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.

***

Newly revealed documents show that political aides for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party government were shocked at the apparent large number of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members who supported the Freedom Convoy. 

Per Blacklock’s Reporter, confidential documents made public as part of the Public Order Emergency Commission hearings have revealed that Trudeau government staffers were shocked that there was sizeable support for the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy protesters by both members of the CAF and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).  

At least eight active members of the CAF publicly supported the Freedom Convoy from bases across Canada, while many more did so in private.  

A staff email from Defence Minister Anita Anand’s office urged government workers at the time to please “see this internal list of Canadian Armed Forces members allegedly involved in the convoy.”

A press aid to Anand wrote back,

“How the [expletive] many soldiers are in the convoy????”

The confidential documents also show that there were so many RCMP members who supported the Freedom Convoy that the police force sent out a 35-page document “regarding the participation of current or prior employees” in the protests. 

During the time of the protest, military officials said that any public support for the movement was a breach of its Code Of Service Discipline. 

One notable member of the CAF who supported the Freedom Convoy was veteran James Topp.

Inspired by the protest, Topp walked across Canada in protest of COVID-related mandates, and as a result for his public expression is now facing four military issued charges.

Support for the Freedom Convoy among police officers and military members comes as little surprise to many Canadians, as they too were subjected to harsh COVID mandates.

Last year, Canada’s military imposed a COVID jab mandate for all its personnel. As a result of the mandate, many who refused were kicked out of the armed forces via an administrative process called the 5F release. 

Those who did not get the jab were not charged however, and the legality of the military jab mandate has been questioned. 

While not necessarily mentioning the Freedom Convoy or giving the movement his support, retired CAF veteran Lt.-Gen. Michel Maisonneuve recently drew headlines after he received a standing ovation from senior military officers for giving a rousing speech blasting cancel culture, climate change policies, woke aspects of the armed forces, and leaders who “divide.”   

The speech was made on November 9 in Ottawa at a gala event, at which he accepted the prestigious Vimy Award.  

Maisonneuve recently defended his words in a column after getting backlash from the mainstream press.  

*

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 OffGuardian

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” 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 July 13, 2022

***

“As oil and gas prices rise so does the price of artificial chemical fertilisers – the lynch-pin of industrial agriculture’s claims to be ‘efficient’. In the UK, the price of nitrogen fertiliser has doubled over the past year to around £330 per tonne. With oil currently at over $130 a barrel and with OPEC warning it could reach $200 by the end of the year, it has been suggested that fertilisers could hit GBP 500 a tonne. At these prices, the claimed efficiency of fossil-fuel and fertiliser dependent industrial farming begins to collapse.”

The above extract is from a 2008 Soil Association press release.

In July 2022, the price of oil is just over $100 per barrel and fertilisers are well more than double the 2008 price. In fact, the price of fertilisers has doubled since 2021.

Much has been written in recent months about supply chain crises stemming from the conflict in Ukraine and the effects on gas and oil. Perhaps up to two thirds of the global population are reliant on nitrogen-based synthetic fertilisers for much of their food. As a result, alarm bells have been ringing over fertiliser and food shortages, which will hit the world’s poorest the worst.

With fears of rising prices for natural gas – essential for producing nitrogen fertiliser – we are seeing the vulnerability of a fossil-fuel dependent food system. Nitrogen fertilisers are made from ammonia produced by the Haber-Bosch process, an energy-intensive approach. Natural gas usually supplies the hydrogen. The nitrogen is derived from the air. This ammonia is used for all nitrogen fertilisers, including anhydrous ammonium nitrate and urea.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, in the period 1961-2014, global nitrogenous fertiliser consumption went from a little more than 10 million tonnes to around 105 million tonnes. This has helped feed and maintain a rapidly growing global population.

But this has come at a high cost in terms of mineral-depleted and microbiological-degraded soils, polluted waterways, unstable nitrogen in soils which release nitrous oxide into the atmosphere and a food system extremely vulnerable to oil and gas price rise volatility due to war, commodity speculation or some other catastrophe.

The situation in Ukraine and the West’s sanctions on Russia aside, the current crisis might not be solely due to the economics of supply and demand. The recent article by Antonia Juhasz ‘Why are gas prices so high?’ reports that current prices are not reflective of supply chain problems. In effect, energy traders are stoking rising prices and volatility when it comes to the price of oil, natural gas and other vital fossil-fuel commodities.

Given the environmental impacts and the vulnerability to price shocks and largely unregulated speculation, it is increasingly clear that the world must move away from its reliance on fossil-fuel agriculture. This also involves delinking from a globalised food system based on long-line supply chains.

For instance, Russia and Ukraine produce more than half of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and 30% of the world’s wheat. Some 45 African and least-developed countries import at least a third of their wheat from Ukraine or Russia with 18 of them importing at 50% or more.

