COVID multiple times. Vaccinated individuals only have immunity to the part of the virus that is mutating most rapidly. As long as we keep boosting people every few months, the virus will continue to mutate and the pandemic will continue for many more years. “Had we not mass vaccinated, it is probable that we would have achieved herd immunity in the United States in the winter of 2021.”

Dr Robert Malone, MD, who holds the patent as the original inventor of mRNA technology, changed his perspective on the COVID vaccines after he had a near-fatal response to vaccination. Vaccine development is a very slow process, and viruses mutate rapidly. The hope for mRNA technology was that a generic vaccine platform could be developed so that a new viral genome could just be plugged into an existing technology and vaccines could be developed at warp speed. This very promising idea has not panned out, but those who are heavily invested in the paradigm refuse to recognize the failures and the danger of mRNA vaccine technology.

Dr Malone described the innovation of using pseudouridine instead of natural uridine as one of the four nucleotide bases in mRNA vaccines. This is a trick that causes the body not to degrade mRNA as it normally would, so the mRNA stays around much longer. The upshot is that once the body is injected with an mRNA vaccine, the mRNA stays around and continues to generate spike protein for at least 60 days. We have no data beyond 60 days, so it is “at least” 60 days. The vaccine was designed to do its job of stimulating immunity in the first 48 hours. After this, the continued production of spike protein serves no protective purpose, but it can continue to be toxic.

Dr Janci Lindsay, professor of toxicology, reported on the vaccines’ effects on fertility, and evidence that the mRNA can incorporate into the genome and be passed through sperm or egg to the next generation. As long as the mRNA is turned to DNA, it can be passed to the next generation through plasmids in the sperm. The spike protein might become a part of the human genome.

David Wiseman (PhD pharmacologist from Johnson & Johnson) told us that FDA has strict standards for safety testing of “vaccines” and much stricter standards for “gene therapies”, including 5 to 15 years of follow-up for cancer and DNA damage. The FDA did not even apply the looser “vaccine” standards when evaluating the COVID vaccines, even though these mRNA products meet the definition of “gene therapies”.

Dr Ryan Cole reported on the change in definition of “vaccine” that made possible the approval of the mRNA products, which have a very different mechanism from traditional vaccines. They should have been tested with standards appropriate for gene therapies.

Dr McCullough emphasized that immunity provided by the COVID vaccines does not extend to the nose or throat, so that vaccinated people are exhaling a viral load that is no different from unvaccinated. This is why the current crop of vaccines cannot stop transmission, and why any argument for mandating vaccination as a public health measure is flawed. “These vaccines have no support for reducing transmission of the infection.” So the justification for vaccination must be lowering the risk of hospitalization and death. And yet, the only clinical trials that we had were not designed to measure rates of hospitalization and death. [NB Data from the Pfizer trial showed a higher death rate among the vaccinated compared to the control group — JJM]

Dr Malone and Dr Alexander raise the subject of “original antigenic sin”. In teaching the body to respond to just one part of the virus with one arm of the immune system, we hijack the body’s response when a COVID virus comes along a few months later that has a mutated spike protein. The immune system is fixated on the original spike protein, and its response to the altered virus is impaired. This is a well-known mechanism for several decades, so we should not be surprised when COVID vaccines show negative effectiveness after a few months.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Senate Roundtable: COVID Policy Has Been a Crime Against Humanity

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 3, 2022

***

 

 

 

 

 

From the very outset in January 2020, people worldwide were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic. Media disinformation and the fear campaign were instrumental in sustaining the COVID-19 narrative.

Scientific lies and falsehoods have been used to sustain the legitimacy of the COVID-19 policy mandates including lockdowns, the imposition of the face mask, social distancing and the suppression of fundamental human rights.

People worldwide were led to believe that Big Pharma’s COVID-19 vaccine injections were the “solution”.

A structure of  “Global Governance” dominated by powerful financial interests is unfolding which undermines democracy and the institutions of civil society.  More than 7 billion people worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis and the destructive mandates implemented by morally depraved national governments. The entire planet is in state of economic and social chaos.

Click here or the image below to watch the video. (Just released. At present, you may experience slow download.)

Video: Interview of Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux


Michel Chossudovsky’s book entitled:

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

will be launched on December 6, 2022 at 13.00 pm ET.

Click the link above for details.

The book in pdf can be downloaded free of charge, click here. 

The book includes 15 Chapters. For details and book reviews, click here.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video: The Corona Lockdown, The Most Devastating Crisis in Modern History. What We Need is “Democratic Regime Change”. Michel Chossudovsky

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.

***

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis told attendees at a private GOP event Saturday that he plans to hold Pfizer and Moderna “accountable”, arguing they were not transparent about their oft-mandated drugs’ side effects.

DeSantis, who seized a massive re-election victory in last month’s gubernatorial race, made the remarks during a Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) event on December 3 at the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee, according to American Greatness.

In a video embedded in the outlet’s report, DeSantis promised to work in conjunction with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo “to hold these manufacturers accountable for this mRNA [shot] because they said there were no side effects and we know that there have been a lot.”

While DeSantis didn’t name names, the mRNA jabs widely in use in the U.S. are made by Big Pharma giants Pfizer and Moderna. Johnson & Johnson’s shot doesn’t use mRNA technology.

The conservative governor, who has surpassed former president Donald Trump in recent polls gauging Republican preference for the 2024 presidential race, also referenced a recent analysis conducted by Florida’s Department of Health that uncovered a disturbing spike in heart problems among mRNA jab recipients.

“We did a study in Florida and we saw an 86% [sic] increase in cardiac related activity in people ages 18 to 39 from mRNA shots — and so we’re going to be doing some stuff to bring accountability there,” DeSantis said.

In October, Florida’s department of health formally advised young men against receiving themRNA injections, citing their analysis that found “an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination,” according to a department press release.

“Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health,” Ladapo said in the October 7 statement. “Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed – these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”

“With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group,” the statement added.

To date, the CDC maintains that the mRNA COVID-19 shots are “safe and effective and severe reactions after vaccination are rare.” The agency notes that “[s]ome people have no side effects” following jab reception, but that “[m]any people have reported side effects, such as headache, fatigue, and soreness at the injection site, that are generally mild to moderate and go away within a few days.”

However, the CDC does acknowledge a “small but increased risk of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines” especially among young men.

In his Saturday remarks, DeSantis highlighted the work Florida has already done to protect residents from coercive jab mandates, including the November 2021 legislation banning blanket vaccine mandates.

“We wouldn’t let them mandate on you in Florida,” DeSantis told attendees at the Saturday GOP event, making note of attempts by Florida localities and companies like Disney to enforce jab mandates upon workers.

“We said no across the board, so everybody had the ability to opt out of anything they were trying to impose on you,” the governor said. He observed that many Americans who didn’t live in Florida were compelled to get the jab because their state governments didn’t protect them against mandates.

“And then what? They’re not allowed to sue or get any sort of recourse when this was something they wanted to do? So this is something that we’re going to lead on in Florida,” DeSantis vowed.

In addition to promising to hold vaccine manufacturers to account and urging “particular caution” regarding reception of the shots for young men, Florida has stood alone as the only state to refuse participation in the rollout of COVID shots for  babies and young children between six months and five years old.

In March, the Sunshine State formally advised against jabbing children and teens under age 18 with the experimental injections.

*

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 a screenshot from a Rumble video via LSN


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 World Health Organization (WHO) announced that member states inched closer to developing a legally binding global pandemic treaty. 

“I welcome the agreement by @WHO Member States to develop a zero draft of a legally binding #PandemicAccord designed to protect the world from future pandemics and to continue discussions on the draft in February 2023,” said WHO CEO Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

The development follows a third meeting from WHO member states to develop a global pandemic treaty. The first meeting was in December 2021, and the second was in March 2022.

It’s unclear how the WHO’s pandemic treaty will affect its 194 member states, including Canada.

The WHO states the global pandemic treaty will determine future pandemic requirements for individual countries, such as lockdowns, and that these requirements will be “legally binding.”

The WHO says the treaty will be a “legal instrument, rooted in the WHO Constitution, designed to protect the world from future pandemics.”

Article 21 of the WHO’s constitution states the WHO has “authority to adopt regulations concerning (a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease.”

“Other procedures” presumably include global vaccine passports, which member states have already supported.

However, the WHO also claims the pandemic treaty will “respect sovereignty.”

The draft that resulted from this third meeting includes a provision that reads:

“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems pursuant to their own policies and legislation provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to other States and their peoples.”

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has been outspoken regarding the potential impact a global pandemic treaty could have on Canadians.

In April, she said the treaty would allow the WHO to determine what a pandemic is and when one is occurring — even over something non-viral like an obesity crisis.

Earlier this year, the WHO and the German health minister said that countries disobeying regulations dictated by the WHO through their pandemic treaty might need to be sanctioned.

The Counter Signal contacted the WHO for comment but did not receive a response by publication.

*

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

Featured image is from The Counter Signal

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on WHO Member States Agree to Develop Legally-binding Pandemic Treaty
  • 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.

***

Germany saw what is perhaps its largest police raid in history, involving 3,000 officers targeting 130 properties across nearly the entire country. With 25 “Reichsbürger” suspects arrested, that amounts to 120 police officers per suspect. It was quite the show of force, and in a sign that the media knew well in advance about the coming arrests, a number of suspects, including German aristocrat Heinrich XIII and former AfD MP Birgit Malsack-Winkemann, were photographed and filmed as they were perp walked out of their homes.

It was a real coup for Germany’s left-wing government and Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, who has made it her political goal to wipe out the right.

It is worth noting that nobody has been found guilty yet, but of course, even with the notoriously left-wing German media using the incident to whip up fear of the German right, the past may indicate the case could end up being more PR than reality.

The notorious “Nordkreuz” terror group, which was trumpeted by the media in 2017 as a far-right extremist network preparing for “Day X” — or the day when the group would carry out assassinations of left-wing opponents following the collapse of the German government — mostly fizzled out. At the time, politicians, journalists, and various anti-racist organizations jumped on the case, which involved up to 50 people, as an example of Germany’s growing far-right scene.

Ultimately, the Office of the Attorney General halted its investigations into the group, saying they had “no probable cause” to keep going. Like this most recent case involving “Reichsbürger,” the “Nordkreuz” group also contained a variety of individuals with military and police experience.

The supposed ring leader of “Nordkreuz” was only given a suspended sentence of 21 months, as the judge in the case said that nearly every weapon and piece of ammunition he owned was legal, and that although he had made some “unconstitutional” comments in a group chat with other members, there was no evidence he had any active plans to overthrow the government or carry out any terror attacks.

In the end, even if some members of the group “fantasized” about a Day X, there was no indication they had any concrete plans to partake in any direct action. Many in the left dream of a communist overthrow of the German government, or a society based on anarchist collectives, and some of them may even discuss what such a society would look like in various groups scattered across Germany’s cities, but would such discussions constitute an imminent threat to Germany’s democratic order?

The question is always when does fantasy start to cross into the realm of reality.

If the plan was real, it was crazy to begin with

The details from the current Reichsbürger case remain unclear, as the case has yet to go to trial. However, if Prince Heinrich XIII, who authorities deem the leader of the group, truly planned to imminently storm the Reichstag and seize power, then he and his cohorts are delusional, potentially insane, and acutely unaware of how power actually works. Power is not a capture-the-flag game where you can run into a government building and scream: “Look, now I’m in power!”

Even if the group was planning to storm the Reichstag, which is a claim we should take with a grain of salt until all the facts come to light, there is little possibility of such a “coup” succeeding in the modern era. If the group managed to defy all odds and take control of the Reichstag, the individuals allegedly involved in this case would have been promptly handcuffed and ushered into prison. After all, any successful coup requires a base of power. That means support from the military, a segment of the current elite, or a mass of the country’s populace — with all three being ideal, but the former two prerequisites far more important.

Of course, if the group was procuring illegal weapons and making concrete plans to conduct a coup, then the authorities are no doubt going to take action and are likely justified in conducting searches on the houses of the suspects, but the question will remain how far along were their plans, how many of the weapons were actually illegal, and how concrete these plans actually were.

According to media reports, there are about 25,000 people in Germany who identify with the Reichsbürger movement, a loosely defined movement but one that generally believes that the country’s current government is illegitimate and that the old monarchy was never properly dissolved in a legal manner. While some of them may be doctors, lawyers, former soldiers, and engineers, this does not represent a base of support for ushering in a new government. Many of them would also likely balk at a few members storming the Reichstag and seizing power through violent means.

We can take it a step further. If the Reichbürgers in this case actually managed to take power, all it would take is one negative report from German public broadcaster ARD and the whole Reich citizens government would promptly see an angry Twitter mob perform a reverse coup, this time with the full support of a very woke populace and increasingly woke security service. As the saying goes, China has state-run media, and the West has media-run states. The Reichbürger movement has no media, no backing, and therefore no power.

If Heinrich XIII truly wanted to rule, as the media claims was his plan, then he would have been better off taking out some Facebook ads first, perhaps explaining things a bit beforehand. Did most Germans even know what a Reichsbürger was before this case? Probably not.

Even the Islamists who dream of sharia in Germany, and there is no small number of them, are not looking to “seize power” through their terror attacks. They instead often cite revenge for Western actions in Muslim lands and sometimes sheer hate for what they describe as an atheistic and godless Western culture. For those Muslims serious about overthrowing democracy and ushering in sharia law, they openly say that demographics and time are on their side, and most hold no illusions about a band of Muslims storming government buildings to seize power. In other words, Islamic rule, if it were to ever happen, will come through the humdrum affair of “democracy.”

Fuel for a crackdown on the right

Regardless of the merits of the Reichsbürger case, the latest raid will be used to justify further oppression against the right, including of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). That means more surveillance and even more police raids. Even the notorious left-wing RAF terror group active in the 1970s and 1980s, which committed a number of high-profile murders, never had such a police response as the latest Reichsbürge arrests, but with the AfD rapidly growing in popularity, the public needs a spectacle.

The media also welcomed the distraction from the brutal random murder of a 14-year-old German girl by an Eritrean migrant in Illerkirchberg, which has once again raised questions about mass immigration at the national level and led to the city of Ulm to suspend intake of all refugees.

This is the same media that has also mostly ignored that of the 226 investigations launched by the Federal Public Prosecutor up until June 30 of this year; 131 were targeted at radical Islamists, 68 against foreign extremists, and only nine against right-wing extremists.

However, nothing should contradict the government’s narrative that the right is the “biggest threat,” and if an Islamist was perp walked out of their home in front of the camera for every terror investigation, the evening media would indeed have a very hard time keeping this narrative up.

It is also the same media that has also long disregarded the fact that the right-wing AfD is routinely subjected to assaults, vehicle arson, doxing, and in Germany’s celebrated liberal democracy, threats of an outright ban on the political party. In fact, it’s the most attacked party in all of Germany, according to government data.

The latest Reichsbürger case, regardless of how valid the allegations may turn out to be, is necessary for the left-wing government to shape public opinion of the AfD, which from a political standpoint, is the main target of this investigation, even though it has little do with the case. After all, there are just not enough “right-wing extremists” prepared to use violence to really justify the government’s claim of the right being the biggest threat. That is why the media was informed well in advance of these raids and was ready to record just in time for the evening news.

Coups are very hard in the modern age

On a side note, most revolutions and coups, which were always difficult to pull off, are especially difficult in the modern age and doubly so in Germany where — despite inflation and a souring economy — most people live in relative comfort and a deep fear of anything the media labels extreme right or even right-wing. Most of the coups that do work in the modern era require NGO funding, support from the CIA, Big Tech, and repetitious media messaging, such as the color revolutions seen across Eastern Europe and the Middle East over the last two decades.

Even in the “old days,” coups were rarely successful, and even in cases such as Castro and Che’s communist overthrow of Cuba, they were won against all odds. When Castro and Che’s ship arrived in Cuba with 81 armed revolutionaries, Batista’s army was already waiting for them. Only 19 men survived, including Castro and Che, who escaped into the Sierra Maestra mountain range and waged an extraordinary guerilla warfare campaign that saw them eventually overthrow the entire government.

Even for those who despise the politics of Che and Castro, what they pulled off from a military and propaganda perspective has rightly gone down in the annals of history. Most men would have thrown in the towel after 85 percent of their comrades were killed in the first minutes of the “revolution.”

The fact that Batista knew Castro was coming indicates informers were already in the group, or Western intelligence or Batista’s own agents used other means to know from top to bottom what the group’s plans were. This intelligence leak was before the era of smartphones and internet surveillance.

In contrast, German domestic intelligence is inside encrypted chats, they are inside people’s computers, and they are openly monitoring members of one political party but also a large variety of political groups. For those “planning” a coup, regardless of whether they are on the left, right, or adhere to some other political or religious ideology, the odds have never been more stacked against you.

*

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

Featured image: Patrolcars used by the Northrhine-Westphalian Police (Licensed under CC0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Germany’s Massive Right-wing Extremist Raid: Is It More Show Than Substance?
  • Tags: ,

US Internationalises Iran’s Unrest

December 9th, 2022 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 ongoing unrest in Iran since mid-September following the death of a Kurdish woman in police custody shows no signs of abating as of now. The unrest has drawn support from all social strata and assumed anti-government overtones. The efficacy of suppressing the unrest is doubtful. Iran is entering a period of turmoil. 

Indeed, the government faces no imminent threat but seems cognisant of the imperative need to address the hijab policy to pacify the protestors. As the protests continue, many women are walking on the streets of cities across Iran, especially in Tehran, without head coverings.

There is a long history of Western countries fuelling public unrest in Iran. Regime change agenda must be there in the western calculus but,  curiously, Washington is also signalling interest in reaching an accommodation with Tehran under certain conditions relating to the regime’s foreign and security policies in the present international milieu. 

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian stated explicitly on Monday that the US and a number of other Western countries have incited riots, because “one of the US’ objectives was to force Iran to make big concessions at the negotiating table” for the revival of the JCPOA. Amirabdollahian’s remark followed some megaphone diplomacy by Rob Malley, the US special envoy on Iran last weekend.

Speaking in Rome, Malley connected the dots and outlined the linkages in the matrix. He said: 

“The more Iran represses, the more there will be sanctions; the more there are sanctions, the more Iran feels isolated. The more isolated they feel [isolated], the more they turn to Russia; the more they turn to Russia, the more sanctions there will be, the more the climate deteriorates, the less likely there will be nuclear diplomacy. So it is true right now the vicious cycles are all self-reinforcing. The repression of the protests and Iran’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine is where our focus is because that is where things are happening, and where we want to make a difference.”

In effect, Malley admitted that the Biden Administration is a stakeholder in the ongoing protests in Iran. Importantly, he also hinted that although Iran has taken a series of fateful decisions that make a full revival of the nuclear deal and a lifting of some economic sanctions a political impossibility for now, the door to diplomacy is not shut if only Iran’s leadership changed course on relations with Russia. 

In further remarks to Bloomberg on Saturday, Malley said that “Right now we can make a difference in trying to deter and disrupt the provision of weapons to Russia and trying to support the fundamental aspirations of the Iranian people.” 

As he put it, Washington now aims to “disrupt, delay, deter and sanction” Iran’s weapon deliveries to Russia, and any supplies of missiles or assistance in the construction of military production facilities in Russia “would be crossing new lines.” 

In sum, Malley has linked the US approach toward Iran’s protests with Tehran’s foreign and security policies in regard of Russia and its war in Ukraine. 

The first signs that the US intelligence was focusing on Iran-Russia military ties — in tandem with its Israeli counterpart, of course —appeared in late July, when the US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made an allegation during a media briefing at the White House that Iran wanted to sell weapons-capable unmanned aerial vehicles to Moscow. 

Sullivan claimed that Iran was already training Russian personnel in using the drones. Within the week, Sullivan doubled down on that allegation. 

The timing of Sullivan’s disclosure must be noted carefully — coinciding with a visit to Tehran by Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 19. Putin’s talks with the Iranian leadership messaged a strategic polarisation under way between Moscow and Tehran with far-reaching consequences for regional and international politics. 

Putin’s discussions ranged from the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria to the legality of Western-led sanctions regimes, de-dollarisation, geopolitics of energy, the International North-South Transport Corridor, defence cooperation and so on, anchored on the congruent interests of the two countries on a number of important strategic and normative issues. 

Following up Putin’s discussions, Iran’s armed forces Chief of Staff, General Mohammad Bagheri travelled to Moscow in mid-October. Gen. Bagheri met Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, which signalled that the military relations between the two countries was acquiring an irreversible momentum. 

A fortnight after Gen. Bagheri’s visit, Russian Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev came to Tehran to discuss “various issues of Russian-Iranian cooperation in the field of security, as well as a number of international problems,” according to Interfax news agency. 

Russian state media said Patrushev discussed the situation in Ukraine and measures to combat “Western interference” in both countries’ internal affairs with his Iranian security counterpart Ali Shamkhani. Patrushev also met with Iran’s president Ebrahim Raisi. 

Meanwhile, Washington senses that there is disharmony within the Iranian establishment on how to handle the protests, and, in turn, this is sharpening the internal Iranian debate about the wisdom of growing alliance with Russia vis-a-vis re-engaging with the West in a fresh attempt to revive the nuclear deal. 

Clearly, Malley’s remarks hinted that amidst the US’ support for protests in Iran, it still remains open to doing business with Tehran if the latter rolls back its deepening strategic partnership with Moscow and refrains from any involvement in the conflict in Ukraine. 

In fact, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Grossi (who holds Washington’s brief) also chipped in with a remark on Monday that the UN watchdog has no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon programme, implying that the resumption of negotiations in Vienna faces no “systemic” block. 

That said, Tehran’s cooperation with Moscow on foreign and security policy policies is of long-term consequence to Iran and there is no question of the Iranian leadership putting all its eggs in the American basket. For Russia, too, the partnership with Iran is of strategic importance in the conditions of multipolarity. 

Significantly, Iranian media has reported that Iran’s nuclear negotiator and deputy foreign minister Ali Bagheri Kani visited Moscow last weekend and met his Russian counterpart Sergei Ryabkov in Moscow to “discuss the prospects of full-scale implementation” of the JCPOA (2015 nuclear deal) “in order to strengthen the approach of multilateralism and confront unilateralism and adhere to the principles contained in the United Nations Charter” as well as the two countries’ “efforts to prevent instrumental political abuse and selective treatment of human rights issues by Western powers.” 

The official news agency IRNA later reported from Tehran quoting Bagheri Kani that the two sides “reviewed bilateral relations over the past months and created frameworks and mechanisms in agreement with each other for developing relations.” He mentioned Syria, South Caucasus and Afghanistan as areas of cooperation between Tehran and Moscow. 

Most certainly, the latest round of Iran-Russia consultations was noted in Washington. On Saturday, the Director of National Intelligence in the Biden Administration Avril Haines held out a veiled threat that while Iranian leaders may not see the protests as a threat now, they could face more unrest because of high inflation and economic uncertainty. She said, “We see some kind of controversies even within them about exactly how to respond — within the government.”

On the other hand, Bagheri Kani’s consultations in Moscow would have taken into account the large-scale US-Israeli air exercises last Tuesday simulating strikes on the Iranian nuclear program. The Israeli military said in a statement that joint flights of four Israeli F-35i Adir stealth fighter jets that accompanied four US F-15 fighter jets through Israel’s skies simulated “an operational scenario and long-distance flights.”

The statement added, “These exercises are a key component of the two militaries’ increasing strategic cooperation in response to shared concerns in the Middle East, particularly those posed by Iran.” 

The US-Israeli exercises underscores the criticality in the situation surrounding Iran. Tehran’s shift to enrichment at 60% causes disquiet in Washington. But a military strike on Iran is fraught with unpredictable consequences not only for West Asian region but also the global oil market, which is facing uncertainties due to the US attempt to put a price cap on Russian oil. 

The bottom line is that the protests in Iran are assuming the proportions of a casus belli. The US has internationalised Iran’s internal upheaval. 

*

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 JARED RODRIGUEZ / TRUTHOUT

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.

***

Ukrainians have been paying a terrible price for the failure of ensuring sensible and reasonable negotiations from 2014 to February 2022 – which could have prevented the invasion by Russia in the first place, and once the war started, could have led to the end of this war.

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. This war has been horrendous, though it does not compare with the terrible destruction wrought by the US bombardment of Iraq (“shock and awe”) in 2003. In the Gomel region of Belarus that borders Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian diplomats met on February 28 to begin negotiations toward a ceasefire. These talks fell apart. Then, in early March, the two sides met again in Belarus to hold a second and third round of talks. On March 10, the foreign ministers of Ukraine and Russia met in Antalya, Turkey, and finally, at the end of March, senior officials from Ukraine and Russia met in Istanbul, Turkey, thanks to the initiative of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. On March 29, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said, “We are pleased to see that the rapprochement between the parties has increased at every stage. Consensus and common understanding were reached on some issues.” By April, an agreement regarding a tentative interim deal was reached between Russia and Ukraine, according to an article in Foreign Affairs.

In early April, Russian forces began to withdraw from Ukraine’s northern Chernihiv Oblast, which meant that Russia halted military operations around Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. The United States and the United Kingdom claimed that this withdrawal was a consequence of military failure, while the Russians said it was due to the interim deal. It is impossible to ascertain, with the available facts, which of these two views was correct.

Before the deal could go forward, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv on April 9. A Ukrainian media outlet – Ukrainska Pravdareported that Johnson carried two messages to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky: first, that Russian President Vladimir Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and second, that even if Ukraine signed agreements with the Kremlin, the West was not ready to do so. According to Ukrainska Pravda, soon after Johnson’s visit, “the bilateral negotiation process was paused.” A few weeks later, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin visited Kyiv, and following the trip, Austin spoke at a news conference at an undisclosed location in Poland and said, “We want to see Russia weakened.” There is no direct evidence that Johnson, Blinken, and Austin directly pressured Zelensky to withdraw from the interim negotiations, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that this was the case.

Russian and Ukrainian delegations at the negotiating table on March 7, 2022. Photo: Belta news agency via Xinhua

The lack of willingness to allow Ukraine to negotiate with Russia predates these visits and was summarized in a March 10, 2022, article in the Washington Post where senior officials in US President Joe Biden’s administration stated that the current US strategy “is to ensure that the economic costs for Russia are severe and sustainable, as well as to continue supporting Ukraine militarily in its effort to inflict as many defeats on Russia as possible.”

Long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, since 2014, the United States has – through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative of the US Department of Defense – spent more than $19 billion in providing training and equipment to the Ukrainian military ($17.6 billion since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022). The total annual budget of the United Nations for 2022 is $3.12 billion, far less than the amount spent by the US on Ukraine today. The arming of Ukraine, the statements about weakening Russia by senior officials of the US government, and the refusal to initiate any kind of arms control negotiations prolong a war that is ugly and unnecessary.

Ukraine is not in Iowa

Ukraine and Russia are neighbors. You cannot change the geographical location of Ukraine and move it to Iowa in the United States. This means that Ukraine and Russia have to come to an agreement and find a solution to end the conflict between them. In 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky won by a landslide (73%) in the Ukrainian presidential election against Petro Poroshenko, the preferred candidate of the West. “We will not be able to avoid negotiations between Russia and Ukraine,” Zelensky said on a TV panel, “Pravo Na Vladu,” TSN news service reported, before he became president. In December 2019, Zelensky and Putin met in Paris, alongside then-Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and France’s President Emmanuel Macron (known as the “Normandy Four”). This initiative was driven by Macron and Merkel. As early as 2019, France’s President Emmanuel Macron argued that it was time for Europe to “rethink… our relationship with Russia” because “pushing Russia away from Europe is a profound strategic error.”

In March 2020, Zelensky said that he and Putin could work out an agreement within a year based on the Minsk II agreements of February 2015. “There are points in Minsk. If we move them around a bit, then what bad can that lead to? As soon as there are no people with weapons, the shooting will stop. That’s important,” Zelensky told the Guardian. In a December 2019 press conference, Putin said, “there is nothing more important than the Minsk Agreements.” At this point, Putin said that all he expected was that the Donbas region would be given special status in the Ukrainian constitution, and during the time of the expected Ukraine-Russia April 2020 meeting, the troops on both sides would have pulled back and agreed to “disengagement along the entire contact line.”

Role of Macron

It was clear to Macron by 2020 that the point of the negotiations was about more than just Minsk and Ukraine; it was about the creation of a “new security architecture” that did not isolate Russia – and was also not subservient to Washington. Macron developed these points in February 2021 in two directions and spoke about them during his interview with the Atlantic Council (a US think tank). First, he said that NATO has “pushed our borders as far as possible to the eastern side,” but NATO’s expansion has “not succeeded in reducing the conflicts and threats there.” NATO’s eastward expansion, he made clear, was not going to increase Europe’s security. Second, Macron said that the US unilateral withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 – and Russia’s mirroring that – leaves Europe unprotected “against these Russian missiles.” He further said, “As a European, I want to open a discussion between the European Union and Russia.” Such a discussion would pioneer a post-Cold War understanding of security, which would leave the United States out of the conversation with Russia. None of these proposals from Macron could advance, not only because of hesitancy in Russia but also principally because they were not seen favorably by Washington.

Confusion existed about whether US President Joe Biden would be welcomed into the Normandy Four. In late 2020, Zelensky said he wanted Biden at the table, but a year later it became clear that Russia was not interested in having the United States be part of the Normandy Four. Putin said that the Normandy Four was “self-sufficient.” Biden, meanwhile, chose to intensify threats and sanctions against Russia based on the claims of Kremlin interference in the United States 2016 and 2018 elections. By December 2021, there was no proper reciprocal dialogue between Biden and Putin. Putin told Finnish President Sauli Niinistö that there was a “need to immediately launch negotiations with the United States and NATO” on security guarantees. In a video call between Biden and Putin on December 7, 2021, the Kremlin told the US president that “Russia is seriously interested in obtaining reliable, legally fixed guarantees that rule out NATO expansion eastward and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in states adjacent to Russia.” No such guarantee was forthcoming from Washington. The talks fizzled out.

The record shows that Washington rejected Macron’s initiatives as well as entreaties from Putin and Zelensky to resolve issues through diplomatic dialogue. Up to four days before the Russian invasion, Macron continued his efforts to prevent an escalation of the conflict. By then, the appetite in Moscow for negotiations had dwindled, and Putin rejected Macron’s efforts.

An independent European foreign policy was simply not possible (as Macron had suggested and as the former leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev had proposed in 1989 while talking about his vision for a “common European home” that would stretch from northern Asia to Europe). Nor was an agreement with Russia feasible if it meant that Russian concerns were to be taken seriously by the West.

Ukrainians have been paying a terrible price for the failure of ensuring sensible and reasonable negotiations from 2014 to February 2022 – which could have prevented the invasion by Russia in the first place, and once the war started, could have led to the end of this war. All wars end in negotiations, but these negotiations to end wars should be permitted to restart.

*

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 produced by Globetrotter.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Four Minutes of Undiluted Truth on Mainstream TV

December 9th, 2022 by Mike Whitney

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 last thing you’d ever expect to hear on a mainstream news channel, is the truth. But—strange as it might seem—that’s exactly what happened on Wednesday night on the Tucker Carlson Show.

Carlson interviewed veteran journalist Glenn Greenwald in a 4-minute segment that provided the best ‘easy-to-understand’ summary of the Ukraine War you’ll hear anywhere. And what was so shocking about the interview, was how casually both men veered onto topics that are essential to grasping “How we got to where we are today” but which are entirely banned on all the other cable news channels. You are not allowed to know, for example, that Russia was “lured into the conflict in Ukraine”. That does not fit the script that has been passed-along from the Biden State Department to their lapdogs at the cable news stations. You’re also not allowed to know that the US does not fight wars “to spread democracy” or that “the US has no vital interests in Ukraine” or that “Russia is not really our enemy”. All of those topics are verboten. You’re not even allowed to think about these things, which is why– for the most part– they have been completely scrubbed from any-and-all discussion of foreign policy in the corporate media.

That’s what makes the segment with Greenwald such a stunner, because it’s 4 glorious minutes of pure, unvarnished truth delivered from a platform that typically only produces, lies, disinformation and propaganda. That’s why I transcribed the entire interview. Any mistakes are mine. Here it is:

or here —

Tucker Carlson– What bothers me is not so much what Zelensky is doing– there’ alot of tyranny abound the world (and) I don’t brood on it. But the fact that (a) we are paying for it, and (b) our leaders are defending it. I think every American should be upset about that.

Glenn Greenwald– “I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says ‘We’re going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy.’ The US government doesn’t actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world’s most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. …If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that ‘Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty’, but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you’ll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does….and that was true even before Russia invaded.”

Tucker Carlson– I wonder how Republicans can continue to defend this (because) I think you are right; I think our foreign policy is almost always about defending our interests…. But I don’t see our critical interests at stake here, so, what is this about?

Glenn Greenwald– If the US government was honest… they would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for ‘vital US interests’. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama’s view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary’s defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers? …

Tucker Carlson– That’s a really good question, and I haven’t unraveled it. (But) It seems pretty clear that the Biden administration baited Russia into this invasion. You had the Vice President (Kamala Harris) in western Europe days before telling Zelensky to join NATO which, of course, they knew was a red line (for Russia) They wanted this invasion, I think that’s very obvious. Do you think this was all about ‘preparing for war with Russia’?

Glenn Greenwald– If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can’t win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the ’70s because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there’s no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It’s not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizenswhen Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy ‘resistance’ person who believes they’re the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don’t believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.”

Tucker Carlson– “I know, and as always, they have hijacked the best instincts of the American people, their compassion, and turned it against them. Glenn Greenwald, great to see you tonight”.

*

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). 

Featured image is a screenshot from the video via The Unz Review

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 ideology of Nazism came into being in the years after the First World War. Had the conflict not erupted, it is unlikely that Adolf Hitler and his henchmen would have ever risen to prominence. 

The Nazi fervour did not emerge out of thin air following the end of World War I in November 1918. Almost all of the elements of Nazism were present in Germany even prior to the war; but before 1914 those ingredients had been scattered and rather dormant. They did not constitute a solid whole.

German historian Martin Broszat, who grew up during Hitler’s reign, wrote that in pre-1914 Germany there had existed “a virulent anti-Semitism, a blood-and-soil ideology, the notion of a master race, the idea of territorial acquisition and settlement in the East”. Broszat noted “only the First World War was to cause the decisive seismic shift in the country’s political culture. This was the soil in which Nazism was to grow”. (1)

In rural Germany before 1914, overall there had been scant political consciousness. With the general mobilisation of German males during World War I, the nation’s rural sectors were politically awakened. As Broszat put it, after the fighting was over Germany had “become a mass society” and “Young peasants and land labourers returned with changed personalities, after the war had torn them from the slow-moving pace of provincial life, and had thrown them into the ‘wide world’ and onto the stage of fateful national developments”.

The unrest in interwar German society was much greater than in countries like France and Britain. The Germans had not been victorious in the war, and it was more likely therefore that an extreme right ideology should rise forth in Germany, and not in the so-called Western democracies.

The warning signs were emerging early on, when a far-right military coup d’état was implemented in Berlin during the spring of 1920 [Kapp Putsch, 13–17 March] (2). Leading the Kapp Putsch into Berlin, on the morning of 13 March 1920, was the Marine Brigade of Lieutenant-Commander Hermann Ehrhardt, whose soldiers had served in the German military during the war.

Once Ehrhardt’s men marched into Berlin’s city centre, they could be seen wearing the ancient swastika symbol in large white print on their helmets and armoured vehicles. Perhaps it can be said that the Marine Brigade, which consisted of between 5,000 to 6,000 men, were among the first true Nazis.

The swastika was displayed by Ehrhardt’s Marine Brigade before it was used by Hitler and the new Nazi Party, which had officially been founded on 24 February 1920, a couple of weeks before the Kapp Putsch. The swastika was then adopted by Hitler for the Nazi Party in the summer of 1920. (3)

Aged 38 in 1920, Ehrhardt was an ex-officer in the German Imperial Navy. Ehrhardt had participated in a commanding role, for example, in the Battle of Jutland (31 May–1 June 1916), the largest naval battle of World War I and which forever destroyed the myth of invincibility of the Royal Navy, as over 6,000 British seamen lost their lives in the course of little more than a day.

Ehrhardt was a ruthless, daring and fanatical soldier, which was the case with many of the men under his command. Military author Donald J. Goodspeed wrote of the Marine Brigade, “All in all, it would have been hard to find a more formidable body of troops”.

Through 1919, the Marine Brigade had helped to liquidate various leftist developments in Germany, such as in the cities of Dresden and Brunswick. The Marine Brigade assisted further in eliminating the Bavarian Soviet Republic, which was toppled in early May 1919, while they also overcame the groups of Polish fighters who had attacked Upper Silesia. Ehrhardt’s unit was part of the paramilitary formations (Freikorps) which were springing up in Germany shortly after the war.

It was at this time, in late February 1919, that General Erich Ludendorff returned to Germany after 3 months voluntary exile in southern Sweden (4). General Ludendorff had ruled Germany through a military autocracy from August 1916 to October 1918, failing narrowly to defeat the larger forces of the Anglo-French-American armies. Lt. Col. Goodspeed, a biographer of Ludendorff, wrote that the general possessed “outstanding military abilities”. (5)

The war was over, however, and the 54-year-old Ludendorff had to get on with the rest of his life. He would be a figure of inspiration for the radical German right. Following his return to Berlin from Sweden, Ludendorff, because he was one of the most well-known people in Germany, was given spacious quarters at the Adlon Hotel in central Berlin. The Adlon Hotel was among the best hotels in Europe and was the headquarters of the Allied Disarmament Commission.

Ludendorff informed the English generals staying at the Adlon Hotel that Germany “would never have lost the war if it had not been for the vacillation and weakness of the German Government and people”.

The old order in Germany had collapsed, when Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated on 9 November 1918 and left permanently for the Netherlands, ending his 30-year tenure as the German Empire’s monarch. A left-leaning government promptly came to power in Germany, which would become known as the Weimar Republic. The German president from 11 February 1919 was Friedrich Ebert, who for many years had been a member of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) of Germany. Also prominent in the Weimar government was Philipp Scheidemann, the SPD leader.

Through 1919 and beyond Ludendorff said repeatedly of the leftist forces and politicians, “The greatest blunder of the revolutionaries was to leave us all alive. If I once get back to power there will be no quarter. I should hang up Ebert, Scheidemann and their comrades with a clear conscience and watch them dangle!”

As soon as possible, Ludendorff’s intention was to reclaim complete power in Germany, and then embark upon a massive war of conquest across Europe. He wanted to re-establish Germany as the dominant nation on the continent and, once that was accomplished, retire in peace.

Ludendorff’s megalomania was already pronounced by 1919. In a letter to wife Margarethe during his exile in Sweden, Ludendorff compared himself to Hannibal, the Carthaginian general often considered to be one of history’s greatest commanders. Ludendorff wrote to his wife, “Tell everybody how like my fate was to that of Hannibal. That will teach them to understand”. Hannibal went into voluntary exile in the year 195 BC, having been forced to do so by the Romans. (6)

Forefront in Ludendorff’s mind was the overthrow of the Ebert government. The Adlon Hotel was too conspicuous a place for the sort of work which Ludendorff was thinking of. Later in 1919, some friends proposed to lend him a luxuriously furnished apartment on the Viktoriastrasse (Victoria Street), located opposite the Tiergarten park in the centre of Berlin. He accepted their offer.

Before long, comrades and conspirators were convening in Ludendorff’s flat on the Viktoriastrasse, from Dr. Wolfgang Kapp and General Walther von Lüttwitz, to Ludendorff’s former Chief-of-Operations Colonel Max Bauer, and Captain Waldemar Pabst. Captain Pabst, who would later be in contact with Hitler and Benito Mussolini, had in January 1919 ordered the executions in Berlin of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, the revolutionary socialists.

With Ludendorff’s backing, in October 1919 Pabst formed a far-right political organisation called the Nationale Vereinigung, or Bureau of National Union. Its aims were to co-ordinate the anti-Republican forces and to oust the German Republic by a military coup, which would be known as the Kapp Putsch. Involved in the Bureau of National Union was Dr. Kapp, a far-right politician, and General von Lüttwitz, the overall commander of the German paramilitary units.

With the war imprinted on people’s minds, including that of the Western Allies, Ludendorff moved carefully in his aim of regaining control of Germany. For the time being he remained somewhat obscured from the centre of events. Goodspeed wrote,

“As Kapp looked about him for a sword he thought first of General Ludendorff himself, who had returned from Sweden, and whose name still commanded considerable respect throughout the country… but in early 1920 he [Ludendorff] still retained enough sense of reality to proceed with some caution. Although Ludendorff lent the rebel movement his moral support, he declined to lead a putsch”. Kapp settled for General von Lüttwitz.

After initially succeeding, the coup would collapse after just 5 days. This was due largely to the lack of ruthlessness and efficiency shown by Kapp and von Lüttwitz in dealing with their adversaries on Berlin’s streets, and their leniency to the Weimar politicians, who were allowed to leave Berlin unmolested rather than being apprehended by the Kappists.

Following the Kapp Putsch’s fall on 17 March 1920, the conspirators slunk away from the Reich Chancellery and Berlin. Kapp went to Sweden, von Lüttwitz fled to Hungary, while Pabst left for Austria. Ludendorff’s involvement in the coup and presence in the Reich Chancellery with the other plotters was not a secret; unlike the ringleaders, Ludendorff held sufficient authority to remain in Germany. Yet he could not stay in Berlin for much longer, as the capital itself had become too hot a place to hold the general.

Before Ludendorff departed Berlin he shook hands with Colonel Max Bauer, a key ally of his during the war, and said, “Bauer, we are the richer for a bitter experience”. Bauer then fled to Hungary. In late March 1920 Ludendorff, now going by the name of “Herr Lange”, left Berlin by train for the southern German state of Bavaria, a region that would be a hotbed of Nazi activity for years and which the Weimar government could not control.

Lieutenant-Commander Ehrhardt, who had become properly acquainted with Ludendorff during the Kapp Putsch, made his way to join the general in Bavaria. Ernst Pöhner, the anti-communist Bavarian Chief of Police, had invited Ehrhardt and the Marine Brigade to Munich, the capital of Bavaria. Ehrhardt was made the Chief of the Emergency Police, and his troops were given positions as agricultural labourers on the sprawling estates around Munich.

In late 1920 Ehrhardt established a far-right murder society, called the Organisation Consul. It comprised of members of the Marine Brigade, which after the failure of the Kapp Putsch was outlawed by the Ebert government. In a 2 year period, Ehrhardt’s Organisation Consul would commit at least 354 political assassinations in Germany. (7)

The Organisation Consul simply killed anybody who Ehrhardt deemed an enemy of Germany. Among the various terrorist associations which hindered the Weimar Republic, the Organisation Consul would be surpassed in notoriety only by the Nazi Party. Very few of the Organisation Consul’s members were ever convicted for the murders. (8)

Ludendorff, meanwhile, shortly after relocating to Bavaria, moved to the small village of Ludwigshöhe, beside Munich. Threatened with assassination from communist or left-wing militants, Ludendorff lived in a villa in Ludwigshöhe surrounded by high walls, where he was guarded around the clock by Ehrhardt’s men. Ludendorff’s daily existence was one of incessant conspiracy, and though he was not personally involved with the Organisation Consul or their killings, Goodspeed pointed out, “These were the people around Ludendorff now and he was, in spirit at least, one of 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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes 

1 Martin Broszat, Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany (Berg Publishers, 1st edition, 1 January 1987) 

2 Adriana Popa, “German citizens defend democracy against Kapp Putsch, 1920”, Nvdatabase.Swarthmore.edu, 27 November 2010 

3 Jean-Denis Lepage, Hitler’s Stormtroopers: The SA, The Nazis’ Brownshirts, 1922-1945 (Frontline Books, 30 Sept. 2016) 

4 “Erich Ludendorff, German General”, Britannica 

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, Ludendorff: Soldier: Dictator: Revolutionary (Hart-Davis, 1 January 1966) 

6 “Hannibal”, eHistory, The Ohio State University 

7 Goodspeed, Ludendorff 

8 Howard Stern, The Organisation Consul, Jstor


History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

By Shane Quinn

The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.

The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Rise of Nazism and Terrorist Groups in Interwar Germany
  • Tags: ,

We Need a Smaller Pentagon

December 9th, 2022 by Lindsay Koshgarian

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.

***

Can you imagine the audacity to fail a multi-trillion dollar audit of public funds, and then ask for even more of those taxpayer dollars?

Pentagon leaders just did exactly that.

This month news broke that the agency once again failed to pass a basic audit showing that it knows where its money goes. And instead of holding out for any kind of accountability, Congress stands ready to give a big raise to an agency that failed to account for more than 60 percent of its assets.

This is a sign of an agency that is too big, plain and simple.

Other major government agencies have long since passed audits. But the Pentagon — with its global sprawl of more than 750 military installations, expensive contractors, and boondoggle weapons systems — is so big and disjointed that no one knows where its money goes.

Here’s a simple solution: the Pentagon needs to be a lot smaller.

After 20 years of war, when government spending is desperately needed elsewhere, the Pentagon’s fifth failed audit in as many years —  it’s never, ever passed — should be the last straw.

Instead, recent reports suggest that Congress is moving toward an $858 billion budget for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons — and that figure may grow even more. The increase alone from last year’s spending would more than double the entire diplomacy budget at the State Department.

This isn’t using our taxpayer dollars wisely. It’s robbing programs that we need, like the discontinued Child Tax Credit expansion that cut child poverty by half. The only winners here are the military contractors who commandeer roughly half of the Pentagon’s budget in any given year.

For what taxpayers spend on Lockheed Martin in a typical year alone, we could instead give every American child a strong startin life through quality childcare and preschool. Which would make us stronger?

It looks like the people in this country are starting to catch on, though: A new poll shows that just 48 percent of Americans trust the military, down from a high of 70 percent in 2018.

It’s not because they don’t trust the troops. It’s because after 20 years of ill-begotten wars, the brass expects to get $858 billion of our hard-earned tax dollars when they can’t even account for half of what they’ve already gotten. Sorry, but we have too many other needs in this country for that to make sense anymore.

With the tide of public opinion turning, the days of endlessly growing Pentagon budgets are numbered.

*

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.

Federal budgeting expert Lindsay Koshgarian directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Need a Smaller Pentagon
  • 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.

***

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): Congress Considers Giant “Gift Wrapped” Defense Bill of $858 Billion

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 corporate media is flooded with reports of the supposed spontaneous uprisings of Chinese citizens against the oppressive Communist regime enforcing inhuman zero-COVID policies that lock down entire cities and that require QR code scans for the use of all public buildings, including public restrooms.

Granted that the media has entirely ignored efforts of Chinese to organize protests, strikes, and online campaigns against the true exploitative forces in China, multinational corporations like Walmart, Amazon, and Foxconn, it seems doubtful that this new flurry of political heavy breathing represents a serious effort to address economic inequality in China.

Rather we are being fed yet another flavor of color revolution customized to the current ideological environment of narcissistic decay in the United States, one that encourages the projection of internal totalitarianism onto the “other,” onto China.

China is the only place, within the sickly etiolated intellectual discourse of the United States, wherein the enemy techno-fascism can be accurately limned without political risk.

At the same time, there can be no doubt that China is subject to a massive campaign to destroy governance and to create a docile population subject to the whims of faceless powers who hide behind online systems masquerading as “government.”

But that “communist government” turns out to be, if you scratch the surface, private contractors, Israeli, Japanese, American and other IT and intelligence firms, who have set up shop across China at the local level and are seizing control of government by privatizing all functions of government, using COVID-19 as the wedge to force everything online.

This strategy has no precedent in the policy of the Communist Party of China, or in the Communist tradition of Chen Duxiu and Mao Zedong. Rather it draws on the strategies private contractors to seize control of local government using the control of IT infrastructure. That strategy has much in common with the takeover of local government by contractors that has been implemented in Oklahoma (as documented by Julianne Romanello) and in Louisiana.

The knowhow for contract tracing, facial recognition technology. Geo-fencing, and mandatory daily PCR tests can be traced back to the technology and policy for the control of Palestinians on the West Bank, as well as American research on social manipulation carried out by DARPA, RAND, and other contractors for the Department of Defense and the CIA.

The reader of the media is offered a choice between two flawed interpretations of what is happening in China. On the one hand, there are those who suggest that the techno-fascist policies we see in China are a product of an alien and dangerous Chinese culture that threatens the freedom of the West and its glorious constitutional tradition. This threat is attributed to communism and a docile Chinese civilization stretching back to the antiquity.

On the other hand, there are others who defend China as an emerging alternative civilization, one maligned by the jealous declining Western powers because of its new technological and economic power. But such critics choose to look the other way when it comes to totalitarian governance that Chinese workers face under COVID-19.

Let me illustrate these two perspectives with statements made by two colleagues of mine, men with whom I have had close exchanges in the past.

For an example of China-threat rhetoric, I cite a fellow contributor to Global Research John Whitehead who writes,

“The fate of America is being made in China, our role model for all things dystopian. An economic and political powerhouse that owns more of America’s debt than any other country and is buying up American businesses across the spectrum. China is a vicious totalitarian regime that routinely employs censorship, surveillance, and brutal police state tactics to intimidate its populace, maintain its power, and expand the largess of its corporate elite.”