Regional and local community-owned food systems based on food sovereignty and short(er) food supply chains that can cope with future shocks are required.

How we cultivate food also needs to change.

The EU’s ‘farm to fork’ strategy advocates for at least a 20% reduction in synthetic fertiliser use by 2030 and at least a 50% reduction in pesticides. This has come under fire from the US government and its cronies in the agrochemical sector who forward tired and discredited arguments that this will fuel hunger and starvation and lead to increased land use.

The industry is determined to undermine the EU’s strategy, which also aims by 2030 to more than triple the percentage of EU farmland under organic management (from 8.1% to 25%).

‘A loud lobby for a silent spring’ is a 2022 report by the Brussels-based lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory, which details the carefully orchestrated attack on this EU strategy by the industry. Its business model depends on trapping farmers on chemical treadmills.

Rather than rehash the arguments here, readers may turn to author and impact investor Brian Halweil who presented a detailed, research-based takedown of the anti-organic arguments of the pesticide lobby some years back. His piece originally appeared in World Watch Volume 19, Number 3. It can be accessed on the Organic Consumers Association website – ‘Can Organic Food Feed the World?’

Halveil also rebuts the claim that organic fertilisers are insufficient in quantity and effect for maintaining necessary levels of productivity. The arguments for organic methods and agroecological approaches and evidence of their success and scaling up have been well documented (see the 2022 article ‘Living in Epoch-Defining Times: Food, Agriculture and the New World Order’ for a brief overview).

Readers are also urged to access the short but excellent backgrounder on YouTube Understanding Our Soil: The Nitrogen Cycle, Fixers and Fertilizer (2021), which describes the deleterious impact of modern synthetic fertilisers on soil, water and the atmosphere and how organic nitrogen-fixing methods can address these problems, not least by restoring and boosting soil fertility.

Of course, no one is advocating an immediate shift to organic cultivation methods. There has to be a gradual and careful phase out and phase in which would take place over a period of many years.

In this respect, Vandana Shiva says in a recent article that it is time governments made the fertiliser industry pay for nitrogen pollution and redirect subsidies from industrial agriculture to ecological farming. Rather than attacking farmers (as is currently happening in the Netherlands), she says new agroecology schools need to be open for farmers to make a transition to ecological agriculture over a three- to five-year period.

At the same time, we must not be hoodwinked by the relentless fear-mongering (concerning organics) of the agritech-agribusiness lobby, which requires farmers to continue to purchase its proprietary inputs, including synthetic fertilisers, while continuing to rollout and impose its high-input, high-energy, health-damaging model of industrial agriculture across the world.

*

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.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

The author receives no payment from any media outlet or organization for his work. If you appreciated this article, consider sending a few coins his way: [email protected] 

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

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.

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on April 27. 2022

It’s beginning to look like some bad actors are deliberately taking steps to guarantee a coming global food crisis. Every measure that the Biden Administration strategists have been making to “control energy inflation” is damaging the supply or inflating the price of natural gas, oil and coal to the global economy. This is having a huge impact on fertilizer prices and food production. That began well before Ukraine. Now reports are circulating that Biden’s people have intervened to block the freight rail shipping of fertilizer at the most critical time for spring planting. By this autumn the effects will be explosive.

With the crucial time for USA spring planting at its critical phase, CF Industries of Deerfield, Illinois, the largest US supplier of nitrogen fertilizers as well as a vital diesel engine additive, issued a press release stating that, “On Friday, April 8, 2022, Union Pacific informed CF Industries without advance notice that it was mandating certain shippers to reduce the volume of private cars on its railroad effective immediately.”

Union Pacific is one of only four major rail companies that together carry some 80% of all US agriculture rail freight. The CF company CEO, Tony Will stated, “The timing of this action by Union Pacific could not come at a worse time for farmers. Not only will fertilizer be delayed by these shipping restrictions, but additional fertilizer needed to complete spring applications may be unable to reach farmers at all. By placing this arbitrary restriction on just a handful of shippers, Union Pacific is jeopardizing farmers’ harvests and increasing the cost of food for consumers.” CF has made urgent appeals to the Biden Administration for remedy, so far with no positive action.

Direct sabotage

CF Industries noted that they were one of only thirty companies subject to the severe measure, which is indefinite. They ship via Union Pacific rail lines primarily from its Donaldsonville Complex in Louisiana and its Port Neal Complex in Iowa, to serve key farm states including Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas and California. The ban will affect nitrogen fertilizers such as urea and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN), as well as diesel exhaust fluid, DEF (called AdBlue in Europe). DEF is an emissions control product required for diesel trucks today. Without it engines cannot run. It is made from urea. CF Industries is the largest producer of urea, UAN and DEF in North America, and its Donaldsonville Complex is the largest single production facility for the products in North America.