The dystopian world that Whitehead describes in China, is beyond dispute. But it is most certainly not “made in China.” Rather large parts of Chinese local government (and the enforcement of the COVID regime varies immensely from region to region) have been taken over by private contractors tied to investment banks like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, and private contractors for IT.

The reductive rhetoric used by Whitehouse precludes the most obvious conclusion: that the working people of China and the United States are having their lives, their freedoms, and their health destroyed by multinational corporations and that they should work together to combat this global takeover.

Many American intellectuals feed us a warmed-over “yellow peril” argument such as was advanced in the 19th century, presenting Chinese culture as inherently repressive and corrupting, something that must be stopped from entering the United States at any cost. Such an effort to demonize an alien culture is a classic strategy employed by the rich to deflect a serious discussion of class conflict and of the control of the means of production to a reductionist emotional anger at the foreign.

The alternative view offered in the media is that presented by intellectuals like Martin Jacques, author of the thoughtful study of China’s rise, “When China Rules the World.” Although Jacques offers a more balanced and fair perspective on China than does the “yellow peril” gang, his decision to present China and its civilization as an alternative to a corrupt and decadent West, without mentioning a word about how COVID 19 has been used as an excuse to implement radical social control, deeply undermines his arguments.

Jacques stated recently that “for China to embrace common prosperity, to establish a society of greater fairness, greater equity, that is a very important message not only to China, but to the world as well” while remaining silent on COVID policies. Such an approach is intellectually dishonest and suggests that he has agreed to collaborate with the deeply compromised gang of Chinese, Israeli, American and other teams of investment banks and consulting firms who are radically restructuring Chinese society.

Although China does offer some alternatives to the extraction-based imperialism that drives the Western economies—especially as a nation that has not waged any foreign wars in recent history, and has had almost no overseas military presence, nevertheless, the narcissistic advertisements for designer clothes used by multinational corporations to turn Chinese into consumers, the push to eliminate books and newspapers from hotels and other public spaces, the radical degrading of the quality of journalism (which was superior to the US until the last five years) and the promotion of the lives of the rich and powerful as an ideal for youth, suggests a covert war has been launched against the Chinese people by multinational interests that is at least the equal of campaigns in the US and Europe.

The failure of those sympathetic to China to confront this cruel reality, and to rather limit their analysis to praise for China’s more rational diplomacy, for its advances in rail technology and in solar energy, or for its less imperialist approach to investment in Africa, is unacceptable.

Why should we call it the “Third Opium War?”

Those struggling to understand the nature of the COVID-19 assault on China would do best to consider the last time that the Western powers, and specifically the financial powers in London, set out to take over the Chinese political system, to control the Chinese economy, and to degrade and diminish the authority of Chinese culture.

That process of political, ideological and military assault was launched in the two Opium Wars. British corporate interests worked hand-in-hand with corrupt members of the Chinese ruling class, men who saw in the decay of the Qing Dynasty opportunities for personal benefit through the promotion of British propaganda, namely arguing that Western civilization was inherently more advanced than China’s.

The first Opium War of 1840 was launched by the British to establish absolute authority in East Asia and to strip China of its autonomy through a political and cultural assault that not only impoverished the Chinese economy, but also reduced the ability of Chinese to think for themselves.

The British employed the same strategy they used in India: developing corrupt relations with the gentry at the local level so as to undermine the central government, attacking Chinese civilization as inherently backwards, and inducing economic dependency on the British imperial trade system and finance system.

At that time, China had the most powerful economy in the world, a highly educated population, and an admirable commitment to stable agricultural production and sustainable long-term development. Unlike other nations, China could not be drawn into the tangled spider’s web of trade and finance controlled by the British easily.

The British ruling class could not stand it that China ran a trade surplus with England and that it had no need for British products or use for British logistics in external trade, but sold the British large amounts of tea, porcelain and other products on its own terms.

The British cultivated ties with corrupt local gentry and introduced ideas about transportation via trains, mail service, finance and banking, and medicine that were radically different than what existed in China. The British suggested in the publications that they produced, and later in the missionary schools that they set up, that massive changes were necessary in China in order China to make progress towards modernity. Some of those suggestions were accurate; most were twisted so as to justify imperialism; some concepts like the imperative for growth and international trade were deeply destructive.

Although the British victory in the first Opium War and in the Second Opium War (together with France in 1856 to 1860) was a result of British superior military technology, the British were not ahead because they were smarter but rather because they had waged constant wars in the 18th and 19th centuries that pushed the development of these specific technologies.

At the same time, “Britain” or “England” are misleading terms that habit and institutions force on us so that we can only perceive conflicts in terms of countries, and mistake battles between corporate interests for conflicts between the presidents of China, the United States and Russia.

It was not “England” that attacked China in 1840 after Governor General Lin Zexu wrote an open letter to Queen Victoria in 1839 asking that she end the immoral opium trade and then proceeded to burn illegal opium that the government had seized. Rather it was the British bankers in London who formulated and implemented this plan to take China apart, to reduce it to a semi-colony using the knowhow they had from their takedown of India, Bangladesh and other nations.

The organization at the center of the Opium Wars was the British East India Company, private corporation reporting to the richest British citizens that was able to employ the authority of the government to justify and to advance its activities.

The British East India Company developed a sophisticated system for analysis, for the assessment of opportunities for financial benefit, and for the exploitation of weaknesses in other countries in the early 19th century. It had teams of experts prepared to take action, including military action, for the benefit of the banks, and it lobbied at home British politicians to encourage military action that benefited its clients.

The British East India Company was the father of MI6 (military intelligence section 6) intelligence agency founded in 1909, and more importantly, the grandfather of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency of the United States) founded in 1947. Both of those organizations pose as government agencies but work, for the most part, for the benefit private interests.

Operation COVID-19

Let us move forward to Operation COVID-19, the global coup d’état disguised as a pandemic that was launched against China, and the world, in December of 2019 and that continues on to the present. Although not directed exclusively at China this operation resembles the previous two Opium Wars in method and in purpose.

The author does not have inside knowledge as to exactly how the COVID-19 operation was planned and launched; most likely no one has the full picture. Enough information is available, however, to permit an informed assessment, as opposed to the repetition of the disinformation circulated as journalism these days.

The strategy behind the Wuhan outbreak of 2019, the start of the COVID Wars, had its roots in classified research conducted at DARPA, RAND, and other American institutions, on how to conduct warfare using biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cyber-warfare.

The cyber-warfare imagined in security circles was less concerned with hacking computers and more with hacking the minds of citizens so as to render them incapable of independent thinking and encourage psychological and ideological dependency on a consumer culture powered by narcissism. The promotion of a banal consumer culture that destroys the intellectual functions of the educated classes in politics was a critical part of the groundwork for the COVID wars.

This new form of warfare is best described as “silent weapons for quiet wars,” to use the term employed in the (supposedly) classified manual from the 1950s discovered in 1986 that describes the use of social engineering and automation as a strategy for domination. Private finance and intelligence complexes like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Goldman Sachs, along with the strategic teams of billionaires are the primary clients of this campaign.

China was selected as a primary target (although the strategy is being carried out around the world) for the radical degradation of the population’s thinking through the promotion of AI, smart phones, thereby creating addiction to consumption culture and immediate stimulation, and forcing dependency on technology.

China was a ripe target because modernization ideology has been so central to Chinese society and the imperative to surpass the West that humiliated China in the 19th century is so acute among Chinese intellectuals that the promotion of dangerous automation and geo-fencing could be easily justified as a means for China to surpass the West and to become truly modern. Moreover, Chinese Confucian thought encourages a trust in the role of government that makes it hard for citizens to grasp how corporations have seized control of policy and administration in government.

The use of QR codes for all public spaces, including public restrooms, the requirement of vaccination, and PCR tests within the last 48 hours (or sometimes last 24 hours) was initially accepted by citizens because it was justified as more advanced than the “West.”

Most likely the operation was launched by corrupt elements of intelligence in both the United States and China who are pursuing plans to create a slave society in which billionaires set the ideological and administrative rules for the entire society.

The Chinese and the foreign agents involved in COVID-19 policies at the local level follow directives issued by private intelligence companies that work together with the World Economic Forum, intergovernmental agencies like the World Health Organization that is controlled by the Gates Foundation, and to other multinational institutions tied to global finance.

The promotion of a “new Cold war” between the United States and China in the corporate media is critical to this campaign. Lower level government officials, and citizens, on both sides, are fed the story that because relations between China and the United States are getting worse, that there can be no cooperation or communication between the two nations. This narrative is made substantial by directives that prohibit, or make difficult, interactions between government officials, academics, and cultural figures.

The reality is that a tiny group of key players representing the super-rich in the United States and in China coordinate closely to promote COVID-19 lockdowns in China.

If anyone asks who makes these policies in China, who handles the data, or who is control of the programs, that undergird QR codes and contact tracing, the answer is inevitably it is the Chinese government. But the truth is that few, or none, of these policies were made up or implemented by the Chinese government itself, but rather that the Chinese government is occupied by IT corporations that report to the billionaires (often through Israel and the United States,) and bypass the Chinese government altogether.

Those involved in the Wuhan COVID-19 action in 2019 ruthlessly attacked those in the Chinese government who opposed them, setting up their own shadow government in cooperation with private consulting firms and intelligence contractors.

That shadow government in China (or the United States for that matter) draws its power from its control of IT processes that government depends on. Control of the transfer, storage, processing and all internal communications in government by private IT firms (often simply private intelligence firms in effect selling off data to the highest bidder) has made possible the construction of a shadow empire that is run for the benefit of the billionaires, using a carefully calibrated process to degrade the thinking of citizens, and to decrease freedom of movement and action over months and years. This plan effects massive shifts in society in a manner that is slow enough as to avoid detection by citizens (especially if they are addicted to smart phones) and rapid enough to make the organization of effective resistance difficult.

Ironically, the Communist Party of China, which is described by the Western press as the unique source of totalitarianism in the world, is often the only force capable of resisting the march of techno-fascism. Whereas Western corporations are busy eliminating humans from organizations and implementing AI-based automation, and transforming political parties into appendages of investment banks, the CPC actually holds meetings with large numbers of people, conducts concrete debates on policy that involve detailed consideration of specifics.

A walk through any city in China will make it obvious what sort of a war is taking place below the surface.

Advertisements for I-phones, Italian designer clothes, processed foods laden with sugar, and other consumer goods produced by multinational corporations scream out from every corner at the citizen rendered consumer.

This campaign creates an uncompromising money economy linked to the spider’s web of global finance. Youth gather at I-Phone lounges to gossip and message each other about banal topics, or eat at fashionable restaurants at a great distance from any awareness of the reality that faces working people.

At the same time, there are posters put up along the streets that call on the citizens to be ethical, to treat others with respect, to keep the city clean, and to care for family. These posters encouraging ethical behavior remind me of things I saw in early childhood that have since disappeared since in the United States.

These efforts at ethical government are products of the CPC, not foreign concerns.


Read Part II:

China’s “Third Opium War”. Covid-19 and the Opium Wars. The Alliance of Global Finance and IT Tyranny

By Emanuel Pastreich, December 08, 2022


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 US Provisional Government.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from US Provisional Government

We Must Not Forget the U.S. War on Afghanistan

December 9th, 2022 by Jacob G. Hornberger

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.

***

When the Pentagon used NATO to provoke Russia into invading Ukraine, it had to know that one of the great benefits to such an invasion would be that it would enrich U.S. weapons manufacturers, who, of course, are an important, integral, and loyal part of America’s national-security state form of governmental structure. 

And sure enough, those weapons manufacturers now have a lot to be grateful for. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, 

The world’s biggest arms makers are scaling up production of rocket launchers, tanks and ammunition as the industry shifts to meet what executives expect to be sustained demand triggered by the war in Ukraine.

The Pentagon has committed more than $17 billion in weapons and services to Ukraine, most of it drawn from existing stocks. It has also awarded about $3.4 billion in new contracts to replenish domestic and allies’ stocks.

The Pentagon knew that when it was forced to exit Afghanistan, where it had used a massive amount of weaponry for some twenty years to wreak death and destruction on that impoverished Third World country, its loyal army of arms manufacturers might begin to suffer. The crisis that the Pentagon has ginned up in Ukraine has clearly helped to alleviate that suffering. 

But the Russian invasion of Ukraine had had another beneficiary — the Pentagon itself. That’s because before Americans had a real opportunity to focus on the Pentagon’s 20-year deadly and destructive debacle in Afghanistan, everyone began focusing exclusively on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Thanks to the crisis in Ukraine, the entire Afghanistan misadventure has been relegated to a memory black hole.

But we really still need to do some serious soul-searching, examination, and analysis of the Afghanistan debacle. We cannot let the Pentagon use the crisis that it has ginned up in Ukraine as a way to shift our attention away from what happened in Afghanistan. It would be a grave mistake to just “move on” from Afghanistan and permit the Pentagon to focus our attention exclusively on the evil Russians and their invasion of Ukraine.

It is important to focus on the Constitution, the document that President Biden and the Democrats and even some Republicans have suddenly discovered and begun revering. It requires a congressional declaration of war before a president can legally wage war. There was never a congressional declaration of war against Afghanistan. That made the Pentagon’s war against Afghanistan an illegal one under our form of constitutional government.

Equally important, if President George W. Bush had sought a declaration of war from Congress, it is a virtual certainty that he would not have been able to secure it. That’s because Bush would not have been able to provide any evidence whatsoever of Taliban complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Without any evidence of such complicity, it is difficult to imagine Congress issuing a declaration of war against Afghanistan, especially knowing that such a war would inevitably wreak massive death and destruction on that impoverished Third World country.

Bush claimed that his invasion of Afghanistan was morally justified under the principle of “self-defense.” But that claim necessarily depended on showing that the Taliban regime was involved in the 9/11 attacks. No such evidence existed, and Bush knew it. Thus, if he had gone to Congress and sought a declaration of war based on “self-defense,” he would have gone there empty-handed insofar as evidence is concerned.

In fact, if Bush really believed that the Taliban regime had attacked the United States, he would never have gone to the United Nations seeking its approval to defend itself by invading Afghanistan. No president would do that. 

What about the “harboring” charge? Bush claimed that his invasion of Afghanistan was morally justified because Afghanistan was “harboring” Osama bin Laden. Bush’s claim is without validity. To warrant a “harboring” charge, Bush would have to provide evidence that the Taliban regime had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and was knowingly conspiring with bin Laden to provide him a base to plan the attacks. Bush knew that he had no evidence to support such a charge.

What Bush actually meant by his “harboring” charge was that the Taliban was refusing to comply with Bush’s unconditional extradition demand for bin Laden. But under international law, the Taliban regime had every right to refuse Bush’s extradition demand. That’s because there was no extradition treaty between Afghanistan and the United States. When there is no extradition treaty between two nations, neither one is required to comply with an extradition demand from the other.

What about the claim that the 9/11 attacks were an “act of war” and, therefore, the United States had the legitimate authority to invade Afghanistan to kill or capture bin Laden, who was living in Afghanistan?

It was a bogus justification for invading Afghanistan. Under U.S. law, terrorism is a criminal offense, not an act of war. That’s why terrorism prosecutions are brought in U.S. District Courts. No nation has the legitimate authority to invade another nation to kill or capture a suspected criminal who is residing in that country.

One of the most notorious terrorists was a CIA man named Jose Posada Carriles. He is widely considered to be one of the people who brought down a Cuban airline with a bomb over Venezuelan skies. He later safely ensconced himself in the United States.

When Venezuela demanded Posada’s extradition, U.S. officials protected him by refusing to comply, notwithstanding the fact that there was an extradition treaty between Venezuela and the United States.

Would interventionists who supported the deadly and destructive  invasion of Afghanistan to kill or capture bin Laden have supported a similar deadly and destructive  Venezuelan invasion of the United States to kill or capture Posada? I think not.

Using NATO to gin up the crisis in Ukraine is bad enough. While U.S. arms manufacturers are clearly a beneficiary of that crisis, so is the Pentagon because it has caused people to forget what the Pentagon did to the people of Afghanistan and to just “move” on to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We must not let that happen, especially given the massive death and destruction that the Pentagon wreaked in its immoral and illegal war against an impoverished Third World 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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Featured image is from The Global Times

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.

***

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has confirmed her government’s duplicity regarding the conflict in Ukraine by confirming that the 2014 ceasefire agreement was meant to give Kiev time to build up its military, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

In an interview with Zeit magazine published on Wednesday, Merkel said that the Minsk protocol brokered by Germany and France was “an attempt to give Ukraine time,” which it used to “become stronger” as evidenced on the battlefield now. She was referring to the first of the two documents known collectively as the “Minsk agreements” that were designed to help Kiev reconcile with rebels in the east, who had rejected the outcome of an armed coup in the capital in 2014.

Berlin and “by extension, the West” never intended to implement the Minsk agreements, Zakharova concluded based on Merkel’s remarks. The US and its allies “simulated supporting the UN Security Council resolution” which endorsed the roadmap to peace while pumping weapons into Ukraine and “ignored all crimes committed by the Kiev regime … for the sake of a decisive strike against Russia,” she explained in a social media post on Thursday.

Merkel confirms Ukraine peace deal was a ploy

In the Zeit interview, Merkel stated that Russia “could easily have overrun” Ukrainian troops in 2015, adding that she doubted that “NATO countries could have done as much then as they do now”. The second part of the Minsk agreements was signed in February 2015 amid a military defeat suffered by Ukrainian troops, which attempted to quash the Donbass militias.

Merkel’s description of the accords coincides with that made by former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, during whose tenure they were signed. Domestically, in August 2015, he stated that the peace deal was a ruse to give his government time for a military buildup. He said the same thing to Western audiences in June this year.

Russia sent troops into Ukraine in late February, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk protocols, under which the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk would have been given special status within the Ukrainian state. The Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states, which have since voted to join Russia alongside Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.

Russia also demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked.

*

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 Week’s Most Popular Articles

December 9th, 2022 by Global Research News

Many People Fully Vaccinated for COVID Are Now Going Blind

Ethan Huff, December 4 , 2022

Video: Putin Just Scored a Knockout Blow to Europe and the WEF

Clayton Morris, December 6 , 2022

The WEF Reveals the Agenda for Davos 2023. “Cooperation in a Fragmented World”. Triggering Economic Chaos, Debt, Poverty and Social Tyranny Worldwide…

Sikh for Truth, December 6 , 2022

Where Did this “New World Order” Coup Come From? The Rockefeller’s “Social Engineering Project”

Jens Jerndal, December 5 , 2022

“No, Putin Did Not Start the War in Ukraine”. Towards a U.S. War against Russia?

Mike Whitney, December 5 , 2022

Found Dead at Home After COVID-19 Vaccination

Dr. Peter McCullough, December 5 , 2022

Top Oncologist: Cancer in Patients Exploding After COVID Shots

Art Moore, November 29 , 2022

Narrative versus Reality: “Sorry, Russia Is Winning the War”

James G. Rickards, December 5 , 2022

Vaccine Passport, Digital Identity, Social Credit System, Digital Currency (CBDC): An Invisible Prison Has Been Built Just for You

Dr. Joseph Mercola, December 6 , 2022

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 7 , 2022

Video: Australian Doctor Finds Chips, ‘Self-assembling’ Structures Forming in Pfizer Vaccine Contents

Emily Mangiaracina, December 7 , 2022

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 4 , 2022

Bombshell. India’s “Shock” and Sudden Excess Mortality (April-July 2021), Caused by Covid Vaccine Rollout In its Early Stages?

Prof Denis Rancourt, December 7 , 2022

Today, We’re Living in Orwell’s 1984

Peter Koenig, December 6 , 2022

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The COVID Pandemic Farce Served as a Trial Balloon for the New World Order

His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò, December 4 , 2022

How Blackrock Investment Fund Triggered the Global Energy Crisis

F. William Engdahl, December 7 , 2022

Putin’s Remedy: A Fragmented, Toothless Ukraine Separated by a 100 Kilometer-Wide No-Man’s-Land

Mike Whitney, December 1 , 2022

Dr. McCullough: mRNA from COVID Vax Transfers from Jabbed to Unjabbed, ‘Changing Human Genome’

Patrick Delaney, December 7 , 2022

Multinational Agrichemical Corporations and the Great Food Transformation

Dr. Birsen Filip, December 2 , 2022

Medical Clinic Treating People Injured by COVID Shot Opens in Italy

Kennedy Hall, December 2 , 2022

Video: The Dark Truth of America’s Federation of State Medical Boards

By Dr. Bruce Dooley, Dr. Emanuel Garcia, and Liz Gunn, December 08, 2022

It was uncanny. During the past two and a half years virtually every doctor in the West who dared to question the official Covid Narrative – by raising doubts about the Jab, by discussing natural immunity, individualized treatment, informed consent, and by questioning draconian mandates and restrictions​ – found themselves under attack by their local medical authorities.

Human Rights Day 2022 Must be Recommitment to the Black Radical Human Rights and Peace Traditions

By Black Alliance for Peace, December 09, 2022

December 10 is Human Rights Day. On this day, U.S.-led Western states that are responsible for a majority of the most horrific crimes against humanity will cynically exploit the human rights idea, partially to deflect from their sordid records, but also to enlist the liberal human-rights framework into their arsenal of ideological weapons.

Can Germany’s Plan for Confrontation with Russia Work? Is the Bundeswehr Preparing for War?

By Drago Bosnic, December 09, 2022

On November 14, Der Spiegel published a report according to which leaked documents of the German Ministry of Defense indicate that the Bundeswehr is preparing for a war with Russia. The secret draft titled “Operational guidelines for the Armed Forces” was authored by the German Chief of Defense Staff, General Eberhard Zorn.

EU Better be More Independent from US to Overcome Crisis

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, December 09, 2022

As the security crisis and energy instability worsen in Europe, mainly in Germany, the unfeasibility of continuing the current European model of automatic alignment with American foreign policy becomes increasingly evident. American rivalry with Russia, passively embraced by European states, seriously violates EU’s interests and places the entire bloc under a serious threat.

The Club of Rome and the Rise of the “Predictive Modelling” Mafia

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, December 09, 2022

While many are now familiar with the manipulation of predictive modelling during the COVID-19 crisis, a network of powerful Malthusians have used the same tactics for the better part of the last century in order to sell and impose their agenda.

Olaf Scholz’s “Manifesto” Confirms Germany’s Hegemonic Ambitions. “Zeitenwende”, Turning Point in History.

By Andrew Korybko, December 08, 2022

The German leader just published what can be interpreted as his manifesto explaining why his country must supposedly restore its prior hegemonic status, and it was released by none other than the same magazine run by the Council on Foreign Affairs, which is regarded as among the most influential policymaking platforms in the US-led West’s Golden Billion.

China’s “Third Opium War”. Covid-19 and the Opium Wars. The Alliance of Global Finance and IT Tyranny

By Emanuel Pastreich, December 08, 2022

COVID-19 is a global operation run for the benefit of the super-rich that aims to destroy the lives and the minds of the citizens of China, and the world. The current operation in China is most likely directed by private intelligence firms based in the United States, Israel, Great Britain, and also in China.

What is Truth, What is Lie? How to Reach Fellow Human Beings Intellectually and Emotionally?

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, December 08, 2022

Time and again, courageous enlightened people are faced with the question of how to reach out to their fellow human beings intellectually and emotionally in order to be able to take away their individual and collective prejudices.

Ghana to Buy Oil with Gold Instead of USD. Next for US-led Coup?

By Ben Bartee, December 08, 2022

Ghana’s government recently announced plans to procure oil using gold rather than US dollars – the currency predominately used in the global oil trade.

EU and G7 Decide on Russian Oil Price Cap – Western Arrogance and Ridiculous Interference in the “Free Market”

By Peter Koenig, December 08, 2022

Imagine, the European Union (EU) and the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), decide to put a price cap of US$ 60 per barrel on Russian oil. Just like that. Europe – a US-vassal – is going out of her way to bash Russia, to sanction Russia, and scream, “we won’t buy any Russian energy!”

Sen. Ted Cruz on Twitter Files Revelations Regarding 2020 Elections: “This Was All About Weaponizing Big Tech”

By Steve Watson, December 08, 2022

Republican Senator Ted Cruz has weighed in on the revelations in Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ publication, urging that it is “evidence of corruption that goes to the highest level of government.” Appearing on Fox News, Cruz asserted that the effort to crush the Hunter Biden laptop story went “to the highest level of the FBI. And it goes to the highest level of Big Tech.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: The Dark Truth of America’s Federation of State Medical Boards

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.