At the same time, the Biden gang has announced a fake remedy for record high gasoline pump prices. Washington announced the EPA will allow a 50% increase in corn-based biodiesel and ethanol fuel mix for the summer. On April 12 the Secretary of Agriculture announced a “bold” initiative by the US Administration to increase the use of domestically-grown corn-ethanol biofuels. Secretary Tom Vilsack claimed the measure would “reduce energy prices and tackle rising consumer prices caused by Putin’s Price Hike (sic) by tapping into a strong and bright future for the biofuel industry, in cars and trucks and the rail, marine, and aviation sectors and supporting use of E15 fuel this summer.”

Only the capitalized “Putin Price Hike” is not a result of Russian actions, but of Washington Green Energy decisions to phase out oil and gas. The energy price inflation is also about to go vastly higher in coming months owing to US and EU economic sanctions on export of Russian oil and likely gas. However the central point is that every acre of US farmland dedicated to growing corn for biofuels removes that food production from the food chain, to burn it as fuel. Since passage of the 2007 US Renewable Fuel Standards Act, which mandated annually rising targets for production of corn for ethanol fuel blends, biofuels have captured a huge part of total corn acreage, more than 40% in 2015. That shift, mandated by law, to burning corn as fuel had added a major price inflation for food well before the covid inflation crisis began. The USA is by far world’s largest corn producer and exporter. Now to mandate a significant increase in corn ethanol for fuel at a time of astronomical fertilizer prices, and fertilizer rail shipping are being blocked reportedly by White House orders, will send corn prices through the roof. Washington knows this very well. It is deliberate.

No wonder the price of US corn reached a 10-year high in mid-April, as exports from Russia and Ukraine, major sources, are now blocked by sanction and war. Aside from the energy-inefficient use of US corn for biodiesel supply, the latest Biden ethanol initiative will add to the growing food crisis while doing nothing to lower US gasoline prices. A major use for US feed corn is as animal feed for cattle, pigs and poultry as well as for human diets. This cynical biofuel order is not about US “energy independence.” Biden ended that in his first days in office by a series of bans on oil and gas drilling and pipelines as part of his Zero Carbon agenda.

In what is clearly becoming a US Administration war on food, the situation is being dramatically aggravated by USDA demands for chicken farmers to kill off millions of chickens in now 27 states, allegedly for signs of Bird Flu infection. The H5N1 Bird Flu “virus” was exposed in 2015 as a complete hoax.

The tests used by the US government inspectors to determine bird flu now are the same unreliable PCR tests used for COVID in humans. The test is worthless for that. US Government officials estimate that since first cases were “tested” positive in February, at least 23 million chickens and turkeys have been culled to allegedly contain the spread of a disease whose cause could be the incredibly unsanitary cage confinement of mass industrial chicken CAFOs. The upshot is sharp rises in prices of egg by some 300% since November and severe loss of chicken protein sources for American consumers at a time when overall cost of living inflation is at a 40-year high.

To make matters worse, California and Oregon are again declaring water emergency amid a multi-year drought and are sharply reducing irrigation water to farmers in California, who produce the major share of US fresh vegetables and fruits. That drought has since spread to cover most agriculture land west of the Mississippi River, meaning much of US farmland.

US food security is under threat as never before since the 1930s Dust Bowl, and the Biden Administration “Green Agenda” is doing everything to make the impact worse for its citizens.

In recent comments US President Biden remarked without elaborating that the US food shortages are “going to be real.” His administration also is deaf to pleas of farmer organizations to allow cultivation of some 4 million acres of farmland ordered left out of cultivation for “environmental reasons. However this is not the only part of the world where crisis in food is developing.

Global Disaster

These deliberate Washington actions are taking place at a time a global series of food disasters create the worst food supply situation in decades, perhaps since the World War II end.

In the EU, which is significantly dependent on Russia, Belarus and Ukraine for feed grains, fertilizers and energy, sanctions are making the covid-induced food shortages dramatically worse. The EU uses its foolish Green Agenda as an excuse to forbid the Italian government from ignoring EU rules limiting state aid to farmers. In Germany, the new Green Party Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir, who wants to phase out traditional agriculture allegedly for its “greenhouse gas” emissions, has given farmers who want to grow more food a cold response. The EU faces many of the same disastrous threats to food security as the USA and even more dependence on Russian energy which is about to be suicidally sanctioned by the EU.

The major food producing countries in South America, especially Argentina and Paraguay, are in the midst of a severe drought attributed to a periodic La Niña Pacific anomaly that has crippled crops there. Sanctions on Belarus and Russia fertilizers are threatening Brazil crops, aggravated with bottlenecks in ocean transport.

China just announced that owing to severe rains in 2021, this year’s winter wheat crop could be the worst in its history. The CCP also has instituted severe measures to get farmers to expand cultivation to non-farm lands with little reported effect. According to a report by China watcher Erik Mertz,

“In China’s Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning provinces, officials have reported one in three farmers lack sufficient seed and fertilizer supplies to begin planting for the optimum spring window… According to sources within these areas, they are stuck waiting on seed and fertilizer which have been imported to China from overseas – and which are stuck in the cargo ships sitting off the coast of Shanghai.”