***

December 10 is Human Rights Day. On this day, U.S.-led Western states that are responsible for a majority of the most horrific crimes against humanity will cynically exploit the human rights idea, partially to deflect from their sordid records, but also to enlist the liberal human-rights framework into their arsenal of ideological weapons.

This Human Rights Day must be different. As tens of thousands of people are dying in Ukraine during an avoidable war to the ongoing wars in Yemen and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as the slaughter of Palestinians in occupied Palestine, and the hundreds of thousands who died unnecessarily from COVID-19 in the United States, it must be stated—without any equivocations—that if human rights are to have any value, they must be liberated and reconstructed to serve the oppressed.

That has been the work of the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) since its inception in 2017. Embracing the Black radical human-rights and peace traditions, the tagline of this formation has been: “A People(s)-Centered Human Rights Project Opposing War, Repression and Imperialism.”

We love peace!

It is only within the context of social peace that the possibility of human freedom, as well as individual and collective development and progress, can take place. But powerful forces correctly understand peace is a threat. It is a threat because those whose existence depends on the use of extreme forms of state and institutional violence understand the inexplicable link between peace and social justice.

But without justice, there can be no peace!

That is why the Black Alliance for Peace correctly stated, “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but rather the achievement by popular struggle and self-defense of a world liberated from the interlocking issues of global conflict, nuclear armament and proliferation, unjust war, and subversion through the defeat of global systems of oppression that include colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.”

There can be no ambiguity here. We do not fight for the ideas in people’s heads—we fight the structures of oppression.

And human rights?

BAP operates within the framework of the Black radical human-rights tradition that is being popularized as the People(s)-Centered Human Rights framework (PCHRs). What constitutes that framework?

PCHRs are “those non-oppressive rights that reflect the highest commitment to universal human dignity and social justice that individuals and collectives define and secure for themselves through social struggle,” according to BAP National Organizer Ajamu Baraka.

This people(s)-centered framework proceeds from the assumption that the genesis of the assaults on human dignity at the core of human-rights violations is located in the ongoing structural relationships of colonial-capitalist oppression. Therefore, the PCHRs framework does not pretend to be non-political. It is a political project in the service of Africans, as well as the colonized working classes, peasants, and socially oppressed. It names the enemies of freedom: The Western white-supremacist, colonial-capitalist patriarchy.

*

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 BAP

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.

***

Mark Sleboda joins me to talk about the situation on the ground in Ukraine:

  • positional fighting along the front;
  • possible Ukrainian offensives before New Year’s;
  • Russia’s large winter offensive;
  • dwindling Western arms supplies;
  • Russian cruise missile production;
  • where did the Geran-2 drones go?;
  • and what’s coming next.

*

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 a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Russia’s Large Winter Offensive, Dwindling Western Arms Supplies
  • 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.

***

On November 14, Der Spiegel published a report according to which leaked documents of the German Ministry of Defense indicate that the Bundeswehr is preparing for a war with Russia. The secret draft titled “Operational guidelines for the Armed Forces” was authored by the German Chief of Defense Staff, General Eberhard Zorn. It was written in late September and according to General Zorn, “an attack on Germany can potentially happen without warning and can cause serious damage, even existential. Therefore, the defense capabilities of the Bundeswehr are essential for the survival of the country.” The German Chief of Defense Staff stressed the need for a “mega-reform” of the Bundeswehr, adding that “for approximately 30 years, the focus placed on missions abroad no longer does justice to the current situation, with possible consequences that endanger the system.”

Instead, General Zorn thinks it’s crucial for Germany to focus on “the Atlantic defense of the Alliance,” with the “capacity to provide visible and credible deterrence, to dominate Germany’s military action plan.” In this regard, specifically, “the Bundeswehr must arm itself for a forced war, since a potential confrontation on NATO’s eastern flank has once again become more probable.”

The draft clearly identified Russia as the “immediate threat”. However, the designation makes little sense, as Russia is now over 1,500 km away from Germany, with Belarus, Poland and Ukraine standing between the two countries. While it made some sense for Germany to maintain a large, highly trained military force with constant combat readiness during the (First) Cold War, as the USSR had approximately half a million soldiers in East Germany at the time (in addition to other Warsaw Pact member states), the situation is effectively reversed nowadays.

It’s precisely NATO that’s encroaching on Russia’s western borders, with the crawling expansion including coups and other interventions in various Eastern European and post-Soviet states. This aggression by the political West forced Moscow’s hand, culminating with the February 24 counteroffensive. However, the German plan has already been set in motion and no matter how ill-conceived it is, an analysis of how it could play out is in order. The plan certainly isn’t new, as it has been in the works for well over half a year. Back in early March, the German government announced it would allocate approximately €100 billion to upgrade the Bundeswehr, which has become a mere shadow of what it was during the heydays of the (First) Cold War.

The 2021 budget for Bundeswehr was approximately €50 billion. If Berlin was to increase that by close to 100%, it would put extreme pressure on the struggling German economy. Such a massive upsurge in military spending wouldn’t only take away from other branches of the government, but it would also come at a time when the sanctions boomerang from the failed economic siege of Russia is ravaging all of the European Union. The bloc hasn’t even begun recovery from the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s already facing severe economic contraction resulting from anti-Russian sanctions and policies. Much of Germany’s prosperity was based on access to cheap Russian energy, which is now a thing of the past thanks to Berlin’s suicidal subservience to “Euro-Atlantic values”.

In essence, this means that Germany is doomed to massively increase military spending while having significantly fewer resources at its disposal to do so. This doesn’t even factor in how the German people would react to such a momentous foreign (and, to a large extent, domestic) policy shift. As the EU’s largest and most important economy, Germany would also cause shockwaves throughout the bloc if it were to go ahead with such a plan. With Russian energy supplies either gone or effectively unaffordable, any government in power in Berlin would have virtually the entire German private sector against it, with the notable exception of the arms industry, which would be the only one not contracting thanks to increased orders for the Bundeswehr.

On the other hand, even this plan is bound to hit several major snags before it’s even put in motion. The US Military Industrial Complex dominates in NATO, making it the primary beneficiary of German (re)militarization. Domestic weapons production has atrophied significantly in the last 30 years, while the globalization of the world economy led to the rest of it being outsourced to other countries, both in Europe and elsewhere around the globe.

New reports indicate that Berlin’s decision to supply weapons and munitions to the Kiev regime is severely depleting German stockpiles, a problem further exacerbated by the significant slowdown of component imports from China. This is also the result of the German government’s self-destructive push for an economic decoupling of the EU and the Asian giant. Beijing has been extremely patient with the bloc’s subservience to Washington DC, but it seems this patience has now run out.

Another major issue will be the reaction of other EU members. With the notable exception of the clinically Russophobic Baltic states and Poland, the rest of the bloc is extremely concerned with the economic fallout of the failed sanctions war on Russia. As the German economy contracts, the rest of the EU will almost certainly follow suit, causing massive political instability.

At least half a dozen European governments have already fallen so far, while the neoliberal elites in Brussels are now forced to contend with new anti-liberal political parties in power in several EU member states. This is bound to cause further rifts within the bloc. It will be followed by the general militarization of the EU, which will further erode the already falling living standards and cause more political instability. This will turn Europe into an economically devastated bulwark that serves no other purpose except to contain Russia while the US shifts focus to the Asia-Pacific region.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image: German troops in a NATO military exercise in 2021 (Source: Multipolarista)

EU Better be More Independent from US to Overcome Crisis

December 9th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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.

***

As the security crisis and energy instability worsen in Europe, mainly in Germany, the unfeasibility of continuing the current European model of automatic alignment with American foreign policy becomes increasingly evident. American rivalry with Russia, passively embraced by European states, seriously violates EU’s interests and places the entire bloc under a serious threat.

Germany is the most economically important country for the EU and at the same time the most dependent on Russia. Without any energy sovereignty and dependent on the partnership with Moscow to supply its internal market, Berlin sought for decades to maintain pragmatic relations with Russia, capable of overcoming any political or ideological rivalries, aiming exclusively at the well-being of the German people and the local economy. But this stance has been completely abandoned.

During the early days of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, Germany was the first country to try to somehow resist American pressure for sanctions, at least as far as energy is concerned. But the Scholz government was absolutely unable to resist pressure from Washington and quickly “surrendered”, favoring the American anti-Russian strategy and harming German interests.

Obviously, without the energy to power its industry, the negative effects have already started to be seen in Germany, but the situation will only get worse as winter gets more severe in Europe. With high energy prices and no perspective of improvement in the short term, as well as under a strong crisis of legitimacy with constant mass protests, the country is truly immersed in a severe crisis which consequences spread beyond national borders, since, with the largest European economy weakened, the whole EU is affected.

However, energy and economy are just some of the problems facing Berlin. The German adherence to American sanctions was not the only anti-strategic attitude taken by the government, which also strived to become one of the biggest arms suppliers for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, to the point of causing irreversible damage to domestic military reserves.

Before the Russian operation in Ukraine, military experts already frequently reported the obsolescence of the German military apparatus and its inability to defend the country, whose only hope in a possible conflict situation would be to rely exclusively on the “goodwill” of its NATO partners. Now, with Berlin sending its few weapons to Kiev and with an industry weakened by the energy crisis, unable to continue replenishing stocks, the situation is even more hopeless, placing Germany at a very serious level of subservience to the US.

In fact, on December 8, 2022, Olaf Scholz marks one year in the German government, and, as we can see, his administration so far has been a real disaster for the strategic interests of the German state and the entire EU. To sum it up, it is possible to say that his rise to power marked the decline of any German participation in the proposal of a “sovereign” Europe. Earlier, Angela Merkel was an active advocate of increasing the EU’s political autonomy, despite her close ties with the US. Merkel even became Emmanuel Macron’s main partner when the French president announced in his Sorbonne speech the project of achieving a “European sovereignty”.

As a politically stable and considered for years the “de facto” leader of the EU, Merkel tried to make Germany the economic pillar of a more independent Europe in relation to the US. Macron has emerged as an important ally, considering France’s military power – having even proposed the creation of a European army outside NATO. Thus, both countries together would have the conditions to lead a new shift in the bloc, making it a more “distant” ally of the US, defending its own interests without automatic alignment. But the fragility of the Scholz government prevented any process in this direction.

Scholz’s weakness and unpopularity caused his government to passively accept foreign impositions and escalate participation in the Ukrainian conflict, harming its own economy and people. More than that, Scholz passively accepted the humiliation imposed by the West in the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines. Several intelligence reports point to the involvement of the US, UK and Poland in the sabotage, and even so Germany remains inert and submissive.

These events hindered any idea about “European sovereignty”. Macron’s project for the continent has lost force and today France acts more independently. Germany was unable to play a leading role in managing a new future for the European bloc and has consolidated itself over the last twelve months as an American satellite state, also reflecting its subservience to other European states, economically weaker, which did not have any posture other than increasing the irrational automatic alignment with the US.

As a result, Europe loses the opportunity to become an independent bloc amidst the rise of a multipolar world. At some point in the near future, European leaders will try to reverse the mistakes that are being committed now, but they will find it much more difficult. Weakened, the US-led NATO will become more reactive and aggressive in the future, seeking to retain all zones of influence it still has. And, as Washington has already made clear with the Nord Stream attacks, sabotage and aggression are possible options for forcing Europe to maintain its submissive posture.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from parstoday.com/

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

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

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

***

While many are now familiar with the manipulation of predictive modelling during the COVID-19 crisis, a network of powerful Malthusians have used the same tactics for the better part of the last century in order to sell and impose their agenda.

While much propaganda has gone into convincing the world that eugenics disappeared with the defeat of Hitler in 1945, the reality, as I discussed in my previous article The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits, is far removed from this popular fantasy.

In that piece, I reviewed the origins of cybernetics as a new “science of control” created during World War II by a nest of followers of Lord Bertrand Russell who had one mission in mind. This mission was to shape the thinking of both the public as well as a new managerial elite class who would serve as instruments for a power they were incapable of understanding. 1

We also explored the science of limits that was infused into the scientific community at the turn of the 20th century with the imposition of the assumption that humanity, the biosphere, and even the universe itself were closed systems, defined by the second law of thermodynamics (aka: entropy) and thus governed by the tendency towards decay, heat death and ever-decreasing potential for creative change. The field of cybernetics would also become the instrument used to advance a new global eugenics movement that later gave rise to transhumanism, an ideology which today sits at the heart of the 4th industrial revolution as well as the “Great Reset.”

In this article, we will evaluate how this sleight of hand occurred and how the minds of the population and governing class alike have been induced to participate in our own annihilation. Hopefully, in the course of this exercise, we will better appreciate what modes of thinking can still be revived in order to ensure a better future more becoming of a species of dignity.

Neil Ferguson’s Sleight of Hand

In May 2020, Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson was forced to resign from his post as the head of the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). The public reason given was Neil’s sexual escapades with a married woman during a draconian lockdown in the UK at the height of the first wave of hysterics. Neil should have also been removed from all his positions at the UN, WHO and Imperial College (most of which he continues to hold) and probably jailed for his role in knowingly committing fraud for two decades.

After all, Neil was not only personally responsible for the lockdowns that were imposed onto the people of the UK, Canada, much of Europe and the USA2, but as the world’s most celebrated mathematical modeller, he had been the innovator of models used to justify crisis management and pandemic forecasting since at least December 2000.

It was at this time that Neil joined Imperial College after spending years at Oxford. He soon found himself advising the UK government on the new “foot and mouth” outbreak of 2001.

Neil went to work producing statistical models extrapolating linear trend lines into the future and came to the conclusion that over 150,000 people would be dead by the disease unless 11 million sheep and cattle were killed. Farms were promptly decimated by government decree and Neil was awarded an Order of the British Empire for his service to the cause by creating scarcity through a manufactured health crisis.

In 2002, Neil used his mathematical models to predict that 50,000 people would die of Mad Cow Disease which ended up seeing a total of only 177 deaths.

In 2005, Neil again aimed for the sky and predicted 150 million people would die of Bird Flu. His computer models missed the mark by 149,999,718 deaths when only 282 people died of the disease between 2003-2008.

In 2009, Neil’s models were used again by the UK government to predict 65,000 deaths due to Swine flu, which ended up killing about 457 people.

Despite his track record of embarrassing failures, Neil continued to find his star rising ever further into the stratosphere of science stardom. He soon became the Vice Dean of Imperial College’s Faculty of Medicine and a global expert of infectious diseases.

In 2019, he was assigned to head the World Health Organization’s Collaboration Center for Infectious Disease Modelling, a position he continues to hold to this day. It was at this time that his outdated models were used to “predict” 500,000 COVID deaths in the UK and two million deaths in the USA unless total lockdowns were imposed in short order. Under the thin veneer of “science”, his word became law and much of the world fell into lockstep chanting “two weeks to flatten the curve.”

Predictive model taken from the March 16 paper authored by Imperial College London’s COVID-19 Response Team, led by Neil M. Ferguson, “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand”

When Neil was pressed to make the code used to generate his models available to the public for scrutiny in late 2020 (after it was discovered that the code was over 13 years old), he refused to budge, eventually releasing a heavily redacted version which was all but useless for analysis.

A Google software engineer with 30 years experience writing (under a pseudonym) for The Daily Skeptic analyzed the redacted code and had this to say:

“It isn’t the code Ferguson ran to produce his famous Report 9. What’s been released on GitHub is a heavily modified derivative of it, after having been upgraded for over a month by a team from Microsoft and others. This revised codebase is split into multiple files for legibility and written in C++, whereas the original program was “a single 15,000 line file that had been worked on for a decade” (this is considered extremely poor practice). A request for the original code was made 8 days ago but ignored, and it will probably take some kind of legal compulsion to make them release it. Clearly, Imperial are too embarrassed by the state of it ever to release it of their own free will, which is unacceptable given that it was paid for by the taxpayer and belongs to them.”

Besides tax-payers, the author should have also included Bill Gates, as his foundation donated millions of dollars to Imperial College and Neil directly over the course of two decades, but we’ll forgive her for leaving that one out.

Monte Carlo Methods: How the Universe Became a Casino

The Daily Skeptic author went further to strike at the heart of Neil’s fraud when she nailed the underlying stochastic function at the heart of Neil’s predictive models. She writes:

“‘Stochastic’ is just a scientific-sounding word for ‘random.’ That’s not a problem if the randomness is intentional pseudo-randomness, i.e. the randomness is derived from a starting ‘seed’ which is iterated to produce the random numbers. Such randomness is often used in Monte Carlo techniques. It’s safe because the seed can be recorded and the same (pseudo-)random numbers produced from it in future.”

The author is right to identify the stochastic (aka; random) probability function at the heart of Neil’s models, and also correctly zeroes in on the blatant fudging of data and code to generate widely irrational outcomes that have zero connection to reality. However, being a Google programmer who had herself been processed in an “information theory” environment, which presumes randomness to be at the heart of all reality, the author makes a blundering error by presuming that Monte Carlo techniques would somehow be useful in making predictions of future crises. As we will soon see, Monte Carlo techniques are a core problem across all aspects of human thought and policy making.

The Monte Carlo technique itself got its name from Information Theorist John von Neumann and his colleague Stanlislaw Ulam who saw in the chance rolling of dice at casino roulette tables the key to analyze literally every non-linear system in existence- from atomic decay, to economic behavior, neuroscience, climatology, biology, and even theories of galaxy-formation. The Monte Carlo Casino in Morocco was the role model selected by von Neumann and Ulam to be used as the ideal blueprint that was assumed to shape all creation.

According to the official website for The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences(INFORM), it didn’t take long for Monte Carlo Methods to be adopted by the RAND Corporation and the U.S. Air force. The INFORM site states:

“Although not invented at RAND, the powerful mathematical technique known as the Monte Carlo method received much of its early development at RAND in the course of research on a variety of Air Force and atomic weapon problems. RAND’s main contributions to Monte Carlo lie in the early development of two tools: generating random numbers, and the systematic development of variance-reduction techniques.”

As discussed in my previous segment, RAND Corporation was the driving force for the adoption of Cybernetics as the science of control within US foreign policy circles during the Cold War.

The person assigned to impose cybernetics and its associated “systems” planning into political practice was Lord President of the British Empire’s Scientific Secretariat Alexander King- acting here as Director General of Scientific Affairs of the Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD) and advisor to NATO. His post 1968 role as co-founder of the Club of Rome will be discussed shortly.

Whereas selling end-times scenarios to a gullible populace took the form of such Gates-funded stochastic models utilizing Monte Carlo techniques like those deployed by Neil Ferguson, the selling of end-times scenarios in the form of global warming have also used the exact same techniques, albeit for a slightly longer time frame. As Dr. Tim Ball proved in his successful lawsuits against the IPCC’s Michael Mann of “Hockey Stick” fame, those end-times global warming models have also used stochastic formulas (aka randomness functions) along with Monte Carlo techniques to consistently generate irrationally high heating curves in all climate models.

Michael Mann’s 1998 “hockey stick” temperature model, debunked several times over for using fraudulent techniques and selective data, but used by the IPCC to this very day. Source.

In an October 2004 article on Technology Review, author Richard Muller described how two Canadian scientists proved that this fraud underlies Mann’s Hockey Stick model, writing:

“Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick… This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!”

Not coincidentally, these same stochastic models utilizing Monte Carlo techniques were also used in crafting economic models justifying the high-frequency trading ridden casino economy of the post-1971 era of myopic consumerism and deregulation.3

The Club of Rome and World Problematique

The age of “predictive doomsday models” was given its most powerful appearance of “scientific respectability” through the efforts of an innocuous sounding organization called The Club of Rome.

Historian F. William Engdahl wrote of the Club’s origins:

“In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Pecceiand Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat’s Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO.”

The think tank was founded by two self-professed Malthusians named Aurelio Peccei and OECD Director General for Scientific Affairs Sir Alexander King who promulgated a new gospel to the world: The age of scientific progress and industrial growth must stop in order for the world to reset its values under a new paradigm of zero-technological growth.

Both Peccei and King were also advocates of a new pseudoscience dubbed “World Problematique,” which was developed in the early 1960s and can simply be described as “the science of global problems.” Unlike other branches of science, solving problems facing humanity was not the concern for followers of Problematique. Its adherents asserted that the future could be known by first analyzing the infinite array of “problems” which humanity creates in modifying the environment.

To illustrate an example: Thinking people desire to mitigate flood damage in a given area, so they build a dam. But then damage is done to the biodiversity of that region. Problem.

Another example: Thinking people wish to have better forms of energy and discover the structure of the atom, leading to nuclear power. Then, new problems arise like atomic bombs and nuclear waste. Problem.

A final example: A cure for malaria is discovered for a poor nation. Mortality rates drop but now population levels rise, putting stress on the environment.

This list can go on literally forever.

An adherent to Problematique would fixate on every “problem” caused by humans naively attempting to solve problems. They would note that every human intervention leads to dis-equilibrium, and thus unpredictability. The Problematique-oriented mind would conclude that if the “problem that causes all problems” were eliminated, then a clean, pre-determined world of perfect stasis, and thus predictability, would ensue. Reporting on the growth of the Club of Rome’s World Problematique agenda in 1972, OECD Vice Chair, and Club of Rome member Hugo Thiemann told Europhysics News:

“In the past, research had been aimed at ‘understanding’ in the belief that it would help mankind. After a period of technological evolution based on this assumption, that belief was clearly not borne out by experience. Now, there was a serious conflict developing between planetary dimensions and population, so that physicists should change to consider future needs. Science policy should be guided by preservation of the biosphere.”

On page 118 of an autobiographical account of the Club of Rome entitled ‘The First Global Revolution’ published in 1991, Sir Alexander King echoed this philosophy most candidly when he wrote:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

The Club of Rome quickly set up branches across the Western world with members ranging from select ideologues in the political, business, and scientific community who all agreed that society’s best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship. The Canadian branch of the organization was co-founded by the hyperactive Maurice Strong himself in 1970 alongside a nest of Fabians and Rhodes Scholars including Club of Rome devotee Pierre Trudeau. More on this will be said below.

One particularly interesting 1973 propaganda film was produced by ABC News and showcases the Club of Rome-MIT “innovation” on computer modelling. Describing the new modelling technology unveiled by MIT and the Club of Rome, the video’s narrator states:

Click image to watch the video.

“What it does for the first time in man’s history on the planet is to look at the world as one system. It shows that Earth cannot sustain present population and industrial growth for much more than a few decades.”

The 1001 Nature Trust

In order to finance this paradigm shift, the 1001 Nature Trust was founded in 1970 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

Bernhard ( founder of the Bilderberg Group in 1954) had worked alongside his close misanthropic associates Prince Philip Mountbatten, and Sir Julian Huxley to create the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961. The WWF was itself created to raise funds for the previously created International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which was founded by Sir Julian Huxley in 1947. Huxley had been a busy bee, having established UNESCO the year prior with a mandate to revive eugenics and promote world government under new names. When he co-founded the WWF, Huxley was also acting President of the British Eugenics Society.

The plan was simple: each of the 1001 founding members simply put $10,000 into the trust which was then directed towards the green paradigm shift that sought to replace the old paradigm of “saving humanity from empire” towards the new paradigm of “saving nature from humanity” as outlined by Sir King above.

Prominent 1001 Nature Trust members included international royalty, billionaires, and technocratic sociopaths who wanted nothing more than to manage this promised Brave New World as part of the “alpha” caste.

Many of these figures were simultaneously founding members of the Club of Rome, including Canada’s Maurice Strong, who later became Vice President of the WWF under Prince Philip’s presidency.

When Strong became WWF Vice President in 1978, the man he replaced was Maj. Gen. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. Bloomfield was another 1001 Club founding member whom New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discovered to be implicated in the Montreal-based assassination of the anti-Malthusian President John F. Kennedy in 1963 via his involvement with Permindex. This same Swiss-based organization served as a cover for various Gladio-connected assassinations including several efforts to kill JFK ally Charles de Gaulle, resulting in that organization’s expulsion from France soon thereafter.

A Word on Maurice Strong

One of Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip’s most powerful “ally” was a man named Maurice Strong, a 1001 Trust founding member who also happened to co-found the World Economic Forum and served as WWF vice-president under Philip from 1976-78.  In a 1990 interview with West Magazine, Strong let the cat out of the bag, asking rhetorically:

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

It is important to recall that Maurice Strong’s remarks took place in the context of a “fictional book” he wished to write that would take place at the World Economic Forum- a group he and Kissinger led in co-founding 20 years earlier using a German cardboard cut out named Klaus Schwab. In 2015, Klaus eulogized Strong by calling him “my mentor.”

While some apologists dismiss the sociopath’s remarks as simple musings over a work of fiction, it is worth considering what Maurice himself announced at the keynote address to the 1992 UN Conference on Population and the Environment in Rio De Janeiro. Strong had been tapped to head this second Earth Summit (the first having been the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment which he also chaired). At this 1992 summit, Strong said:

“Industrialized countries have developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

The Rio Summit had established a new era in the consolidation of NGOs and corporations under the “green” agenda. This doctrine was formalized with Agenda 21 (later renamed Agenda 2030) and the Earth Charter, co-authored by Mikhail Gorbachev, Jim MacNeill and Strong between 1996-2000. The International Earth Charter drafting Committee was chaired by none-other than transhumanist billionaire Steven Rockefeller. My God

According to the World Economic Forum’s own website, Prince Bernhard was the primary patron of the infamous 1973 WEF Summit that announced the Davos Manifesto for the first time, laying the groundwork for the theory of technocratic feudalism with a loose capitalist veneer known as “Stakeholder Capitalism.” It was also at this 1973 Summit, that the Club of Rome was first introduced to the world scene in order to present a new program for population control.

Limits to Growth

The document which became the bible and blueprint of this new anti-humanist movement that birthed today’s Green New Deal agenda was titled Limits to Growth (1972) and today holds the record as the most widely read book on ecology, having sold 30 million copies published into 32 languages.

A recent article celebrating the book’s 40-year anniversary stated “it helped launch modern environmental computer modeling and began our current globally focused environmental debate. After Limits [To Growth], environmentalists, scientists and policy-makers increasingly thought of ecological problems in planetary terms and as dynamically interconnected… It is worth revisiting Limits today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric climate change to a mass audience.”

The book itself was the culmination of a two-year study undertaken by a team of MIT statisticians under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows.

Here’s a February 2022 video of Dennis Meadows musing over his hopes that the coming inevitable genocide of 80% of the world population could be accomplished peacefully under a “benevolent” dictatorship.

The MIT study itself did not even begin in the USA, but rather in Montebello Quebec in 1971, when Club of Rome-backer Pierre Trudeau allocated tax payer money to initiate the project. A network of Rhodes Scholars and Privy Councillors centered around Alexander King, Maurice Strong, Maurice Lamontagne (founder of Environment Canada), Marc Lalonde (Rhodes Scholar, Trudeau advisor and head of the Prime Ministers Office), Michael Pitfield (Privy Council Clerk and founder of Canada’s CSIS) and Rhodes Scholar Governor General Roland Michener, among others, had presided over that meeting. When the Canadian funds had served their role, the project continued to receive its funding from the Aurelio Peccei’s Volkswagen Foundation.

Caption: Sir Alexander King (left) and the model produced by the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth predicting an apocalyptic end of the world by 2000 (right)

The Chaining of Prometheus

A long time, London-trained asset and close collaborator of Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was Maurice Lamontagne, a Club of Rome member and former President of Canada’s Privy Council from 1964-65.

Of all of the Club of Rome’s members, Lamontagne was the most candid in identifying the Earth’s greatest enemy to be human creativity itself. Writing in his Senate Committee Reports of 1968-1972 which reformed science policy funding and planning, Lamontagne wrote:

“Nature imposes definite constraints on technology itself and if man persists in ignoring them the net effect of his action in the long run can be to reduce rather than to increase nature’s potential as a provider of resources and habitable space… But then, an obvious question arises: How can we stop man’s creativeness?”

Correctly recognizing that the yearning to discover the unknown is built into the human condition, Lamontagne answers his own question, writing:

“How can we proclaim a moratorium on technology? It is impossible to destroy existing knowledge; impossible to paralyze man’s inborn desire to learn, to invent and to innovate… In the final analysis we find that technology is merely a tool created by man in pursuit of his infinite aspirations and is not the significant element invading the natural environment. It is material growth itself that is the source of conflict between man and nature.”

Thus, creativity and its fruits of technological progress are acceptable only IF they reduce the assumed conflict between man and nature posited by Lamontagne. “Bad” technology in Lamontagne’s formulation, has the effect of increasing humanity’s material growth (i.e.: powers of productivity). If, on the other hand, we promote technologies of a low energy flux density form, such as windmills, solar panels and biofuels, which reduce the energy available and thus the amount of economic activity in which man can engage, then technology can be defined as a “good” thing” according to this twisted logic.

This concept was echoed by another Club of Rome member and collaborator with Lamontagne on his Senate Report named Omond Solandt. Solandt made his career as the science advisor to Lord Louis Mountbatten (Prince Philip’s mentor) during WWII and headed Canada’s Defense Research Board until 1957, where he collaborated on MK Ultra alongside the infamous Ewan Cameron at McGill University. Testifying to the Lamontagne Senate Commission in 1970 Solandt said:

There is no longer any need to advance science. The need is rather to understand, guide and use science effectively for the welfare of mankind.” 

What defines “the welfare of mankind” in the mind of an MK Ultra proponent should give one chills.

In preparation for the “post-industrial order” that was unleashed with the 1971 floating of the US dollar and the destruction of the Bretton Woods monetary system, Lamontagne prescribed that the “new wisdom” should no longer aim at discoveries in atomic, medical and space sciences, in order to focus on more “practical” engineering endeavors. He also proposed that funding to advanced science be diminished by widening the definition of “science” itself to embrace the humanities, monetary economics and social sciences. Those programs then began absorbing the funding that had formerly been directed to research on pure science. Lamontagne stated this in volume one of his report:

“The new wisdom prescribes that the additional R&D effort be devoted to the life sciences and social sciences rather than the physical sciences… to economic and social objectives rather than curiosity and discovery.

In Defense of Prometheus

One leading Canadian scientist took an early stand against this Club of Rome-driven transformation. Ronald Hayes, professor of environmental science at Dalhousie University and Canadian civil servant wrote his 1973 book “The Chaining of Prometheus: The Evolution of a Power Structure for Canadian Science”, where he identified Lamontagne as a minion of the god Zeus as portrayed in Aeschylus’ famous drama Prometheus Bound. The ancient Greek drama told the story of the demi-god Prometheus who was punished for 10,000 years for the defiant act of teaching humanity how to use the Fire which Zeus had monopolized for himself.

Attacking the call to deconstruct the entire 1938-1971 science funding structure and rebuild it under a new technocratic regime, Professor Hayes called out the concerted attack on the National Research Council of Canada which had been the driving force of technological progress since WWII saying:

“Lamontagne wants to destroy the National Research Council, the body that has nurtured and launched much of the government research and got the graduate programs going in our universities. It is a fault of the Trudeau administration which Lamontagne echoes.”

Hayes attacked the newly-formed powers of the Treasury Board which were now given exceptional control of science policy under a new scientific dictatorship when he said:

“The most subtle exercise of power, which obviates the necessity of close control, is infiltration by reliable people- the creation of a ruling elite…These Englishmen became known the world over as the rulers of the British Empire… With somewhat similar aims, the Public Service Commission is grooming future Canadian government managers to follow the general policies and precepts of the Treasury Board.”

Predictive Models Take Over Actual Thinking

Although Professor Hayes was right to attack the terrible fraud that was being committed under the helm of Senator Lamontagne’s reform of Canadian science funding in 1973, he neglected the global changes which the Club of Rome’s predictive modelling revolution had set into motion.

The Club of Rome’s 1972 Limits to Growth was the first of its kind to fuse together global temperature with economic variables like population growth, resource loss, and the under-defined category of “pollution”. By utilizing linear equations to extrapolate trends into the future, the Club of Rome had set the stage for two major fallacies:

Fallacy #1 – The fabric of physical space time shaping the discoverable universe is intrinsically non-linear and thus not expressible by any form of linear equations regardless of the computing power involved. Human creative mentation is most explicitly non-linear as it is tied to non-formalizable states of existence like inspiration, love of truth, dignity, and beauty which no binary system can approximate. The Club of Rome programmers ignored these facts and assumed the universe was as binary as their software.

Fallacy #2 – The data sets themselves could easily be skewed and re-framed according to the controllers of the computer programmers who aspired to shape government policy. We have already seen how this technique was used to drive fallacious results of future scenarios under the hand of Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson and the same technique has been applied in ecological modelling as well.

This use of skewed, under-defined statistics, projected into the future in order to “act preventatively on future crises” became a hegemonic practice for the next 40 years and has been used by neo-Malthusians ever since to justify the increased rates of war, poverty and disease across the world.

With the Limits to Growth computer models, a scientific veneer was given to the cultish efforts of fringe neo-Malthusians like Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book The Population Bomb tried to forecast an inevitable global planetary crisis where oil would dry up, arable lands would dry away and resources would disappear by the year 2000. Ehrlich’s cynical thesis won over a cult following but due to its airy generalizations, it didn’t win many converts among policy making or scientific circles. The club of Rome changed all of that, making Ehrlich’s book a best seller by 1972.

To get a sense of the roots of Ehrlich’s Malthusian outlook, it is worth appreciating his hateful concept of human nature as little more than thoughtless cancer cells growing at geometric rates and slowly killing its host. In his 1968 book, he wrote:

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people… We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

Ehrlich’s protégé John Holdren, who helped lead the shutdown of NASAs manned space systems and slashed what little remained of an American fusion program as Obama’s science Czar from 2009-2017, added his voice to this new Malthusian priesthood in his 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with Ehrlich).

On pg. 942 we find a clear blueprint for a system of green global governance which the duo saw as the only solution to the oncoming population bomb:

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international marketThe Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Under this heartless logic, nation states simply had to be converted into tools for imposing depopulation programs rather than naively endeavoring to end colonialism, poverty and war as John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Charles de Gaulle, Daniel Johnson, Enrico Mattei or Martin Luther King had once attempted.

The Problem of Discoveries

Of course, if one did not wish to accept the “solutions” proposed by the neo-Malthusians then an alternative path would need to be adopted. This healthier outlook was contingent upon the cultivation and application of new pioneering discoveries without killing “useless eaters” but it would also increase the “unpredictability factor” which mathematical control freaks could never tolerate.

In the pro-growth cultural dynamic of the 1960s and 1970s, the master key to this new age of abundance was understood to be found in the domain of fusion energy. The processes of fusing atoms like helium and hydrogen isotopes in order to generate vast amounts of energy had been harnessed after WWII, but sadly the application of this technology had only known destructive ends via thermonuclear weapons. However, there was no reason to think that peaceful uses of this immense power could not be made available if moral national policies could encourage it. The heat and energy densities of atomic fusion were incredible with a spoonful of ocean water yielding greater energy availability than thousands of barrels of oil.

But for followers of “World Problematique” emerging into dominant positions of government within the Trilateral Commission and World Economic Forum, this “solution” was only the gateway to more problems.

In 1975, Ehrlich stated that in his view,humanity’s acquisition of fusion energy was “like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” In 1989, faced with the prospect of Cold fusion’s realization, John Holdren ruminated that developing fusion energy was undesirable because it would only enflame mankind’s “‘pave the planet and paint it green’ mentality.”

At that same time, Jeremy Rifkind, Third Industrial Revolution author and fringe activist-turned-international climate advisor to the UN, stated “the prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”

In true Pygmalion fashion, the oligarchy was able to “scientifically justify” their misanthropic view of global governance by first breaking humanity’s kneecaps and then arguing that we were never meant to run.

Take, for instance, the fact that the slashing of fusion power research begun under the Trilateral Commission-controlled Presidency of Jimmy Carter, which has continued unabated until the present day.

Not only did actual funding fall far below the minimum requirements to build and activate prototypes of new designs, but starting in 1977 the funding was increasingly redirected towards “zero-technological growth” forms of energy like windmill and photovoltaic cell technology. Even conventional domains of nuclear energy research like the closing of the fuel cycle using fast breeder reactors which the USA once championed were killed by Executive Order and buried under moratoria during the 1970s. One of the key figures in this attack on fusion was a RAND Corp alum and former CIA director, James Schlesinger, then serving as Secretary of Energy under Carter. Schlesinger amplified regulatory laws and cut funding in fusion despite milestones being reached in Los Alamos and Princeton in 1976. Schlesinger’s worldview as a priest of doom was defined in a 1960 book where he said:

“Economics is the science of choice in a world of limited resources…. We have gone around the world spreading the ‘gospel of plenty’ raising the level of expectations … [but] in the nature of things, these rising expectations can never be satisfied…. We must in our strategic policy return to the days before the Industrial Revolution … [and] prepare to fight limited wars.”

Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200 (1974) outlined this new objective for American foreign policy stating:

“Assistance for population moderation should give emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is a special US and strategic interest.” 

Among those developing nations targeted for population reduction, NSSM-200 listed birth control and the withholding of food as primary tools. Kissinger cynically wrote:

“is the US prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”

Throughout the 1970s, the Trilateral Commission/Council on Foreign Relations cabal under the direction of Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski completely took over American foreign policy and launched a new economic program which Trilateral Commission member Paul Volcker called “the controlled disintegration of the economy.”

Upon attaining chairmanship of the Federal Reserve in 1979, Volcker put this policy to work by raising interest rates to 20% and keeping them there for another two years- destroying America’s small and medium agro-industries while only leaving a cartel of corporate behemoths capable of surviving such draconian rates. Real growth plummeted, long term planning was forgotten and deregulation ushered in vast speculation, which replaced the formerly dirigistic (nationally directed) forms of capitalism that made the west viable in previous ages.

The collapse of US manufacturing as the nation was induced to slide ever more deeply into a new “services economy” paradigm of speculation and consumerism.

The global transformation unleashed with Nixon-Schultz 1971 destruction of the gold reserve was always driven by an intention to replace national systems of economic planning with a new anti-nation state system driven by myopic speculation.

In this new system, being a good citizen meant only being a good consumer where the worship of short-term gains blinded corrupt fools to the reality that a hive of oligarchs were taking control of mainstream media, science, academia, corporate governance and the civil service of governments across the Trans Atlantic. Under this post 1971 paradigm, concepts like “growth” were increasingly defined by purely quantitative-monetaristic parameters and premised upon increased rates of debt and speculative activities.

All investments into authentic forms of scientific and technological progress of the sort that overcame humanity’s “carrying capacities” were increasingly shut down, while new categories of technological progress were created. “Technologies” and “innovations” that diminished humanity’s power to overcome its limits to growth were encouraged in the form of “appropriate technologies” like windmills and “biotechnology.” Information systems technologies were transformed from supportive components of productive economic activity, into the dominant forces of economic considerations as better computers were brought online. Under this new Malthusian ethos, “technology” would become merely a tool to enslave the masses, and would lose its traditional spirit of creative emancipation of humanity.

As already stated, fusion energy research was systematically destroyed. Investments into space exploration was slashed as NASA’s Apollo Program was officially cancelled in 1973, and NASA’s funding collapsed from 4% GDP in 1965 to less than 1% by 1975 (see graph). Infrastructure investments dried up and America’s age of nuclear power construction was shut down.

Keeping the world addicted to oil

Last but not least, the new rules of the “Great Game” unleashed by Kissinger and the Trilateral Commission was vectored around an oil-driven economic order.

As researcher William Engdahl demonstrated in his 1992 Century of Oil, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had more of a role in manufacturing this crisis from scratch by keeping hundreds of tankers replete with petrol from being unloaded in the USA and facilitating the 400% increase with the assistance of several high level oil ministers in the Middle East beholden to Kissinger. In recent years, Saudi Arabia’s former OPEC minister at the time corroborated Engdahl’s research, stating:

“I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.”

With this 1973 sleight of hand, the stage was set for a new takeover of the world as a new lie was launched that asserted that all ideas of “the future” could only be accessed by linear equations extrapolated into the future. Predictive computer modelling measuring the diminishing rates of oil, coal and natural gas as well as arable land for food production, a new age of scarcity could be imagined that involved a closed world of diminishing returns.

Predictive Modelling as Social Control

In today’s language, this practice of ‘predictive modelling’ is reflected in the central banking high priest (and UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance) Mark Carney’s calls for a new financial system to promote a decarbonized society by 2050. Carney’s professed urgency is based on “predictive models” that state that the world will heat 1.5 degrees according to a presumed connection to carbon dioxide emissions. Per Carney and his associates, this can only be corrected if we monetize carbon and make it profitable to shut down human industrial activity.

As it turns out, when compared to the real data, not only does one quickly find that the post 1977 warming trend ended in 1999, but the actual temperature falls well below all computer projections produced by the IPCC (which is to environmental policy what the WHO is to health policy).

Source: C3 Headlines

This hysterical prediction is also seen in Prince (now King) Charles’ obsessive warnings that the world has 18 months to save itself before “predictive modelling” says that global warming becomes unstoppable and the earth burns in a dystopic inferno!

Charles, who inaugurated the Great Reset in June 2020 and acts as President of England’s World Wild Life Fund, is the son of the same late Prince Philip Montbatten who infamously revealed his wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus “in order to solve overpopulation”. In a 1988 interview with Deutsche Press Agentur, Prince Philip said:

“The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war. …In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

One should not make the mistake of separating Philip’s misanthropic statements with his active role in co-founding the controlled opposition global “ecology” movement alongside Bilderberg group founder Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands.

The Great Reset: An Oligarch’s Wet Dream

When one reviews the nature of those reforms on the World Economic Forum’s websites which are intended to replace the policies of the pre-COVID era, it becomes crystal clear that this Great Reset (which combines full spectrum remedies to the dual crises of COVID and Global Warming), is merely another attempt to steer humanity into a techno-feudal, depopulated cage under a system of global governance managed by social engineers and their oligarchical patrons.4

Just as the deadly remedies proposed to solve those fake crises of pandemics have always been the objective of Imperial College’s fraud, so too has the remedy of “decarbonization” of industrial civilization been the deadly goal behind the war on global warming which computer models have convinced the world is the primary existential threat to humanity since 1972. Just like the WHO’s demands that national sovereignty be cancelled in order for “the greater good” to be defended by a supranational medical regime, the same argument for a world government has been championed by supporters of the man-made global warming thesis for over 50 years. For those unfamiliar with the facts of the computer generated chimera of “man-made global warming”, I refer you to my recent essay In Defense of CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense Revisited.

Today, those “solutions” take the form of Agenda 2030, which pushes for the deconstruction of industrial civilization, the shutdown of agriculture, fossil fuels and the shackling of nations to inefficient forms of energy like windmills, solar panels and biofuels in order to ostensibly save nature from humanity.

In spite of all of the evidence to demonstrate that neither covid-19 nor man-made global warming have any existence beyond the predictive computer models programmed to scare us into believing they do, it is worth asking: How have so many seemingly educated people become persuaded that COVID-19 or climate change are so existentially dangerous that we must shut down the world economy to somehow save ourselves from their supposedly apocalyptic effects?

*

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.

Matthew Ehret the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas trilogy. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide FoundationHe is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 The ideological blueprint for this applied science of control was outlined decades earlier in the three volume piece co-written by Russell and his fellow Cambridge Apostle Sir Alfred North Whitehead dubbed “The Principia Mathematica” (in honor of Sir Isaac Newton’s plagiarism published three centuries earlier). Both Principias set the stage for systems of political economy that would be used by the British Empire to attempt to control their victims, with Newton’s concepts of mass, forces, attraction and empty space sitting at the heart of the political economic theories of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and John Maynard Keynes while Russell’s concepts created the ideological foundation for the cybernetics, information theory, systems analysis and the cult of Artificial Intelligence during the last century.

2 A March 25, 2020 edition of Business Insider described Neil’s role in shaping US COVID policy writing: “Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”

3 One particularly notable example is the Merton-Scholes Formula for pricing oil stock prices and derivative contracts after 1973, which won its programmers Nobel Prizes in the 1990s. This “forecasting code” was great at demonstrating nearly infinite rates of monetary growth but was incompetent at identifying the real-world boundary conditions, which ultimately caused their predictions to fail every single occasion they were applied.

4 I say “merely another attempt” because this is not the first time a post-nation state transhuman world order has been attempted over the past century, and studying the REASONS for the failures of the previous three attempts would be a valuable exercise for anyone wishing to survive the current storm.


The Clash of the Two Americas

Vol. 1 & 2

by Matthew Ehret

In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.

Click here to order.

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

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

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

***

 

 

“Pity the nation whose people are sheep
And whose shepherds mislead them
Pity the nation whose leaders are liars
Whose sages are silenced
And whose bigots haunt the airwaves
Pity the nation that raises not its voice
Except to praise conquerors
And acclaim the bully as hero
And aims to rule the world
By force and by torture…
Pity the nation oh pity the people
who allow their rights to erode
and their freedoms to be washed away…”

—Lawrence Ferlinghetti, poet

Realism has its own moral and intellectual properties and truth cannot be made truer simply by numbers and fake political statements.  We, the People of globe, have no passion for war; it is incompatible with human nature whereas peace is the outgrown truth of human consciousness and moral, spiritual and physical balance. The on-going war between Russia-Ukraine and NATO appears to set the psychological agenda undermining a sustainable future for mankind without realizing its real-world affects across the board manifesting frightening waves of fear and hatred across the globe. Fear and hatred are the defining traits used by the warmongers to belittle mankind just as lifeless digits and numbers to be counted in official statistic.

Is the media propaganda a weapon of conquest of human minds, soul and future-making? Come to understand the contemporary issues of the 21st century’s  Russian-American and European discards over Ukraine and the future of  oil and gas supplies, grain exports and economic relationships all under scrutiny between those who during the 2nd WW  stood united against foreign aggression and killings of fellow human beings . There is an amassed collection of fear, ambiguity and distrust that spells out the prevalent reality of current global affairs. There is no corresponding communications and dialogues between the superpowers to change the horrible present into a sustainable and peaceful future for the humanity populating this planet. All that is happening or could happen such as: “Ukraine goes in darkness”, “Russian bombing destroyed Ukraine’s infrastructures”, “NATO not fighting in Ukraine” , “the EU discard over Russian war on Ukraine”, and lot more making sensational headlines. The perplexed statistic of weapons and money to aid Ukraine represents a shaky scenario of encountering the military onslaught, and balancing of reason is missing across the tensions of unrealized possibilities of peacemaking and conflict resolution.

Is there an Irony between Logic and Political Wickedness?

Alexis Carre, the 2022-23 Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Research Associate of the James Madison Program, Princeton University (“Europeans Have Weapons but Aren’t Warriors” Foreign Policy: 12/07/22) , argues negating the history of European conquests across Asia, Africa, North Africa and South America as if they went in peace and were not the warriors of horrors, killings and political deception and military occupation. Often crises have multiple spillover agendas for change and surprises. Just as there is an EU, alliance between America and Japan, Russia and China-Japan and so on. Could we imagine the coming of a new age of relationship between Russia, Ukraine and America-led NATO when even most exemplary political vigilance could be liable to unusual surprises?

Ukraine wanted to join the European community-NATO and claims the right of freedom to join any international organizations for its betterment, peace and security. NATO’s formation and scope is limited to nationalistic conventional warfare in the European theatre. One wonders, what wars did NATO fight to protect its ideals and strategic priorities after the 1945 WW?  What NATO had to do with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?  Were these accidental engagements or simply an extension of planned irresistible catastrophic instances of tyranny against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The history of NATO and its plans and ideological motives are equally distorted and disfigured on the global screen of reason, honesty and accountability.

Is NATO run by the wrong people, glued to wrong thinking and doing the wrong things without any rational sense of time, people’s interest and history? Craig Murray (“NATO-an idea Whose Time has Gone.”: AntiWar.com), former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Rector of the University of Dundee, UK, foresees the body as obsolete

It is also the case that the situation in countries where NATO has been most active in killing people, including Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan ……NATO’s attempt to be global arbiter and enforcer has been disastrous at all levels…it is very clever and cynical. NATO provides power to the elite and money to the wealthy.

Leader of Human Consciousness should Think Critically before They Act

Hans Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 1978): the legendry theorists of the 20th century points out that: “Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics…politics must be subjected to the dual test of reason and experience…..for realism, theory consists in ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason….If we want to know the moral and political qualities of his (politician) actions, we must know them, not his motives.”   

We, the People live in a splendid Universe in which planet Earth floats ordained by the commands of God. We are moral beings unlike animals that possess the eyes, ear and other senses but cannot draw logical conclusion from their senses. We, the People draw rational results what we see and what we hear, therefore, we are different, and we cannot act or live animals. There is a moral sense of spirituality and humanity to co-exist in harmony with the rest of all creations on this Earth. Modern wars represent sadistic and cruel minds to undermine human rights, dignity and life. They destroy all that is built over the ages that we call human cultures and civilizations. All of the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) reveal the truth of “Trust” – human beings took to be responsible and be at peace with the Nature of Things.  This TRUST and its reminder are explicitly mentioned in (The Qur’an, Chapter 33: 72):

“We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth; And the mountains but they refused; To undertake it, being afraid thereof: But man undertook it; He was indeed unjust and foolish.”    