Shanghai, the world’s largest container port, has been under a bizarre “Zero Covid” total quarantine for more than four weeks with no end in sight. In a desperate bid by the CCP “ordering” increased food production, local CP officials throughout China have begun transforming basketball courts and even roads into cropland. The food situation in China is forcing the country to import far more at a time of global shortages, driving world grain and food prices even higher.

Africa is also severely impacted by the US-imposed sanctions and war ending food and fertilizer exports from Russia and Ukraine. Thirty five African countries get food from Russia and Ukraine. Twenty two African countries import fertilizer from there. Alternatives are seriously lacking as prices soar and supply collapses. Famine is predicted.

David M. Beasley, executive director of the UN World Food Program, declared recently on the global food outlook, “There is no precedent even close to this since World War II.”

Notably, it was the Biden Treasury Department that drew up a list of the most comprehensive economic sanctions against Russia and Belarus, pressuring a compliant EU to dutifully follow, sanctions whose impact on global grain and fertilizer and energy supply and prices was entirely predictable. It was in effect a sanction on the US and global economy.

These are but the latest examples of deliberate US Government sabotage of the food chain as part of the Biden Green Agenda, of Davos WEF, Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation, as part of their dystopian Great Reset eugenics agenda. Traditional agriculture is to be replaced by a synthetic lab grown diet of fake meats and protein from grasshoppers and worms, worldwide. All for the supposed glory of controlling global climate. This is truly mad.

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics. 

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3

Year: 2007

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

The WEF Reveals the Agenda for Davos 2023. “Cooperation in a Fragmented World”. Triggering Economic Chaos, Debt, Poverty and Social Tyranny Worldwide…

By Sikh for Truth, December 06, 2022

What can I say? I dipped in and out of various sessions this year at the Davos event with much interest.  Unfortunately, Davos 2023 will be held in less than 44 days. Can you believe it?

Mass Movement Against San Francisco Police Killer Robots

By Matthew Guariglia, December 06, 2022

EFF is announcing a letter signed by 44 community groups who stand united in opposition to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors authorizing the San Francisco Police Department to deploy deadly force with remote-control robots. The signers include racial justice groups, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, LGBTQ organizations, and labor unions.

Growing Number of Americans Want Washington to Press for Peace in Ukraine

By Kyle Anzalone, December 06, 2022

A new survey indicates that Americans’ support for Kiev is slipping. According to polling conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, the number of citizens who want the White House to pursue a diplomatic path is nearly equal to those who advocate indefinite military aid to Ukraine.

The ‘Twitter Papers’ Reveal the Totalitarians Among Us

By Rep. Ron Paul, December 06, 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.

Arms Sales of SIPRI Top 100 Arms Companies Grow Despite Supply Chain Challenges

By SIPRI, December 06, 2022

Sales of arms and military services by the 100 largest companies in the industry reached $592 billion in 2021, a 1.9 per cent increase compared with 2020 in real terms. This is according to new data released today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Today, We’re Living in Orwell’s 1984

By Peter Koenig, December 06, 2022

The film based on the book of the same title, was released in the US in 1984, here available on Youtube in its original format. You can watch here or right below. Watching it gives you a similar impression as listening to and watching the 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF), that played out in Davos, Switzerland, from 23 – 26 May 2022. It displayed a dystopian world, where war is peace and peace is war, where lies are propagated 24/7, so you believe they are the truth, and when you finally look the truth into the eyes, you laugh, because it’s so incredible, that you believe it is just another lie. We are living right in 1984.

Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Regime Bans Russian Orthodox Church

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, December 06, 2022

After years of illegal persecution, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on Kiev lawmakers to draft a law banning the Russian Orthodox Church from Ukrainian territory. The justification would be the “necessity” to ban institutions linked to Russia due to the current conflict.

We’re Playing Russian Roulette: John Mearsheimer

By John J. Mearsheimer and Freddie Sayers, December 05, 2022

Until the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Professor John Mearsheimer was mainly known in academic circles as a leading scholar in the “realist” school of foreign policy. That is to say, he takes an unsentimental view of world affairs as being a muscular competition between great powers for regional hegemony.

Latest Ukraine Psycho Fear Porn: “Mail Bombs” and “Pig Eyes”

By Kurt Nimmo, December 05, 2022

CNN didn’t come out and directly accuse Russia of sending mail bombs and animal parts to Ukrainian embassies in Europe. There is no evidence of that, not that evidence gets in the way of reality-anemic war propagandists working for the national security state and its corporate media propaganda division.

Video: Accused of “COVID Misinformation”, Dr Meryl Nass Fights for Her Medical License

By Dr. Meryl Nass and Kristina Borjesson, December 05, 2022

After initially having her license suspended by the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine for allegedly “spreading covid misinformation” and being ordered to have a psychological evaluation conducted by a doctor of the Board’s choosing, Dr. Meryl Nass, who has never had one patient complaint in her entire 42 years of practicing medicine, who has successfully treated many covid patients, and who is a pandemic expert, is fighting back.  

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.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published on December 5, 2021, updated December 18, 2021.

Since publication, important new sections of this confidential Pfizer report have been released.

***

“Have you seen the document dump on the Pfizer vaccine data? It’s a bombshell. No wonder the FDA fought to keep it hidden for 55 years.

Here is the quick takeaway:

By February of 2021, Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders. 

Bear in mind, this is Pfizer’s own data.” Election Wizard

***

This Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).

The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was launched in the US on the 14th of December after the granting of Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020. 

In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”. 

What is contained in  Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.

In a Court of Law, the evidence contained in this Big Pharma confidential report (coupled with the data on deaths and adverse events compiled by the national authorities in the EU, UK and US) is irrefutable: because it is their data and their estimates and not ours. 

Bear in mind: it’s data which is based on reported and recorded cases, which constitute a small percentage of the actual number of vaccine related deaths and adverse events. 

This is a de facto Mea Culpa on the part of Pfizer. #Yes it is a Killer Vaccine

Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing Worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.

Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine. 

It is also a  Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments Worldwide which are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.

Video Interview with Michel Chossudovsky on the The Secret Pfizer Report

Click right corner to access fullscreen

No attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.

People are told  that the vaccine is intended to save lives.

“Killing is Good for Business”: It is a multibillion dollar operation worldwide. And Pfizer already has a criminal record (2009) with the US  Department of Justice on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.

We invite the “Covid-19 Fact Checkers” to peruse this Confidential Pfizer report.

(Oops. It just so happens that Reuters “Fact Checker” chairman and former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) James C. Smith “is also a top investor and board member of Pfizer”. “No  Conflict of Interest”).

Selected excerpts, tables and diagram from the Report below

Michel Chossudovsky.

Global Research, December 5, 2021, Update with Video Interview on May, 17, 2022

See author’s Biographical Note

 Archive of Articles on Global Research

Please forward this article

***

Click here to read the complete Pfizer report.  

also see details in the Appendices

Selected Excerpts of the Report

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from BigPharmaNews.com

La miseria y la desigualdad social persisten como características centrales de las naciones latinoamericanas en general, y para enfrentarla es necesario entender sus raíces históricas. Para ello, destacamos en este ensayo el papel y el carácter de las burguesías latinoamericanas, analizando las principales razones por las que esta clase dominante se opone históricamente a los procesos nacionales que buscan una mayor autonomía y la superación de la pobreza en esta región situada en la periferia sistémica del capitalismo.

Los debates sobre la llamada “cuestión nacional” se iniciaron hace más de cien años, pero siguen siendo fundamentales para la interpretación de las particularidades históricas de nuestra América (en términos de José Martí). Por lo tanto, deben orientar la táctica y la estrategia de las luchas para superar la explotación y la sumisión a los intereses externos, condición de la que aún hoy somos rehenes. En este nuevo siglo, con el agravamiento de la crisis estructural del capitalismo, este escenario se agrava, lo que se observa en una serie de golpes de Estado “modernos” y retrocesos sociales que han estado ocurriendo por toda América. 

Sobre la cuestión nacional

En las primeras décadas del siglo pasado se produjeron importantes avances en la lucha de clases, la organización de la clase obrera y la producción teórica –tanto en el mundo como especialmente en América. En el contexto latinoamericano, hacia la década de 1920 se hizo evidente el impacto de la Revolución Rusa: se crearon varios partidos comunistas en las naciones del continente. A raíz de este impulso organizativo, la recién fundada Tercera Internacional (la Internacional Comunista) comenzó a considerar con mayor atención a las naciones americanas, fomentando los debates sobre la cuestión nacional en nuestra América.

Bajo la influencia dialógica de la nueva Internacional, a principios del periodo de entreguerras, todavía dirigida democráticamente por Lenin, se empezaron a sistematizar las aportaciones críticas a una interpretación de la realidad histórica y social de nuestras naciones. Los análisis producidos en el período cuestionaron los dogmas positivistas y eurocéntricos que dominaban las tesis de la Segunda Internacional (la Internacional Socialista, de orientación parlamentaria y pacifista). Sin embargo, a pesar de estos avances analíticos, las limitadas perspectivas socialistas de la Segunda Internacional, anquilosadas por la influencia del positivismo evolucionista del siglo XIX, pronto volverían a tener la hegemonía del movimiento comunista internacional, cuando Stalin subió al poder –con la burocratización política y el materialismo mecanicista que oscurecería la anterior libertad del pensamiento crítico dialéctico.