We are One Humanity and we are the most intelligent being populating the earth. We can THINK and REASON and cannot act like animals without accountability.  The Earth is a living entity and is meant for us – the human beings. We, the People wonder who else except God created life, the Earth and the living Universe floating in space well balanced and functional since time immemorial. Who else other than God determined the Earth spinning of 1670 km per hour? Who else than God ordained it to orbit the sun at 107,000 km per hour?  And who else than God made it to spin at 28,437 km per hour at the equator? (See this). Be aware that earth average distance to the Sun is about 93 million miles (105 million km); the distance of Moon from Earth is currently 384,821 kmequivalent to 0.002572 Astronomical Units and if the distance between the Earth-Sun or the Earth-moon were ever to change, there will be no sign of life or habitats left on Earth.

We, the People, wish to rejoice truth, not evil. We, the people of the world enjoin focused minds and imagination to articulate a new world of One Humanity, brotherhood and peaceful co-existence amongst all, free of hatred, fear, wars, encroachment and animosity. We, the people of the globe possess understanding – how to change the egoistic and embittered insanity of the few hate-mongers and warlords into equilibrium of balanced relationship between Man, Life and God- given living Universe in which we reside all.

Every beginning has its end and effective leaders should always be open to listening and learning. President Macron had a phone conversation with President Putin and reasserts the need for futuristic ‘security guarantees’ for Russia to come to peacemaking. President Biden tells audience in Washington that he can speak with President Putin. President Putin shows readiness to talk with Western leaders. What are they waiting for?  Why don’t they take initiatives to have a dialogue for a ceasefire and peace treaty? The US, the EU and NATO and Russia should rethink peacemaking, not to enlarge the scope of current conflict in Ukraine. President Putin needs rethinking to be at peace with its neighbors even if its national interest differs and future could be challenging for peaceful co-existence. Most superpowers and their strategic thinkers and political planners lack understanding of the convergent factors of life articulating viable change when it is at the peak of its lifeline. They worship the form and forgot the essence of peace, security, human survival, Planet Earth and global peace and unity of mankind for sustainable future. Raymond Aron, French Political Philosopher and Sociologist offered the following foresight at the dawn of 1939 WW2:

“When one is speaking to people who profess to despise peace, one must say that, if one loves peace, it is not out of cowardice. It is ridiculous to set regimes founded on work against regimes founded on leisure. It is grotesque to believe that cannons can be resisted with butter, or effort with rest.”

*

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. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: One Humanity and the Remaking of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution. Lambert Academic Publications, Germany, 12/2019. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace or War: To be Optimistic or Pessimistic About the Future of Humanity

Update

In recent developments  (December 8, 2022), Céline Dion has been diagnosed with a Neurological Disease Called Stiff-Person Syndrome

In an emotional Instagram video shared on Thursday, Céline Dion opened up about her health, which she says will force her to cancel and postpone a series of upcoming concert dates.

“Recently, I’ve been diagnosed with a very rare neurological condition called stiff-person syndrome, which affects something like one in a million people,” she said in her video.

“While we’re still learning about this rare condition, we now know that this is what has been causing all of the spasms that I’ve been having.”

Our thoughts are with Celine Dion.

At this stage, there is no firm evidence that Celine Dion’s neurological condition was triggered by the mRNA vaccine.

***

Sustained by media disinformation and fake science, the mRNA vaccine was put forth as a solution to curbing the pandemic. Amply documented, the Covid-19 Vaccine has triggered from the outset in December 2020 an upward trend in mortality and morbidity. The evidence is overwhelming.

National governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the populations they purportedly serve.

Below is the incisive and outspoken article by Dr. Nicole Delépine on the tragic fate of Celine Dion and Justin Bieber

This is also a message in solidarity with all humanity, particularly children and young adolescents.

On behalf of the victims of the vaccine, it is our sincere hope that renowned artists and World stars will henceforth join the Worldwide campaign and take a firm stance against the Covid-19 vaccine. 

We are demanding that the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine be immediately withdrawn and discontinued Worldwide. If you have doubts, read the bombshell Secret Report by Pfizer, which is now in the public domain (released under FOI). 

Please forward this article.

Informing people of the dangers of the Covid vaccine, saves lives.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research June 17, 2022, update December 8, 2022

First published on June 17, 2022

***

Given the number of followers of Canadian Singer Celine Dion on Twitter, (924,200 followers), on Facebook more than a million and other networks, we can hope that the misfortunes of this fabulous singer will touch more people than the official sites of EudraVigilance or Vaers [US] more difficult to consult and as a means to inform the public. If only to instill some doubt regarding the dangers of the covid-19 vaccine…

What happened to her? 

For the moment her family and/or her agents are feeding reminders of her recordings and concerts etc.. But why this silence, these eternal cancellations of concerts for the moment postponed to September 2023. Who still believes this?

@jjdenoual Nov. 2, 2021:

“Following her second injection of the vaccine against the coronavirus, Celine DION would have been paralyzed and would have cancelled all her concerts! But radio silence in the media, because it would be panic among all the vaccinated!”

@Rideaubleu Oct 31, 2021:

“So let’s recap the rant: a firefighter vaccinates a 12 year old girl, to celebrate the 100000th dose. They offer the child tickets to the Celine Dion concert, a concert that was cancelled because the singer who called for the vaccination is paralyzed. No, this is not a joke.”

Celine Dion, her mysterious disease linked to the vaccine against Covid, revelation of Bob Kennedy Jr. (ilestencoretemps.fr)

Our colleagues of the magazine Public have recently published that the 53-year-old singer would be struck by a singular disease called small fiber neuropathy, a pathology that Celine Dion would have contracted a year ago, “shortly after being vaccinated against Covid without the link being made” openly.

However, she is not known to present the factors described for this disease (mutations in the SCN9A and SCN10A genes, metabolic syndrome, HIV, celiac disease, Sjögren’s syndrome, amyloidosis, chronic inflammatory bowel disease, infectious diseases, hepatitis C, Lyme disease, hypothyroidism, immune system disorders)

Another coincidence?

If this vaccine lead were to be confirmed, Celine would be, like millions of other people, the victim of a worldwide “conspiracy”, as Bob Kennedy Jr. maintains in his book on the subject.

In May 21, Celine said:

“I encourage everyone to get vaccinated because I think that right now it’s the only way to build immunity around the world.”

How did she know that?

How can she make such a statement?

Would she have liked me to replace her to sing on stage? Each one of us has our own job, our own skills.

This manipulation by lobbies and the media must stop.

On May 19, 22, Celine Dion confirmed what everyone feared about her health:

“I’m so sorry to have to change the dates of the European tour again; the first time it was because of the pandemic, now it’s because of my health,” said the singer, now 54 years old.

To be honest, I’m looking forward to it, but I’m not quite ready yet…” “There’s something major. These famous spasms are starting to become extremely worrying.

We wonder if she is not reading a message, we feel extremely sad, as if robotic,” commented Canadian columnist Sophie Durocher after watching the short clip.

If an artist of Celine Dion’s caliber reports, it’s not because she has a little headache, there is something major. These famous spasms start to become extremely worrying“, she continued to the microphone of a local radio.

Millions of dollars are at stake! We’ll have to ask ourselves the question. Is Celine Dion going to go back on stage,” she wondered.

According to the British tabloid “The Daily Express”, Celine Dion was suffering from dystonia. A pathology that is characterized by muscle contractions, occurring involuntarily and prolonged.

In short, all these comments confirm the high probability of a post-vaccination neurological disease, evoking the case of Mauricette suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob or a related disease.

What was even more shocking and denied for a while was that Celine Dion had been a tenacious advocate of the experimental injection to the point of imposing the vax on her concert audience. She really believed in it and was a victim of her belief!

Vaccination” became a religion.

Devastating. What a pity, what a mistake, what an aberration!

How can artists, far from real medicine and probably too close to journalistic delusions imposed by laboratories eager to sell, enter into this manipulation to the point of finally losing their lives, in any case already their life as an artist.

Corruption is not limited to financial corruption but touches all facets of the human soul, the desire to please, to advise, to play the savior etc…

Tragic story that repeats itself over and over again as the days go by and the toxic effect of these experimental products becomes embedded in the body.

After Celine, Justin Bieber

A second example was revealed in the evening of June 10th 2o22

Agence France-Presse:

“Justin Bieber had hosted a concert in favor of covid pseudo vaccines on June 27, 2020 organized by Global Citizen Ursula with the support of Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, Melinda Gates, president of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (Gavi), Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, or Derrick Johnson (president of NAACP).”

The young Justin Bieber had, like Celine, asked his concert audience for a triple vaccination.

Remember that this is a 28-year-old pop star – who has 539.2 million followers on social networks. We can imagine the capacity of influence of these stars themselves manipulated by Big Pharma and / or affiliates.

He had already experienced a warning about injections, after the complications of his wife Hailey who despite her young age had suffered a stroke possibly post-vaccination.

Hopefully, his young fans will ask themselves some questions on this occasion and hesitate to go for another injection.

By what tortuous thinking mechanism had he turned into an injection merchant, of which he knew nothing, especially since all the elements were hidden?

The only verifiable certainty was that these substances were experimental, as the clinicaltrials.gov site immediately demonstrated.

They are still experimental and we will have to wait until 2023 to obtain the official data from the trials.

But at present, thanks to the American justice system, we have some of the hidden Pfizer documents that reveal the cheating that should prohibit any further injections.

And the UK data given by England’s ONS also demonstrate the lethal danger for the population of the injections.

Thus on June 10, 2022 we learn via twitter

“After his girlfriend, Justin Bieber is in turn seriously ill and forced to interrupt his tour. Triple vaccinated, he had asked his fans for full vaccination schedules to attend his concerts.”

Or via @vl_plus After his wife Hailey was hospitalized for a blood clot in her brain marieclaire.fr/hailey-bieber-…

it’s Justin Bieber himself who suffers from a mysterious illness “that is getting worse” and even forces him to suspend his concerts….mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-…

@AldoSterone111 Justin Bieber is canceling his concerts. He is very sick. His face is paralyzed… Looks like a vaccident. dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/arti…11/06/2022 00:48

@NaraShi138767941/3) 08/06/22 Justin Bieber 28 postpones shows

[See the Daily Mail’s report text

Bieber wrote on Instagram:

“I can’t believe I’m saying this. I’ve done everything to get better but my illness is getting worse.”

The 28-year-old star did not give any details about his mysterious illness .

In short our famous and beautiful singer is disfigured by a facial paralysis well described in the complications of anti-covid vaccination as Bell’s palsy. To present it under the name of Ramsay’s syndrome may be scholarly, but it does not change the fact.

What a misfortune to have made sick these beautiful young people who had the future in front of them and who moreover thought it useful to advise others this absolute delusion.

© Instagram/Justin

According to an infectiologist, Justin Bieber’s shingles appeared along the two nerves of the face, the facial and the auditory, that’s why the singer has trouble speaking and surely hearing. Instagram/Justin Bieber

It is necessary to demand that national authorities Worldwide put an immediate end to these dangerous injections.

The latter are characterised by devastating short and medium term consequences (myocarditis, sudden death of sportsmen, etc., disease close to the mad cow) and unknown consequences in the long term.

The rapidly fatal evolution of cancers that have been cured for many years or of recent cancers is increasingly observed after the injections, particularly the third one.

It should be remembered that in the first phase of vaccination, only 5% of batches were affected by vaccine accidents. Placebos, different dosages and ingredients. We do not know. What is certain is that since the third dose called booster, the accidents seem more frequent, and faster even if we can also distinguish geographical varieties, which suggests differences in the batches. Russian Roulette … Do you really want to try it?

Transferred from The Uncensored Truth on Telegram

“Justine Bieber: facial paralysis… The 28-year-old Canadian star has to cancel two dates of her Toronto tour (or more) due to this complication that causes paralysis of part of her face.

In the video posted on the social network Instagram, Justin Bieber appears, facing the camera, unable to blink his right eye, his mouth half blocked.

“I can no longer smile on this side, I am paralyzed from a part of the face”

With his 240 million followers on instagram, he is forced to cancel the rest of his tour. https://t.me/LaveriteNcensureeTchat/908367 video link 

 


https://t.co/MI03ZMUxJv

 

 

“My heart breaks to have to postpone these upcoming shows (doctors orders). To all my people, I love you guys so much and I’m going to rest and get better.”

In the clip released Friday, Justin showed the devastating effects of his diagnosis by showing that his eye would not blink, could not smile and the nostril would not move on the right side of his face.

He explained:

“So there is complete paralysis on that side of my face. So for those who are frustrated with my cancellations of upcoming shows, I’m just physically obviously not able to do them. It’s pretty serious as you can see.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, let’s wish these artists and the many other victims of the injections the best recovery possible.

Nevertheless, let’s hope that in the future, artists, sportsmen, politicians, associations, etc… will avoid launching advertising campaigns for vaccines and/or drugs (supposedly miraculous), and/or screening tests etc. for which they do not have the background data (often hidden). To each their own.

 

Dr. Nicole Delépine

First published by mondialisation.ca

Translated from the French original  by Global Research

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Will the Tragic Fate of World Stars like Celine Dion and Justin Bieber Open the Eyes of their Fans? Impacts of Covid-19 Vaccine

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.

***

Three states. Same incumbent. Comparable levels of non-performance. Simultaneous elections. Yet very different outcomes.

What explains this?

A student of comparative politics would love a puzzle like this one. Similarity of background conditions and difference in political outcomes is the stuff of systematic study of politics. From Aristotle to Tocqueville, great political theorists have insisted that careful comparison could yield deep insights into the way politics works on the ground.

Let us use this method to make sense of the MCD polls in Delhi and the state elections in Gujarat and Himachal. Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission of NCT Delhi ensured a synchronisation of the assembly and municipal elections. Notwithstanding the dubious nature of the decision, students of political science would be grateful to them for arranging this “natural experiment”. You might say that state elections cannot be compared to municipal elections, but there were more voters in MCD than in Himachal Pradesh. For all practical purposes, MCD can be treated as a state election.

You might think it is too early to draw definite conclusions. As of now, we just have exit polls for Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh and the counting for MCD is still on. For the present purpose, however, the broad trends we know so far are enough. I assume that the BJP is poised for a very big, possibly unprecedented victory in Gujarat with nearly 20 percentage points vote share lead over Congress. For MCD, we already know that the AAP is headed for a clear majority with a vote share lead of around five percentage points. Exit polls do not give us confidence to tell who might form the government in Himachal. But we do know that it is a close race in terms of votes. The Congress might just scrape through, or may well lose the election that it was favoured to win.

Three states three outcomes

Unless exit polls are completely off the mark, we may go ahead and press our question: why do we see three radically different outcomes in three comparable situations? Why has the incumbent BJP been removed in the MCD, is unsure of a victory in Himachal Pradesh and given a resounding mandate in Gujarat? Why three different shades of reverses for the Congress: a positive swing in Himachal, a status quo in Delhi and a rout in Gujarat? Similarly, why has the AAP faced different fates: non starter in Himachal, early breakthrough in Gujarat and clear majority in Delhi?

The answer does not lie in the initial conditions. The victory margin of the BJP was similar in all the three elections held in 2017: in Himachal and Gujarat it was exactly 7 percentage points, and 9 percentage points in Gujarat.

Nor do we resolve this puzzle by differences in performance and the perception of the incumbent. Frankly, all the three governments were rather poor performers. The three Municipal Corporations of Delhi, all controlled by the BJP for 15 years, were a model of poor metropolitan governance, with shocking failure on sanitation, drainage and education. The BJP government in Gujarat, incumbent for 27 years now, has very little to show on human development indicators like poverty, education and heath, besides high corruption. By the comparatively high standards of Himachal, the BJP ran a poor government in the state. Jobs, inflation, pensions and road connectivity have emerged as the main concerns of voters in Himachal, according to ground reports. In all cases, this anti-incumbency was reflected in popular sentiment. At least in latent form if not manifest. In Gujarat for instance, even though a Lokniti-CSDS Pre Poll survey found a fairly high satisfaction level among voters with the BJP government, seven out of 10 voters also described it as corrupt and half the voters said that Parivartan (change) would be a ‘very important’ issue for them while voting.

Nor can we explain the different verdicts by falling back on some generic explanations. If Modi magic is to be given the credit for the BJP’s victory in Gujarat and its honorable performance in Himachal, why did it not work in Delhi? Similarly, the BJP’s big advantage over all its opponents in terms of money, media and organisational machine is a constant in all elections. It gives the BJP an edge in every election, but does not explain the difference in these three states. State leadership of the incumbent does not help either, as the BJP has pretty non-descript leaders in all the three states. Party factionalism is no doubt a factor, especially in Himachal. But this factor is also beginning to be a constant. Like the Congress in its heydays, factionalism is becoming a structural feature of the BJP.

What works for the BJP

The real difference that works in the BJP’s favour is in the nature of the opposition and what it does. Specifically, three things make a difference.

One, there needs to be a clear principal challenger to the BJP. In AAP, there was a clear challenger to the BJP in Delhi. In Himachal too, Congress remained the main challenger. There was no significant split in opposition votes in Himachal. Gujarat stands out as an exception. Exit polls suggest that the AAP may have secured anywhere around 20 per cent votes, a significant leap for the new entrant, and effectively split the opposition votes. The same vote share that gave the BJP a very narrow victory in 2017 may be enough for a landslide.

Two, the main challenger has to have a clear message and an identifiable messenger. The Congress raised some issues in Himachal, but it is not clear if it had any clear message in Delhi and Gujarat. It failed to present a clear leader in any of these states. On the contrary, the AAP was sharp with its issues in Gujarat and Delhi. It did not need a new face in Delhi, with Arvind Kejriwal in the saddle. And it took the risk to project a new face in Gujarat. This seems to have paid off.

Three, the opposition has to put up a determined, well organised fight.

In this respect, too, the Congress was wanting in all the three states. There does not seem to be a clear strategy that was effectively executed in any of the three states. It could have taken advantage of its weakness in MCD to present a new leadership, but it did not. In Gujarat, it did not fight as a cohesive organisation with a clear focus and sense of purpose. Himachal was a shade better but not good enough to take full advantage of its big initial lead. On the contrary, the AAP demonstrated strategy and determination. Its strategy is to wreck the Congress, no matter what, an approach that coincides with the BJP’s goal of a Congress-mukt Bharat. The party appears to have worked perfectly on this strategy. Once it realised that Himachal was not working out, it simply withdrew resources and energies from that state. It put all the energy, and its newly acquired money, into achieving a breakthrough in Gujarat. And it led a sustained campaign in MCD. This appears to have paid off.

This is not a new revelation. The same lesson could be drawn from the BJP’s defeat in West Bengal.

And come to think of it, the lesson from the success of the historic farmer’s struggle is no different: Narendra Modi is not omnipotent. The BJP is vulnerable and can be defeated. But only if the opposition is determined, tenacious and strategic. It is still not too late to learn this lesson for 2024.

*

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 Print.

Yogendra Yadav is among the founders of Jai Kisan Andolan and Swaraj India. Views are personal.

Featured image: AAP supporters in Delhi watch the Municipal election results on a big screen. | Photo by Suraj Singh Bisht | ThePrint

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Elections in India: What Explains Three Different Outcomes—Delhi to Gujarat to Himachal? Modi’s BJP is “Vulnerable”?

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 German leader just published what can be interpreted as his manifesto explaining why his country must supposedly restore its prior hegemonic status, and it was released by none other than the same magazine run by the Council on Foreign Affairs, which is regarded as among the most influential policymaking platforms in the US-led West’s Golden Billion. The very fact that they ran his manifesto can be regarded as this de facto New Cold War bloc’s tacit support for Germany’s hegemonic ambitions.

Poland Isn’t As Paranoid As Some Speculated

Polish grey cardinal Jaroslaw Kaczynski wasn’t off the mark in recently warning against German domination of Europe in comments that echoed those from a year ago wherein he accused that country of wanting to build a “Fourth Reich”. His country previously hyped up its neighbor’s military threat to Central Europe in order for Warsaw to consolidate its regional influence, but Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s manifesto for Foreign Affairs magazine proves that Berlin’s hegemonic ambitions do indeed exist.

Germany’s New Strategic Culture

Titled “The Global Zeitenwende: How to Avoid a New Cold War in a Multipolar Era”, the German leader articulated the range of means that the EU’s de facto leader is poised to employ for comprehensively entrenching its influence across the bloc on the basis of supposedly reacting to the Ukrainian Conflict. The first one-third of the piece is just an explanation of how everything got to this point from his government’s perspective, but then he transitions to talking about tangible policies.

In Scholz’s words, “Germany’s new role will require a new strategic culture, and the national security strategy that my government will adopt a few months from now will reflect this fact”, which frames everything that follows in his article. Russia is the primary target of this strategy as proven by the Chancellor declaring that “the guiding question will be which threats we and our allies must confront in Europe, most immediately from Russia.”

He then patted himself on the back for pushing through constitutional reforms earlier in the year for facilitating his government’s plans to expound approximately $100 billion in modernizing the Bundeswehr, which he accurately described as “mark[ing] the starkest change in German security policy since the establishment of the Bundeswehr in 1955.” Two percent of GDP will also be invested in defense in accordance with the US’ prior demands of its NATO partners.

“Military Diplomacy”

Complementary with Germany’s unprecedented post-World War II military buildup is Scholz’s policy of reversing its prior refusal to export arms to active conflict zones in order to equip Kiev. Not only that, but his country will also train an entire brigade of Ukrainian troops on its territory as part of a new EU mission alongside replacing Soviet-era arms that former Warsaw Bloc countries give Kiev with modern German ones.

Beyond its borders, Scholz said that “Germany has significantly increased its presence on NATO’s eastern flank, reinforcing the German-led NATO battle group in Lithuania and designating a brigade to ensure that country’s security. Germany is also contributing troops to NATO’s battle group in Slovakia, and the German air force is helping monitor and secure airspace in Estonia and Poland. Meanwhile, the German navy has participated in NATO’s deterrence and defense activities in the Baltic Sea.”

Of particular concern was the Chancellor reaffirming that “Germany will continue to uphold its commitment to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements, including by purchasing dual-capable F-35 fighter jets”, which is bound to rattle Russia. Quite clearly, Scholz intends for Germany to compete with Poland as the US’ top military proxy in the EU, to which end he’s hoping that Berlin’s more impressive military capabilities and existing nuclear sharing partnership with Washington will give it the edge over Warsaw.

Institutional Expansion

This observation shouldn’t be interpreted as an intent to revise the geopolitical outcome of World War II like some in Poland have speculated with respect to what they refer to as their country’s “Recovered Territories” that now form its border with Germany. Rather, it just means that Germany is becoming more confident flexing its military might in the sense of comprehensively enhancing its partners’ defensive capabilities per their leaderships’ request, though it’s true that this risks making them vassals.

More than likely, Scholz will seek to replicate this exact same strategy across the Western Balkans upon those aspirant states’ ultimate membership in the de facto German-led EU after they complete the so-called Berlin Process that he talked about having revived in his article. Despite acknowledging the difficulties of admitting new members, the Chancellor spoke about the promise that this outcome would have for bolstering the bloc’s potential to set new global standards for trade and the environment, et al.

This ambitious agenda will be advanced in full cooperation with France, according to Scholz, which he described as “shar[ing] the same vision of a strong and sovereign EU.” Migration and fiscal policies must be reformed, he said, in order to prevent external forces like Russia from supposedly exacerbating intra-bloc divisions. His proposed solution for streamlining progress on these sensitive issues is to “eliminat[e] the ability of individual countries to veto certain measures.”

Entrenching Influence

There’s no other way to describe the aforementioned reform than as amounting to an unprecedented political power play exactly of the sort that Hungary and Poland previously warned about. If successful, then it’ll result in the complete subjugation of all EU members to the Franco-German duopoly, thus eliminating those vestiges of sovereignty that they still retain. In other words, this Great Power axis will become the only one that matters in Europe.

It’ll likely be impossible for smaller states to ever restore their lost rights either in the event that Germany assumes direct control over their militaries sometime in the future like Scholz’s proposal for standardizing the EU’s weapons systems very strongly suggests will inevitably happen. That rising hegemon’s expanded military presence along the bloc’s eastern periphery that he spoke so highly about earlier in the article could inevitably lead to that in order to entrench Berlin’s political influence.

Similar so-called “coup plots” like the one that its authorities claim to have foiled on Wednesday could become the pretext upon which Germany assumes direct control over Central European countries’ militaries on the basis of supposedly helping them sustainably ensure “law and order”. Seeing as how those forces might by that time have standardized their weapons systems, they’d be perfectly interoperable with Germany’s, especially if they’ve already carried out multiple joint exercises by then.