A pesar de este retroceso, grandes pensadores americanos han mantenido una defensa coherente de un análisis efectivamente dialéctico de la realidad de sus naciones nacientes, manifestándose en contra de las concepciones artificialmente trasplantadas de Europa a América. 

En este sentido, buscamos aquí promover una reflexión sobre la cuestión nacional en América Latina, analizando problemas y rasgos fundamentales comunes a la mayoría de los pueblos americanos, en particular: la tesis socio-histórica del evolucionismo social (etapismo, o evolución social por etapas); y su consecuente derivación política práctica, el aliancismo (la alianza sumisa que deberían hacer los trabajadores con porciones supuestamente “nacionalistas”” de la burguesía, según la idea de un supuesto primer momento “democrático-burgués” de la revolución, que sería anterior a la etapa propiamente socialista). 

Entre los análisis producidos en este período, los temas más relevantes para pensar la cuestión nacional son: las interpretaciones de la formación social de los países americanos y, en consecuencia, la investigación de las particularidades de los procesos revolucionarios independentistas; la lucha contra el imperialismo, especialmente el de los Estados Unidos; las alianzas serviles de las élites nacionales con las extranjeras; la cuestión agraria (latifundio, etc.), como uno de los principales factores de la formación política, económica y social de nuestras naciones. 

Del “sentido externo” de la colonización al imperialismo

Como premisa de las causas fundamentales que subyacen a las desigualdades producidas en los países latinoamericanos, señalamos el “sentido externo” de nuestra colonización –concepto desarrollado por Caio Prado Júnior (2000)–, proceso que vincula el vector mercantil de nuestra evolución nacional a la expansión del mercado mundial. A través de la colonización, sometidos a una metrópoli dominante, nos insertamos en un sistema de poder en el que los circuitos comerciales y financieros seguían la lógica del intercambio desigual, basado en el precepto de “comprar barato y vender caro”. Esta lógica –materializada a costa de la expoliación de la riqueza, el genocidio y la esclavización de los pueblos originarios americanos y africanos– fue la base de la acumulación primitiva de capital (MARX, 2013), convirtiéndose en el fundamento de la formación social de los países de América.

Es importante señalar que la inserción de los países latinoamericanos en la acumulación primitiva está en la base de su formación económica y social. Mientras esto permitió una acumulación sin precedentes a los países centrales, impidió el desarrollo en las colonias, al extorsionar sus riquezas enviándolas al exterior (CUEVA, 1983). Este proceso, mantenido durante más de tres siglos, configuró la herencia colonial y la matriz económica, social, cultural y política de nuestras naciones. 

De hecho, el propio Caio Prado generalizó a los demás países del continente su clásica afirmación del “sentido de colonización” brasileño, o sea: el Brasil como siendo parte del negocio capitalista europeo (PRADO Jr., 2000). En “Zonas tropicais da América” (1936, manuscrito del Fundo Caio Prado Jr./Arquivo IEB-USP), él extiende su idea de Brasil a la América Latina en general, en un interesante ensayo desafortunadamente poco conocido –aún no publicado como libro por problemas de derechos de autor (ya que sus herederos siguen teniendo los derechos patrimoniales sobre los escritos y obstruyendo la difusión de las ideas del marxista).

Tomar esta afirmación caiopradiana por su raíz, supone entender la formación que aquí se produce como una experiencia única de colonización, que somete el sentido de la construcción de toda nuestra estructura social a los intereses del mercado europeo (VIEIRA, 2018). La particularidad de nuestra colonización tiene como tríada básica: el latifundio; la tendencia al monocultivo; y el trabajo obligatorio (en el límite, la esclavitud). Como resultado de esta combinación, cristalizó una sociedad segregada que respondía a las necesidades de acumulación exigidas por las economías centrales del capitalismo. 

La degradante herencia colonial no fue superada por las independencias políticas –restringidas e incompletas– que se produjeron en el siglo XIX. Estos procesos de independencia truncados sólo respondieron a los cambios en la dominación de los países centrales, y representan un patrón oligárquico-dependiente de desarrollo capitalista (CUEVA, 1983). Las sociedades latinoamericanas, generadas a partir de los procesos de independencia, siguieron teniendo su modo de producción basado en la esclavitud, la concentración de la tierra y la producción de bienes primarios, dirigidos principalmente al mercado externo. 

La emancipación del estatus colonial, además de no significar la superación de determinantes fundamentales del período anterior, mantuvo su núcleo y proporcionó la profundización de sus raíces, especialmente por la mayor inserción de los países en el mercado mundial, a partir de los intereses del nuevo dominio imperial que se impuso: el de Inglaterra. 