The Real China Connection

The rest of Scholz’s article talked a bit about Germany’s forthcoming approach to China, but those plans aren’t as directly relevant to his country’s hegemonic ambitions as those that it’s poised to implement against Russia, hence why they’ll remain outside the scope of the present analysis. Upon reviewing the insight that’s been shared thus far, it’s clear that “Germany’s Century-Long Plot to Capture Control Of Europe Is Almost Complete”, with each passing day reducing the likelihood of offsetting this scenario.

Its leader just published what can be interpreted as his manifesto explaining why Germany must supposedly restore its prior hegemonic status, and it was released by none other than the same magazine run by the Council on Foreign Affairs, which is regarded as among the most influential policymaking platforms in the US-led West’s Golden Billion. The very fact that they ran his manifesto can be regarded as this de facto New Cold War bloc’s tacit support for Germany’s hegemonic ambitions.

The takeaway is that America aspires to restore its declining unipolar hegemony by facilitating Germany’s hegemonic revival in order to rely on that country as its premier “Lead From Behind” (LFB) proxy for managing the Golden Billion’s anti-Russian containment efforts in Europe. This policy is aimed at allowing the US to focus more on expanding NATO to the Asia-Pacific so as to advance its anti-Chinese containment efforts in the other half of Eurasia.

That incipient development is meant to make it more likely that the People’s Republic agrees to America’s terms for the series of mutual compromises between them for establishing a balance of influence that’ll eventually become the “new normal”. It’s important for these two superpowers to make tangible progress on the New Détente ahead of Secretary of State Blinken’s planned trip to Beijing sometime early next year, ergo the timing behind Foreign Affairs’ publication of Scholz’s manifesto.

Concluding Thoughts

The grand strategic context within which he articulated Germany’s hegemonic ambitions is therefore to facilitate its American patron’s gradual refocusing away from Western Eurasia towards its Eastern half as his country assumes the role of the US’ top LFB proxy in Europe for containing Russia. This sequence of events for enhancing the West’s containment of China is tacitly endorsed by the Golden Billion’s elite as evidenced by Foreign Affairs publishing his related article, thus confirming that the US’ plan is in motion.

*

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 the author’s blog site, 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 regular contributor to Global Research. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Olaf Scholz’s “Manifesto” Confirms Germany’s Hegemonic Ambitions. “Zeitenwende”, Turning Point in History.
  • 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.

***

Members of the World Health Organization (WHO), an unelected international public health agency, are meeting to consider a draft version of a proposed international pandemic treaty which will give the WHO new powers to “tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” and be legally binding under international law.

The draft treaty contains various provisions in Article 16 (“Strengthening pandemic and public health literacy”) that require the WHO’s 194 member states (which represent 98% of all the countries in the world) to target so-called misinformation.

Member states are told to “conduct regular social media analysis to identify and understand misinformation,” design their own messaging to “counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news,” and manage “infodemics” (a phrase that was created by the WHO and describes “too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak”).

While the provisions in Article 16 don’t directly call for member states to censor content that’s deemed to be misinformation, a provision in Article 14 (“Whole-of-government and other multisectoral actions”) paves the way for Big Tech to perform this censorship on the WHO’s behalf.

Under this provision, member states are required to collaborate with non-state actors and the private sector through an “all-encompassing whole-of-government, multistakeholder, multi-disciplinary and multi-level approach.”

Before this pandemic treaty existed, Big Tech willingly mass censored any content that it deemed to be “Covid misinformation,” even though there were no agreements or laws forcing them to do so. even introduced a far-reaching policy that made going against the WHO a violation of YouTube’s rules and deleted over 800,000 videos under this policy.

Under the pandemic treaty, the ties between governments and pro-censorship Big Tech companies will become even stronger and collaboration will be required.

We obtained a copy of the draft international pandemic treaty for you here.

 

Not only are these Big Tech-government ties being reinforced by the treaty but the WHO has also demonstrated its willingness to censor anything that it brands misinformation. Earlier this year, it called for Big Tech to work with it to censor monkeypox “misinformation.”

Additionally, the idea that the WHO should be acting as an arbiter of truth is especially ironic given that it was one of the most infamous producers of misleading information during the Covid pandemic. In a January 14, 2020 tweet, the organization stated that “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” of the coronavirus.

The meeting to discuss the draft treaty began on December 5 and will run till December 7. It’s being attended by members of an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) that was established by the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of the WHO, in December 2021.

The INB was tasked with drafting and negotiating a “global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” This global accord has become known as the international pandemic treaty.

Based on the current proposed timeline, the INB expects to finalize the international pandemic treaty by May 2024 and present a final report to the seventy-seventh WHA meeting.

We obtained a copy of the INB’s current proposed timeline for you here.

If passed, the international pandemic treaty will be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. This article gives the WHA the power to impose legally binding conventions or agreements on WHO member states if two-thirds of the WHA vote in favor of them.

This process of lawmaking circumvents the usual process of elected officials voting on the laws that apply to their country by allowing a handful of global representatives to decide on the rules that apply to all countries. Even if representatives from a third of the WHO’s member states vote against the international pandemic treaty, it will still be applied to their country under international law.

Not only does this process limit the power of politicians to decide on the laws that apply to their specific country but it also limits the power of citizens to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box. Most of the representatives for member states are unelected diplomats who remain in their positions, even when new governments are elected. And most of the votes that determine whether an international law applies to a specific country are cast by representatives from other countries.

Despite this undemocratic process, the international pandemic treaty has the support of numerous democratic countries including the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), , , New Zealand, and the European Council (EC) (which represents 27 European Union (EU) member states).

Some politicians from these countries have opposed the treaty and several petitions, including those that can force a parliamentary debate on the treaty, have gained traction.

However, the international pandemic treaty is still very much on track to being finalized by May 2024 and the WHO has shown no intention of abandoning its far-reaching power grab.

*

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 Reclaim the Net

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on International Pandemic Treaty: WHO Meets to Impose Censorship of “Misinformation”
  • 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.

***

Parallels between Covid-19 and the Opium Wars

COVID-19 is a global operation run for the benefit of the super-rich that aims to destroy the lives and the minds of the citizens of China, and the world. The current operation in China is most likely directed by private intelligence firms based in the United States, Israel, Great Britain, and also in China. Such private intelligence firms work for the rich, but pretend to be part of the government. They might be considered as “the direct descents” of the British East India Company that planned the first two opium wars. 

The British East India Company needed to destroy China in 1840 because it was the one great power that resisted integration into its global trade system controlled by the imperialists and the only great power that possessed an advanced civilization capable of competing with the Western tradition.

There are three main similarities between operation COVID 19 and the Opium Wars

Abuse of medicine for political control

Medicine was a big part of the strategy of the British to take over China in 1840. The British introduced “advanced” Western medicine to the Chinese, suggesting that Western science had produced miracle medicines which could cure any disease. Some medicines were based on real scientific advances, but most of these miracle drugs were powered by addictive opium.

Not only were the sales of these “Western” medicines brimming with opium (heroin) profitable, they also weakened the will of the Chinese, undermined traditional ideologies (including homeopathic medicine) like Confucianism, and they rendered the Chinese as consumers rather than citizens. The ultimate goal was not making Chinese healthy, but creating an apathetic, narcissistic, and indulgent ruling class.

The project was largely successful.

China’s economic independence was undermined gradually over decades as the decision making process within the Chinese government was infiltrated by British agents (mostly Chinese intellectuals who imagined themselves to be reformers). A new generation of Chinese intellectuals also came to power who were brainwashed by books and magazines to see Britain as a more civilized nation.

Chinese youth were taught by the Chinese who had studied in London that England was rich and powerful because of the high moral character of its citizens, because of its advanced systems of education and its use of the scientific method, and because of its remarkable technologies born of an enlightened civilization that the Chinese had failed to achieve. By comparison, Chinese culture was backwards and foolish.

The truth that was hidden from the Chinese seeking salvation in Western modernity was that the wealth undergirding British progress was not generated by the protestant work ethic, or the refined civilization of the upper classes. No! That wealth was the product of the ruthless slave trade wherein millions of Africans were sold to create farms in the “New World” that put ordinary farmers at home out of business and created enormous fortunes for London bankers. That wealth was also generated by the takeover of India, Bangladesh, and Arabia that allowed the British to seize the assets of those nations.

Today, Western pharmaceutical corporations market allopathic medicines in China of doubtful use, employing massive budgets to advertise such products to Chinese as “advanced” western medicine. Many of these medicines contain opium products, or artificial opiates, that are similar in function to the opium used against the Chinese in nineteenth century. Many of these Western medicines are addictive, mood altering, or both.

Chinese suffering from depression because of the brutal contradictions of a decadent capitalist society are told by their doctors that the problem is a disease and they are prescribed “Western” medicines that contain opiates. The process is quite similar to the abuse of opium in China by Western corporations in the 19th century.

The dependency on opium enforced in the 19th century also parallels the forced dependency on vaccines, that is demanded by the state in order to live a normal life in China.

Global crime syndicates like the World Health Organization use false science to undermine the health of the Chinese and to force an artificial dependency on vaccines.

Nor is the promotion of addiction among Chinese limited to pharmaceuticals. The constant push for smart phones, social media, games, and pornography in Chinese society, creating an environment in which literally all citizens have no choice but to carry a smart phone and to respond to its demands. Such actions create artificial new habits and dangerous addictions and dependencies in the Chinese people that allow for further exploitation.

The content of media is not meant to convey information or wisdom, or even to entertain in the traditional sense, but rather to slowly alter the function of the brain by inducing dependency on short-term stimulation (dopamine release) and inhibiting concentration.

Such addictions inhibit complex, three-dimensional thinking, and reduce the ability for long-term planning of the citizen. If you check social media giants like Wechat and Toutiao regularly for a few months you will no longer be capable of thinking for yourself.

The purpose of the new media in China backed by multinational investors is NOT to make Chinese more independent-minded and open to new ideas, but to render them so docile that they will accept a state of virtual confinement.

The second strategy is to destroy the authority and the legitimacy of Chinese culture by promoting as superior an artificial Western culture through images and texts which suggest that the West is attractive, authoritative, fulfilling and materially rich.

That strategy was critical to the success of Britain and other imperialist powers in China after the Opium Wars. Westerners declared that China’s civilization was, by its very nature, backwards and limited. British scholars and missionaries argued that the Chinese characters, Chinese family practices, local customs, even the core of tenets of Chinese philosophy, had to be abandoned before China could become modern and thereby could be saved.

Today, Young Chinese are bombarded with images of Starbucks, Adidas, Chanel, and Louis Vuitton which are designed to make it seem as if Western people (Americans) are rich and self-confident, that they legitimately get pleasure from wasting money on food and drinks.

The lives of privileged people who live in big houses, drive fancy automobiles, are cold and aloof, are presented as something to be envied, as a model for youth. This destructive ideological campaign is not merely an effort to expand market share. It is an operation intended to undermine Chinese cultural authority so that a debased and decadent consumer culture (created in Hollywood with corporate funding) can be fed directly to the people.

Corporate advertising in Qingdao encouraging a narcissistic culture of the privileged

A similar strategy was pursued by imperialist powers in China during the 19th century. Chinese civilization in 1840 was complex and sustainable, as sophisticated in its art, its literature, its learning and its government administration as any nation on earth. The number of books published, the number of educated people, in China was without match in the world.

Ironically, British explicitly imitated the Chinese civil service system in the 1870s when setting up its own civil service system to manage the empire—but only after destroying the Chinese government from within.

The promotion of trains, telegraph lines, postal systems, and electric lights in the 19th century served to undermine the sovereignty of China and to destroy the ability of the Chinese to govern themselves by making accepted practices seem outdated and backwards and demanding that foreign experts (or Chinese trained abroad) to take over large sections of the decision-making process in government. China lost control of its culture, its educational system, and ultimately of its government over the fifty years following the humiliations of the Opium Wars.

If we look at the current ecological crisis, and the decay of human civilization, we cannot help but question whether any of that modernization ideology was founded in scientific truth.

A similar process is taking place today in China whereby technology, in the form of on-line purchasing, geo-fencing, the use of QR codes, the promotion of 5G and a variety of applications controlled by unseen corporate powers are being implemented everywhere in the name of modernity. There is no transparency in China as to how policy decisions are made.

The problem stems not from the authoritarian Communist Party of China, but rather from the privatization of local government resulting from the push for automation and digitalization that is promoted by multinationals like Cisco, SAP, and Amazon.

Store shut down in Changsha by obscure COVID-19 directives and demand for QR codes for use of facilities.

China is not an inscrutable Fu Man-Chu power deviously plotting to take over the world, but rather a victim of multinational corporations determined to destroy any resistance to a neo-liberal consensus in China.

Just as the Qing Dynasty was blamed for the covert attacks of the British East India Company and others, including the horrific crypto-Christian Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) that nearly toppled the dynasty, now the Communist Party of China is blamed for a totalitarian nightmare that was developed by foreign multinational corporations.

This devious scheme to blame the Chinese for the orchestrated controlled demolition of Chinese society is precisely the strategy employed by the British Empire in the Opium Wars.

Of course there are plenty of corrupt members of the CPC up to their elbows in profits from this criminal takeover, but the ultimate power is not the Chinese government.

Many educated Chinese now want to move abroad because of the oppressive “zero-covid” geo-fencing and contact tracing that is being implemented and that is turning Shanghai and Chengdu into the Gaza Strip using the know-how of Israeli subcontractors.  Few indeed are able to grasp the true nature of the transformation of China.

The third step in the British assault on China in the nineteenth century was the integration of China into a global trade and finance system that London controlled for the benefit of the few.

China wisely avoided large-scale foreign trade during the Ming and Qing dynasties because of legitimate concerns with food security, economic independence, and the preservation of local economies. The British not only forced trade agreements “unequal treaties” on China, as did other colonial powers, after the Opium Wars, they also cultivated a new crop of Chinese intellectuals in cities like Shanghai who argued that Chinese participation in global trade and finance was the only way to become “advanced.”

A significant group of the wealthy in major Chinese cities see their class interests as aligned with the globalists. They promote AI education that dulls the mind, argue for smart cities that enforce a prison planet culture they embrace an on-line environment that renders the Chinese dependent on foreign IT contractors, and opens the doors wide to foreign manufacturers of drones and robots who intend to further the “Gaza Strip transformation” of China.

Parasitic figures like Warren Buffett are trotted in the Chinese media occupied by the globalists and presented to the public as economic geniuses. Chinese universities, under pressure from corporations demanding “modernization,” have abandoned the economic analysis of class struggle and parasitic global finance that was once standard in favor of misleading globalist growth doctrine.

The intentional flattery of the Chinese by members of the billionaire class like Jim Rogers or John Thornton, and also by professors at Harvard or Stanford, is key to this assault. Chinese are told by corporate media at home and abroad that they will soon overtake the West, that China leads in technology. Huawei and Xiaomi are praised by select Western experts, implying that China offers the world hope for future development.

Although there is some truth mixed in these flattering words, the purpose is devious. Chinese are subject to a propaganda campaign arguing that they must accept Western standards for success (growth, consumption, exports, and digitalization) that will render citizens passive and indulgent, that demand a high level of energy consumption, and that increase reliance on trade and logistics systems controlled by the globalists—if they want to be the great power of the 21st century.

The promotion of endless growth as the ultimate goal of the economy, a policy that lacks any scientific basis, merely increases the use of fossil fuels and demands harmful overproduction in China. Throw-away plastics pollute the ground and the oceans, thousands of unneeded automobiles and computers are produced to meet growth goal set by Westerners.

Marxist Economic Analysis

The plenary session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China held on October 23 was distinctive in its clear affirmation of the centrality of Marxist economic theory for the People’s Republic of China. The corporate media immediately attacked President Xi Jinping for being a backwards socialist running against the tide of history. How could it be that China would embrace the discredited and bankrupt ideology of the ruined Soviet Union, Communism?

Recently, Winston Smith argued that the entire World Economic Forum bid to seize control of the global economy is the product of “Communism” in his essay “The Left’s Grasp.” Somehow a viable alternative to control by the globalists is discredited as a puppet of those globalists.

But the consultants for multinational banks had no trouble assessing the threat of this move in China to return to “Marxist economics”.

If China manages to start applying Marxist economic analysis in research, in media analysis, and in economic policy, highlighting class warfare, ideological manipulation, and the misuse of capital and the abuse of overproduction, it would become the only nation in the world to do so, and would do so at precisely the historical moment when such an approach is desperately needed.

The globalists cannot allow China to use Marxism in its analysis because that could make China the a powerful nation not only in an economic sense, but in an intellectual sense as well.

Another danger posed is the centrality of science, and the scientific method of rigorous analysis, to Marxist thought—drawing on the foundations of modern science in the epistemology of Kant and Hegel.

The COVID-19 campaign, whether in China or the United States, was made possible by degrading science, by making hospitals and medical experts puppets of global finance, and by bribing doctors to endorse unscientific policies. In many cases, appeal to the scientific method has become a crime.

COVID-19 is not science at all but rather “sciencism,” the false ideology wherein the authority of the ruling class is disguised as “science.” The ability of the citizen to confirm scientific truth through independent action has been prohibited.

The billionaires are terrified by the potential unleashed by the 20th plenary. Although the globalization, consumption narcissism, and technology fetishism used by globalists to control Chinese remains in place, the relative value of modernization has been weakened. Moreover, the exclusion of Li Keqiang from the Central Committee, a long-time supporter of the globalists, suggested a struggle in the CPC to move away from a globalist vision and restore the Marxist tradition.

Marxism has its clear weaknesses. But compared with the drivel that billionaires pay Harvard Business School professors to teach their students, Marxist economics is an advanced science. If China leads a global Marxist movement based in scientific analysis of the contradictions of the economy and ideology, that will have mass appeal in every country in the world.

Finding a real solution

The ultimate plan of the billionaires behind the current third opium war is to make all citizens of the world, starting with China, dependent on global banks for money, on multinational corporations for food and employment, on IT firms for interaction with others, and confined to their homes where they will be rendered irrelevant through automation.

The only solution to this war on humanity is to give up the entire dangerous developmental growth model that has been promoted by neo-imperialists after the Second World War, to create local cooperatives for agriculture and production, and to create a culture wherein the value of actions is assessed in terms of wisdom, virtue, and sustainability–and not in terms of money.

A return to a truly sustainable civilization that promotes the best for all of humanity for the next thousand years, and that rejects the creation of a slave society through bio-fascism, technology authoritarian, or of genocide.  Chinese Confucian and Daoist thought, or even Chinese interpretations of Marx like those of Mao Zedong could offer a real alterative.

The solution to this attack is an alliance between Americans and Chinese against the techno-fascism that has infected those two nations and which is being exported out to the entire world through the American control of ideology and finance and the Chinese control of manufacturing and distribution.

Yet such a powerful alliance of Chinese and Americans against techno-fascism is made impossible by the current “new Cold War” campaigns that make any interaction between the two countries suspect.

The current Third Opium War can only be stopped in its tracks if an alliance between Americans and Chinese of conscience can be assembled that oppose the dark alliance of global finance and IT tyranny that has woven the two countries together in a horrific death pact, a “Frankenstein Alliance.” The time has come to start precisely such a movement.

Chinese version of the article available at this link.

*

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

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from Fear No Evil

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s “Third Opium War”. Covid-19 and the Opium Wars. The Alliance of Global Finance and IT Tyranny
  • Tags: ,

Why America Aims to Deindustrialize Europe

December 8th, 2022 by Eric Zuesse

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.

***

 

Imperialism has always been — and always is — control of foreign governments. This is especially control of those governments’ foreign policies — international trade, military, diplomatic, etc., and not merely (if at all) domestic policies (which always are of far less concern to the rulers in the imperial nation — in this case, America).

The present article is dense (containing as much information as perhaps a normal article that’s five times as lengthy) and so it needs to be read slowly, but the topic is crucially important for all Europeans; and is essential for Europeans in order for any democracy to be able to exist in Europe (since democracy is impossible if the public are ignorant or deceived — as is commonly the case):

Prior to the 1991 end of the Soviet Union, America’s imperialism used its European colonies (called “allies” — and which any empire’s colonies or vassal-nations necessarily will be, since the colonies’ foreign policies are always controlled by the imperial nation) as providing military bases (locations to position imperial troops and weapons in order to further-expand the empire), and as being markets for U.S.-manufactured goods, not as being lands from which to extract resources (the traditional “banana republic” vassal-nations).

Military bases continued to be the top (#1) U.S. priority, despite the end of the Soviet threat and Russia’s adopting a democratic Constitution — a Constitution far more democratic than almost any in Europe — and this continued U.S. European military alliance, NATO, demonstrated, and actually proved, that America is imperialistic and had come to be the world’s dominant empire after the Soviet Union’s end. However, increasingly after that time (1991), the second priority, of using Europe as the biggest market for U.S. goods and services, declined. On 9 October 2018, the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank published “Understanding the Roots of the U.S. Trade Deficit” and reported three “Key Takeaways”:

1. Profound economic changes lie at the root of both the U.S. trade deficit and declining manufacturing employment.

2. The role of the U.S. dollar as an international reserve currency has helped finance domestic consumption of imported goods.

3. Labor productivity and a shifting of comparative advantage to developing nations explain the loss in manufacturing jobs.

U.S. manufacturing jobs were being transferred to places like China, not to places like Germany. The lowered labor-costs, by manufacturing in under-developed countries, were adding to the wealth of the owners of America’s international corporations (these being the individuals who funded the careers of successful national politicians — members of Congress, and Presidents — and thus control America’s foreign policies), but America’s weapons (products of Lockheed Martin, etc.) continued to be U.S. manufacturing jobs that are (producing products that are) going to places like Germany — NOT (like for consumer products) going to places like China. (Germany is a U.S. vassal-nation, but China is a U.S. target-nation.)

That same study also included this key passage, which pertained to President Richard Nixon’s having gotten America off the gold standard and onto its replacement, the oil standard (with the Saudis):

As saving and investment became mismatched, the saving gap (S[avings] – [minus] I[nvestment]) started to grow more and more negative around the early 1970s [the end of the gold standard], suggesting rapidly accumulating private debt and public debt in the U.S. Figure 2 shows that the cumulative saving-investment gap started to grow in the middle 1970s and ballooned to $11 trillion in recent years, suggesting roughly an equal amount of foreign holdings of U.S. currency and government bonds.

Figure 2

See this.

Therefore, the current international monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as the dominant world reserve currency and U.S. government securities as the most-sought-after store of value — is the root cause of persistent trade deficits in the U.S.

Had the [gold-based] Bretton Woods system been kept in place, the U.S. ability to issue an astronomical amount of U.S. dollars and Treasuries as a substitute for gold in the global market would have been severely constrained, and U.S. trade would have been far more balanced.

However, though that explanation explains why the “Cumulative Saving Gap” didn’t exist, at all, prior to ending the gold standard, the explanation ignores one critically important aspect of the curve that is displayed in “Figure 2” and which aspect is an accelerated increase in that gap (increased downward turn) after around the year 2001.

What had happened in 2001? The 9/11 attacks and the effective elimination of Constitutional rule in the United States: the extreme militarization of America’s economy, and thus the INCREASED importance, to the American economy, of those manufacturing jobs which relied upon the CONTINUED and increasingly important European military market. (For a while, after 9/11, many of the main purchasers of U.S. weapons were in the Middle East, which is the #2 foreign profit-center for U.S. arms-makers, especially because it is heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. But the war in Ukraine, which Obama started, has restored the Cold War to arms-trade dominance.)

America wouldn’t be able to sell to China the weapons that the U.S. was manufacturing to be placed in Europe. America’s NATO (the Cold-War relic) was Euro-American, not Sino-American. Consequently, America needed to increase yet further its grip over European Governments: it therefore must treat them more openly, and more boldly (such as America’s and UK’s joint operation of blowing-up the Nord Stream pipelines of Russia’s energy supplies into Europe) as being banana republics, and to do whatever is needed in order to get these Governments to comply with U.S. demands (such as to comply with Washington’s secondary sanctions against Russia and against Iran).

Whereas the 9/11 event ‘justified’ America’s emergency rule and its increased weapons-sales, this impetus was waning as an excuse for continuation of the empire; and, so, when Barack Obama came into office in 2009, he promptly re-oriented toward the old Cold War targets, anti-Russia and anti-China planning and policies (his TTIP, TISA, TTP, overthrow-Assad, and overthrow-Yanukovych, etc. — overthrow any nation’s leadership that is at all friendly toward Russia and/or China), and this required him and Joe Biden to force Europe to commit to anti-Russia and anti-China policies; and, so, it required to split the world into a renewed Cold War without any need for an ideological (anti-‘communist’) excuse.