Así, la decadencia de los países ibéricos (Portugal y España), primeros usurpadores de los pueblos y territorios americanos, y la puesta en marcha de procesos de independencia política no supusieron una ruptura de las condiciones de intercambio desigual y de orientación de la producción en función de las demandas externas. Por el contrario, algunos países se integraron más activamente en el mantenimiento de la misma lógica. Esta mayor integración en el mercado mundial se produjo a partir de dos vectores: las condiciones reales de cada país y los cambios derivados del avance de la industrialización en los países centrales del sistema capitalista. De esta manera, se insertaron primero Chile, Brasil y luego Argentina, que habían desarrollado una infraestructura económica en la fase colonial y fueron capaces de producir condiciones políticas estables (MARINI, 2017).

El final del siglo XIX estuvo marcado por importantes cambios en el centro sistémico geopolítico: nuevas potencias se proyectan hacia el exterior, especialmente Alemania y Estados Unidos, este último con una política especialmente centrada en el continente americano. En los países centrales también hay una reorganización de la producción, basada en el aumento de la industria pesada y la tecnología. De este modo, la economía comenzó a concentrar sus unidades productivas, creando las condiciones para la aparición de monopolios. Esta característica es la marca principal de la nueva fase de desarrollo del capitalismo: el imperialismo. 

Según Lenin (1987), hasta la transición del siglo XIX al XX, la base del sistema económico era la libre competencia y el libre comercio, en el que la concentración de la producción y el capital, y la aparición de monopolios eran las principales características. A partir de la aparición de los monopolios, marca fundamental del imperialismo, el proceso de acumulación capitalista produciría una tendencia cada vez mayor a la concentración, tanto del capital industrial como del financiero. El resultado de esta reorganización fueron grandes monopolios sedientos de nuevos mercados y nuevas fuentes de materias primas, que obligarían a la anexión de regiones del planeta menos desarrolladas industrialmente. En sus palabras “el capitalismo se transformó en un sistema universal de opresión colonial y asfixia financiera de la gran mayoría de la población del planeta por un puñado de países ‘avanzados’”. 

Esta nueva división internacional del trabajo, orquestada por las naciones imperialistas, les permitió obtener grandes beneficios y transferir a otras naciones los costes sociales y económicos de mantener su riqueza. De esta manera, pudieron mantener su posición de dominación hegemónica a través de la reproducción del subdesarrollo, la pobreza y la dependencia de las naciones que subyugaron, como las de América Latina. 

En este contexto, vale la pena caracterizar el papel asumido por las burguesías en los países latinoamericanos, pero para ello es necesario destacar primero una característica fundamental de la economía de los países periféricos (con su economía basada en la exportación): a diferencia de los países centrales, en los que la actividad económica está subordinada a la relación existente entre las tasas de plusvalía y la inversión, en los países dependientes el mecanismo económico fundamental proviene de la relación exportación-importación. Así, aunque la plusvalía se obtenga dentro de la economía, se realizará en el mercado exterior, mediante la actividad exportadora. Es decir, el excedente capaz de ser invertido sufre la acción directa de los factores externos, y la plusvalía realizada en la esfera del comercio mundial pertenece principalmente a los capitalistas extranjeros, dejando a las burguesías locales (en la economía nacional) sólo una parte de esta plusvalía. 

Estas pérdidas, sin embargo, fueron compensadas por las burguesías latinoamericanas mediante el aumento del valor absoluto de la plusvalía, lo que significa la mayor expropiación y sometimiento de los trabajadores, fenómeno que Marini (2017) denominó “sobreexplotación de la fuerza de trabajo”, y que constituye, en palabras del autor: “el principio fundamental de la economía subdesarrollada, con todo lo que ello implica en términos de bajos salarios, falta de oportunidades de empleo, analfabetismo, desnutrición y represión policial”. En resumen, la compensación a nivel de la esfera de circulación es un mecanismo que opera a nivel de la producción interna en los países latinoamericanos y la sobreexplotación del trabajador está ligada a las fuerzas productivas de estas economías fundamentalmente debido a que la actividad económica más importante está sujeta a la producción de bienes primarios (MARINI, 1990). 

Esta compleja formación económica y social, basada en el latifundio y la tendencia al monocultivo, contó siempre con el apoyo y las ganancias de las clases dominantes, socios locales minoritarios de los capitalistas de las naciones poderosas. Son sectores burgueses que se beneficiaron de los intercambios desiguales y actuaron como intermediarios y representantes del capital internacional. Identificar esta particular dinámica de dominación impuesta a los países latinoamericanos es fundamental para buscar construir un verdadero movimiento de emancipación: sin la superación del capitalismo y del imperialismo, que se aprovecha de las bases fundadas en la herencia colonial, no hay posibilidad de garantizar condiciones mínimas de acceso a los bienes comunes y a la riqueza producida socialmente. 