The only way to do this is to deindustrialize Europe. So: that is now happening. Europe is to become more of America’s banana-republics. That’s why the Biden Administration is determined to take manufacturing jobs away from Europe.

The U.S. Government’s, and its think tanks’, many policy documents that focus upon an alleged need to continue and to expand U.S. global hegemony, are unapologetic about America’s zero-sum-game view that in order for the U.S. to succeed, the nations that it views as ‘competitors’ (by which they actually mean enemies) must be defeated.

And all other nations must continue to be dominated by America.

The U.S. is not treating Europe (other than Russia) as enemies; it isn’t threatening them as being targets of America’s bombs; but it is instead treating them as ‘allies’, or vassal-nations to be used as staging-areas for its ultimate invasions to defeat its ‘competitors’.

This entails treating Europe as banana republics, specifically of a military type. Ending NATO would be unacceptable to the people who control America, because it would end that. However, any creation of a solely European military alliance against Russia and/or China, would ultimately mean replacing NATO instead of ending it; and this idea, which has been proposed by Emmanuel Macron and others, would be only a nominal response to the problem. In order for Europe to free itself from the ever-increasing U.S. vise-grip, what’s needed would be to end NATO and accept into its own ranks Russia and an authentically continent-wide, EurAsian (no longer the existing artificial “European”) vision of its own future, instead of to fight against it as America’s rulers insist must continue to be done. The “Old World” will then become “the New World” of the future, while “the New World” of the Western Hemisphere will decline into no longer being the #1 threat to peace as America is and actually has been ever since 25 July 1945. Europe needs to become part of the solution, and to quit being part of the problem.

*

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.

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.

First published on September 27, 2022

***

Introduction to Dr. Bruce Dooley interview with Liz Gunn on the Federation of State Medical Boards

It was uncanny. During the past two and a half years virtually every doctor in the West who dared to question the official Covid Narrative – by raising doubts about the Jab, by discussing natural immunity, individualized treatment, informed consent, and by questioning draconian mandates and restrictions​ – found themselves under attack by their local medical authorities.

Licences were suspended and sham investigations were begun by medical boards and councils, globally.

I first learned of the Federation of State Medical Boards from a colleague here in New Zealand, Dr. Bruce Dooley, which prompted my introductory article on its suspected influence and its association with the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authories.

Dr. Dooley has highly significant personal and in-depth information about this little known, privately funded entity that is pulling the strings worldwide against the honest practice of medicine in the Age of Covid. Here he sits down with veteran New Zealand media presenter and journalist Liz Gunn for a startling and moving interview about the depth, the details and the reach of this shadowy and immensely influential organization – an organization that has been operating for over a century with no public accountability to affect the lives of doctors who are themselves ignorant of its very existence.

Emanuel E. Garcia, M.D. September 28, 2022

***

*

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.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

New York State isolation camp regulation, 10 NYCRR 2.13 “Isolation and Quarantine Procedures,” allows the authorities to force-isolate free citizens without age restriction, time limit, due process, or having to prove that the person is infected.

Brave attorney Bobbie Anne Cox defeated the New York state draconian isolation camp regulation in July 2022.

The New York State Governor and Attorney General have been fighting with tooth and nail to keep this regulation in place — and after the Judge struck it down, they promised to appeal.

Currently, the tyrants are likely sitting in ambush, trying not to stir the waters before the elections but ready to attack after the elections.

The media is silent, which is why it’s on us to spread the word, unite, and do our best to throw them out of office and set a good example for future aspiring tyrants.

*

This story is about a very brave attorney who’s defeated New York State isolation camp regulation. It is also about the need to act — since we are not out of the woods yet, and the NYS Governor and Attorney General have promised to appeal the Judge’s decision striking down the unconstitutional regulation. They are currently sitting in ambush, likely hoping to get re-elected in the upcoming New York state elections and “do the ugly” then.

As a New Yorker, I am appalled and disgusted, and my hope is that many, many people learn about the New York State abysmal isolation camp regulation and throw the aspiring totalitarians out of office. It is not about politics, agreements, or disagreements, it is about protecting our parents and our children from an unconstitutional regulation that can easily lead to separation of families and indefinite detention with no due process. It is that ridiculous and disgusting.

One Person Can Make a Difference

The attorney who filed a lawsuit against the unconstitutional regulation — and won — is Bobbie Anne Cox, a seasoned New York lawyer who has been practicing in the area of property tax law for nearly 25 years.

Early on, she became outspoken about the “COVD measures” by the former New York State governor Andrew Cuomo. When Bobbie Anne first found out about the New York isolation camp regulation, she rubbed her eyes — but it was there, and it was real.

Bobbie Anne started talking to other attorneys, and many attorneys recommended to wait until the authorities start pulling people out of their homes and throwing them into camps — and file a lawsuit then. But she couldn’t wait for the ugly, and after putting in a lot of hard work and legal research into how one could file such an unprecedented lawsuit, she figured out an angle, which was “separation of powers.”

As a result, she won, and the brave NYS Supreme Court Judge Ronald Ploetz struck the regulation down (court decision).

However, like I mentioned earlier, both the Governor and the Attorney General — who are up for … hopefully, being voted out of office on November 8 — have promised to appeal the Judge’s decision. And now it’s up to all of us to spread the word like crazy and let people know what we are facing — since the media is not covering this at all.

What’s in the Isolation Camp Regulation?

Uniting NYS, a citizen group, has created a dedicated website that provides very detailed information the isolation camp regulation, the lawsuit, and how individual people can help fight the tyrants. Here is what they have to say about the regulation itself:

10 NYCRR 2.13 “Isolation and Quarantine Procedures”

Allows the DOH to pick and choose who they want to force to isolate or quarantine, without proof that the person poses a health threat, for however long the DOH wishes to force the quarantine, and at a location that the DOH deems appropriate (which can include a quarantine “facility” or detention center).

They do not need to prove that you are actually sick. They can just suspect that you MIGHT be harboring a communicable disease.

There is no age restriction, so they can force you, or your child, or your elderly parent/grandparent into isolation or quarantine, for however long they want!

In the interview, Bobbie Anne mentioned that when the lawyer representing the NYS Attorney General’s Office (fighting to keep the draconian regulation in place) was asked how one would get out of isolation once placed in it by authorities, their answer was that the family could hire a lawyer. So, really, there is no due process!

A Throwback to Early 2020

On March 30, 2020, during a WHO media briefing, Michael Ryan mentioned the “need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them.” Remember that media briefing? The “conspiratorial” internet blew up, and then the videos of the talk were mostly taken down, then a thousand other things happened, and it was kind of forgotten.

That statement was one of the things that inspired me to write my very first Substack. The full video of the media briefing is still up on the WHO channel.

An Attack on Parental Rights

Another totalitarian move that Bobbie Anne Cox talks about in the interview is New York bill A9963, proposed by NYS Assemblyman Richard Gottfried and co-sponsored by five other NYS Assembly Members.

The bill strips parents of any control over medical, dental, or mental health interventions that their minor child may “choose” to undertake. They still get to pay for said interventions, but even the insurance companies potentially billing them don’t have to tell them what they are paying for, unless the minor child gives an explicit permission to tell the parents. You can read more about this draconical proposal on Bobbie Anne’s Substack.

A Critical Juncture

We are at a critical juncture where we are being assaulted by tyrants like there is no tomorrow. It is critical because they are bullies — but we are not victims, and we have the spiritual power to refuse to bend over. Bobbie Anne Cox is a beautiful example of being brave — and winning. May we all be protected from the bullies — and may we all protect each other.

*

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 a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

Time and again, courageous enlightened people are faced with the question of how to reach out to their fellow human beings intellectually and emotionally in order to be able to take away their individual and collective prejudices.

At a time when, according to President Putin, the danger of nuclear war is growing (1) and the self-destruction of humanity is possible, we need fellow citizens more than ever to tell us what is truth and what is a lie.

Insights of scientific psychology still little in demand

The answer of humanistic psychology to the question raised could be: Not to be afraid of fellow human beings, to join forces with them, to empathise with them and appeal to them without coercion.

What beneficial effects it would have for our children and our social coexistence if we could give up the fear of fellow human beings and set them free. Man is a harmless being and by nature not evil but good (Alfred Adler). People – even the mentally ill – would become healthy. Some mature people already guessed this in the century before last and depth psychology proved them right (2).

Although enlightenment through alternative media is perceived as important, fewer and fewer people are able to solve their own life problems because of the economic and social decline in the country. Therefore, a peaceful world will only come about with a profound change in the current conditions. However, for such a world, people will not set themselves in motion until they are able to solve their own problems. Humanistic psychology and non-speculative psychotherapies offer promising solutions for this.

At a time when boundless social hardship and injustice continue to be perpetuated and will even intensify, world-threatening wars are staged and the tremendous progress of nature and technology is misused to the detriment and harm of people, we are all the more dependent on the insights of modern depth psychological research.

But the knowledge of the psychological faculty is still little in demand today, because its research results are relatively new, little known and difficult to communicate. Moreover, they are not appreciated or even fought against by those in power. Only when it is recognised that humanity cannot progress without psychology will people gratefully draw on their findings.

According to the findings of depth psychology, the starting point for the problem at hand should be education.

Barrack yard in education – “that’s where the dog is buried”.

Of course, parents teach the child the rules of decency: how to behave well at the table, for example, and how to wash their hands thoroughly beforehand. But most parents don’t take the trouble to teach the child, “come with me, see how I wash my hands!” and explain to him why he should wash his hands.

There is usually coercion involved in parenting, “Go wash your hands first before you come to the table, otherwise you’ll get a slap!” The whole attitude of the parents is the coercion, the violence, the barrack yard. And that makes children sick, corrupts their souls at a young age. You don’t have to force people to cooperate, the child likes to cooperate without coercion. It is precisely coercion and violence that stifle the child’s natural need to cooperate.

As adults, these people then do not find their way; they cannot live together with their partner and marriages perish because they have different opinions about education, about other people and about the world.

The world will only recover and humanity will only progress – history shows us this – if people associate on a voluntary basis; if they sit down together and think about how they can solve the problems together. Freedom in the sense of voluntariness is an essential part of man’s social nature. Misusing it can have serious consequences.

Negative example of the Russian Revolution and the treatment of religious people

In Russia, the leaders of the revolution misjudged people and used coercion; they could not let people go free. If Russia had chosen the humanist path, even in part, the Second World War might have been prevented.

After all, the people go along with it, they want to live. In Russia, the people freed themselves in the October Revolution, but afterwards they did not become independent. In a society that organises itself into two classes – one that governs and one that is governed – two ideologies, two mentalities develop: the mentality of the slave/servant and that of the master. Such an organisation makes freedom impossible.

And how did the Bolsheviks behave towards religious people? They locked the churches and turned them into meeting places. In doing so, they hurt people deep inside, in their faith, in their dependence, in their fear. Was the Russian peasant converted by this? No! He was involuntarily against it. Today we know that you don’t have to take religion away from people: “Do you want to pray?” Yes, pray!”

One could have appealed to the farmers: “What, you don’t want to insure your field, your grain? Your neighbour will get a possible damage paid out by the insurance company in roubles and can buy new grain. And you? Who will help you if you don’t join the community of the insured?” The Russian revolutionaries were just not that far ahead because the problem of psychology was not yet known.

Giving people freedom so that they like to participate and become healthy.

Freedom does not mean the freedom of the rulers. They take the “freedom” to exploit people: A clique of capitalists exploits other people. They then have no right to live, freedom is only pretended to them. A servant, for example, has to remain a servant all his life; he cannot marry, cannot start a family, because he is a servant. But when the president or leader calls, he cannot say NO. He could say, “But I have nothing, therefore I have nothing to defend!”

“Freedom” is to be understood in the sense that people have their security and do not have to beg. Let us imagine the principle of freedom in such a way that every working person knows that if he can no longer work, for example if he falls ill or becomes old, that he will then have the same opportunity to live, that he will continue to receive the wage he has today, that he can keep his flat and possibly his little house and that he can continue to live. In the capitalist system, people have no peace and no security. They would have that in a free society.

Man is a harmless being after all – especially the one in today’s capitalist society. He is attuned to work. He would be happy for a little freedom. Even the sick would be dealt with, they would not be a nuisance. If mentally ill people find a different society, a different situation, a different moral conception, then they become healthy and behave differently.

Let people be free, don’t demand anything from them. They will gladly accept it. Let us associate with people, let us believe in them, let us empathise with them and appeal to them. The other person wants to live as well as I do. Then he will join in. We don’t have to be afraid of our fellow human beings.

Appealing to people and letting them decide freely

People are programmed by all institutions – starting with education at home and in school and going all the way up to recruit school – so that they usually do whatever those in power ask them to do. That is programme, that is conscious. And they are kept in this mood all their lives – both so-called intellectuals and the mass of the population. So today, young as well as older “mobile phone addicts” are completely surrendering themselves to the values of big, mean-spirited tech giants.

But at the same time, we can see that both young people and older citizens are more than willing to engage in a face-to-face conversation in a coffee shop or on the bus, if you don’t come across as a know-it-all who already knows when you are really interested in their personal problems and choose a way of expressing yourself that everyone can understand. It is very important to appeal only to them and let them decide freely.

In written statements, too, it is a matter of conveying even the most difficult depth psychological insights and findings in a language that can be understood not only by the expert but also by the interested layperson.

The question posed at the beginning remains how to reach as many fellow human beings as possible intellectually and emotionally so that they will one day stand up against injustice – intellectually, emotionally and politically.

Grassroots or grassroots movements emerge from the grassroots of the population

The interesting idea of creating a grassroots movement was voiced by a friend during an international webinar debate.

According to “Wikipedia”, a grassroots movement is a social initiative or movement that emerges from the grassroots of the population:

“Grassroots movements typically have grassroots democratic and consensus-based structures, as they seek to bypass the usual lobbying or party-political opinion-forming process. Change is to be achieved through committed articulation of citizens’ interests (…). (…).

The aim of some grassroots initiatives is to build social alternatives to the existing, up to the revolutionary claim of bringing about fundamental systemic changes. In doing so, they rely both on the long-term development of networks and on spectacular individual actions, which are primarily intended to create publicity. Not infrequently, the methods of civil disobedience are used.” (3)

*

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 holds a doctorate in education (Dr. paed.) and a degree in psychology (Dipl.-Psych.). For many decades he was a teacher (headmaster) and trained educational professionals. As a retiree, he worked as a psychotherapist in his own practice.

Notes

(1) https://de.rt.com/kurzclips/video/156642-putin-bedrohung-atomkrieges-waechst-russischer/

(2) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=28358; https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-with-whom-can-we-reorganise-society/5800536

(3) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graswurzelbewegung

Featured image is from The Free Farm

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What is Truth, What is Lie? How to Reach Fellow Human Beings Intellectually and Emotionally?

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.

***

 

 

 

 

 

My December 6 address to the European Conference on the Revival of Fascism: The Revival of Fascism in the 21st Century, Center for Geostrategic Studies, Belgrade, December 6-8, 2022.

*

My appreciation to those with the foresight to organize this conference.

I limit my remarks to definitional clarity.  By “fascism” I assume we mean not merely economic cooperation between government and private business, but the over-riding of citizens’ values and opinions by powerful groups in control of governing.  We mean by fascism the ignoring and suppression of popular opinion.

Moreover, we mean the use of media as propaganda in order to implant falsehoods in the minds of the populations that make them easier to sway and control. Under a regime of fascism, official narratives are constructed, and any dissent, regardless of how factual, is dismissed as “misinformation.”

In these few words, I have described our current existence in the Western World.

The beliefs that made us free by restraining government power and holding it accountable are everywhere under attack. 

We are being dehumanized by fascism, which makes it easier to dispose of us. For example, the liberal city government of San Francisco on November 29, 2022, by a vote of 8 to 3 gave robots the right to kill humans.  San Francisco will now employ killer robots as members of its police force.

In the United States today free speech is said to be a threat to democracy if it dissents from official explanations.  There is talk about criminalizing “misinformation.”  

We know how close we are to being muzzled when in the United States free speech, protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution is under attack as a “threat to democracy.”

There is a second necessary definitional clarification.  We must not confuse fascism with nationalism.  It is the globalism of American hegemony and the globalism of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” that terminates self-rule that are the threats, not nationalism. 

The nations of the world are being turned into towers of babel where internal disunity makes them unable to resist tyranny.

Once Identity Politics divides a population, there is no unity necessary to constrain a government. Only a people unified with common values into a nation can resist the global forces constructing a tyranny. If nationalism is conflated with nazism and racism, on what political basis can globalism be resisted? 

Globalism is the ultimate tower of babel. The division created by Identity Politics eliminates the unity necessary for opposing tyranny.

The belief system that upholds liberty is seriously weakened by decades of attack.  In the Western world the costs imposed on belief systems by self-denunciation and virtue-signaling are now apparent.  To restore freedom to people requires resurrection of an almost dead civilization.  I hope clarity about the definition of fascism contributes to this important effort.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this important conference.

*

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. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Are Being Put in Chains. Criminalizing “Misinformation”. Dehumanized by Unfolding Fascism
  • 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.

***

Ghana’s government recently announced plans to procure oil using gold rather than US dollars – the currency predominately used in the global oil trade.

Via Reuters:

“Ghana’s government is working on a new policy to buy oil products with gold rather than U.S. dollar reserves, Vice-President Mahamudu Bawumia said on Facebook on Thursday.

The move is meant to tackle dwindling foreign currency reserves coupled with demand for dollars by oil importers, which is…increasing living costs…

Using gold would prevent the exchange rate from directly impacting fuel or utility prices as domestic sellers would no longer need foreign exchange to import oil products.”

The US petrodollar buttresses America’s position as the world’s sole superpower. Wars have been waged against much more powerful foes than Ghana to maintain the petrodollar’s dominance.

Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi tried out something similar to Ghana’s plans about a decade ago, and now he’s six feet under while his former country has devolved into a failed state with literal slave auctions.

What really precipitated the US-led, French-facilitated destruction of Libya all those years ago?

Via The Ecologist:

“Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa.”

The official justification for deposing Gaddafi was to promote human rights and Democracy™ (sound familiar?). In reality, as Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails (for which the hero Julian Assange has paid with his freedom) reveal, the true motivation was much more basic and material.

In an email stored on her private server, longtime Clinton advisor and vaunted Swamp veteran Sidney Blumenthal wrote on April 2, 2011:

“Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver … This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).”

The Ecologist reporting continues:

“In a ‘source comment’, the original declassified email adds:

“According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
2. Increase French influence in North Africa,
3. Improve his internal political situation in France,
4. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
5. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”

So, in public, the illegal invasion of Libya was framed as a liberation effort to free Africans from oppression. In private, it was all about oil and gold and raw geopolitical power.

Black Lives Matter greatly to Democrats, except when they have natural resources and don’t cooperate with the petrodollar program.

“We came, we saw, he died,” a visibly giddy Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State and chief architect of the Libyan coup, declared on national television when she learned in real-time of Gaddafi’s death. Nothing stimulates her more than death.

All of this provokes the obvious question: Is Ghana playing with fire here? How long until they are similarly liberated by the liberal and loving Democrats?

*

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

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.

***

Arrogance sometimes is boundless and ridiculous. Arrogance in its extreme form may be self-destructive.

Imagine, the European Union (EU) and the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), decide to put a price cap of US$ 60 per barrel on Russian oil. Just like that. Europe – a US-vassal – is going out of her way to bash Russia, to sanction Russia, and scream, “we won’t buy any Russian energy!”

Yet, Europe depends to about 40% on Russian hydrocarbon energy, mostly gas. Lack of Russian energy would leave an enormous gap in Europe’s energy supply – a void that cannot be replaced by other suppliers overnight. To avoid an economic collapse, a rapid deindustrialization, in fact, a suicide of human, social and economic dimensions, Europe has no choice but importing energy from Russia, and this despite all the yelling and bruhaha for “sanctions”.

Over the past few weeks Russian tankers – at the rate of 125% from what used to be “normal”- arrived at Amsterdam and other European ports to fill up Europe’s gas reservoirs. Today, most of EU gas reserves are full to the brim. See this.

Both the embargo and the price cap come into effect as of Monday 5 December. By now European gas reserves are almost overflowing – having been supplied hastily with more than the average tonnages per week. The sanctions from now forward are sheer hypocrisy.

The price cap supposedly applied for oil Russia supplies to third countries, sovereign countries, over which the EU has zero control and even less command.

Graciously, Europe allows for a transition period of 45 days for vessels carrying Russian oil purchased and loaded prior to December 5.

Russia reiterates that she will neither agree to the price cap nor sell her oil to countries supporting it.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak told Rossiya 24 TV on Sunday, “We believe that this tool is non-market, inefficient, grossly interferes with market instruments, contrary to all the rules, like those of the WTO, for example. We are not going to use price cap instruments. We are now working on mechanisms to prohibit the use of the cap.” He added that Russia will only sell its oil to countries “that work with us on market terms,” even if it means reducing output (RT – 5 December 2022).

This at first sight looks indeed like Arrogance no end. Neither the EU or the G7 are based on International Law. The EU is described as a unique partnership between 27 European countries, known as Member States, or EU countries. Together they cover most of the European Continent and are home to close to half a billion people (Wikipedia).

Without an International Law base, the EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its [the EU’s own] Court of Justice, the EU represents “a new legal order of international law” (Wikipedia). This “new legal order” has never been ratified by the United Nations.

The legality of the G7 is described by Google as an informal grouping of wealthy Western nations. It has no permanent secretariat or legal status (Oct 11, 2022). The G7, though are intimately linked to the obtuse Council on Foreign Relations.

The G7 are all those countries that are part of the core-Matrix of neoliberal globalism, those who play along with the UN Agenda 2030, alias the Great Reset towards a One World Order.

Russia, who used to be a “member” of the G7, was dismissed years ago when Moscow departed from the western aggressive warrior and all-dominating globalist agenda. Russia, like China, aims for a multipolar world while preserving national sovereignty.

The EU / G7 double-speak sanctions on Russia, “no energy from Russia”, yet semi-clandestinely filling up their gas deposits with Russian hydrocarbons, before the self-imposed embargo date of 5 December.

Since there is no other reasonable alternative for Russian energy, not in the foreseeable future Europe seems to be hellbent to destroy her economy.

The deception agenda, where people are being lied to, like energy shortages, the need to survive a potentially geoengineered weaponized cold, is alienating and gradually waking up more people. We are talking about a winter which is meant to kill the weak, the infirm and the old — the useless eaters (Hariri, Klaus Schwab associate, WEF).

On Sunday, 4 December, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said, “Russia won’t sell at the price limit agreed by the EU and the G7”. A day earlier the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov Kremlin also said it will not recognize the arbitrarily set western U$ 60 /barrel price cap.

What’s next?

Europe’s full reservoirs will be used to keep her industry alive for a while. In the meantime, private citizen will have to follow strict maximum home temperature mandates. In other words, freezing. The disease-vulnerable and poor may not survive – another step into the criminal eugenist agenda.

The EU / G7 “price cap” in the end may be nothing more than a propaganda gimmick to make the public at large believe its Russia’s fault when they freeze to death. All the while, the EU industry keeps turning out consumables for the rich and for profit of the oligarchs.

In a poll taken by the German “Der Spiegel”, one of four families will not buy any Christmas presents – they cannot afford it. This brutal reality is not much different in other European or Global North country.

Here may be the other, real reason for banning Russian oil and gas:

When the President of Sri Lanka in conformity with the Great Reset’s World Order, stopped imports of fertilizers to “bring back sustainable agriculture”, the country’s agriculture collapsed. No harvest, no local food. Mass famine, related diseases and death.

Is the EU embargo on Russian oil and gas based on a similar wicked scheme of agriculture destruction? No nitrogen-based fertilizers, massive crop reduction, collapsing farms, food shortages, famine, diseases – and death.

It would not be a surprise. A few weeks ago, the Dutch Government has decided against yearlong farmer and public protests, to close down 3,000 farms, about a third of the Netherlands’ farmland.

Is killing agriculture part of the real agenda behind the EU’s hypocritical sanctioning of Russia for a war which is constantly fueled by EU, NATO and US weapon deliveries? Shamelessly, the west transfer tens of billions of dollars to the delight of the US war-industrial complex, but to the detriment of the Ukrainian people and of peace and ultimately for a sinister, diabolical agenda of mass killing — back to the Rockefeller-Gates eugenics cult of close to hundred years ago.

There is still time to stop this ferocious onslaught on people’s lives.

Only we can stop it, by detaching from the Matrix, from a system that CANNOT – ever be reformed, but must be shed aside. With new human spirituality, we must face the stark reality – that only a new begin can salvage humanity. Live Local! We can do it. Solidarity and sovereignty work hand in hand. Even apart – we are connected by positive energy.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from OilPrice.com