Fue en la profundización de las contradicciones generadas por el avance del poder estadounidense sobre los países de América que se desarrollaron las luchas y reflexiones marxistas sobre el imperialismo y las particularidades del capitalismo latinoamericano. La identificación del imperialismo estadounidense como un especial enemigo de los demás pueblos de América ya era evidente en las primeras décadas del nuevo siglo. No ocurrió lo mismo, sin embargo, en relación con el carácter deletéreo de las “”burguesías internas” (antes equivocadamente llamadas “burguesías nacionales”). Y aquí está una de las cuestiones más polémicas de los debates teóricos de las primeras décadas del siglo XX, un debate en el que destacan los grandes marxistas que interpretaron de forma auténtica las cuestiones nacionales de sus países (e incluso de América Latina en su conjunto), como el peruano José Carlos Mariátegui, el cubano Julio Antonio Mella y el brasileño Caio Prado Júnior, entre otros pensadores. 

Cabe destacar que en estas primeras décadas, además de la ya mencionada Revolución Rusa (1917) y de otros importantes avances en la organización de los trabajadores de la ciudad y del campo –como la Reforma Universitaria de Córdoba (1918), la organización sindical, la creación de nuevos partidos políticos y las alianzas obrero-campesinas–, también se resalta el impacto de la Revolución Mexicana (1910), proceso que propició el intercambio político e ideológico entre los pueblos de América.

Las burguesías domésticas antinacionales de América Latina

Desde una perspectiva ligada a la praxis revolucionaria, además del problema del imperialismo, otra cuestión fundamental para los pueblos de América es la necesidad de comprender objetivamente la acción política limitante operada por las “burguesías internas” latinoamericanas, una clase dominante que nunca ha sido “nacional”, como pensaron ciertos teóricos críticos sobre todo en la primera mitad del siglo XX, sino siempre una aliada subordinada de las burguesías de los países centrales del capitalismo. Clases, por tanto, “antinacionales”. 

Considerando que el proceso de emancipación política está en el origen de la nación, las secuelas de este movimiento implican las particularidades socio-históricas de los sectores que componen las clases sociales aquí generadas. El problema, que involucra directamente la cuestión nacional, está vinculado a temas recurrentes y fundamentales de la tradición marxista, como son: las formas y relaciones sociales que se organizan en nuestros países, la sociedad y el Estado (IANNI, 1995).

La reflexión sobre la “cuestión nacional” se remonta al siglo XIX, época en la que en Europa se produce un intenso debate sobre el significado de “nación”. En este periodo, “naciones” como Serbia, Irlanda y Chequia –pueblos con su propia etnia y lengua– estaban bajo la ocupación de las potencias imperialistas de la época (HOBSBAWM, 1991). El concepto de que la “nación” se caracterizaba por la “unidad” etnolingüística cobró fuerza y, por tanto, cada una de estas unidades debría reunirse políticamente en un único Estado.

Este problema, discutido en el contexto del comunismo internacional por Lenin y Rosa Luxemburgo, impone la necesidad no sólo de recuperar la consolidación de las instituciones políticas que conducen a la dirección y organización del Estado, sino también de tratar los aspectos que explicitan el orden desigual y opresivo dominado por las naciones imperialistas. 

Para ilustrar cómo la cuestión nacional fue un tema decisivo en el contexto que condujo a la Revolución de Octubre, Rosa Luxemburg llama la atención sobre el programa del Partido Obrero Socialdemócrata Ruso (POSDR) y sus legítimas preocupaciones al respecto. En el programa del POSDR, el líder de los espartaquistas mostró lo importante que era la supresión de los Estados y la completa igualdad de derechos para todos los ciudadanos, sin diferencia de “sexo, religión, raza o nacionalidad”, y también proclamó las premisas de que la “población de la nación debe tener el derecho de asistir a escuelas libres y autónomas que enseñen el idioma nacional”, y “usar su idioma en las asambleas, así como en todos los cargos estatales y públicos” (LUXEMBURGO, 1988).

Entre los exponentes de los partidos comunistas en Alemania y Rusia, es Lenin quien demuestra, además de la lucha de clases dentro y fuera de los territorios nacionales, la existencia de la lucha entre las “naciones opresoras” y las “naciones oprimidas”, que también debe ser estudiada dentro del horizonte de clase de la correlación de fuerzas y de las condiciones sociales, políticas y económicas que definen las estructuras de una determinada clase social. En un intento de defender la posición de los comunistas en relación con las luchas nacionales contra el imperialismo, el intelectual y dirigente bolchevique reconoce que “hasta ahora, nuestra experiencia común sobre este tema no es muy grande, pero poco a poco iremos reuniendo una documentación más y más abundante”, identificando la cuestión nacional como un elemento decisivo para la consolidación de las “necesidades revolucionarias” (Lenin, 1971).

Esta discusión había impuesto, desde el siglo XIX, grandes debates y desacuerdos en el seno del movimiento socialista: la propia Rosa Luxemburgo estaba en desacuerdo con Lenin, debido a la idea del “origen burgués de las polémicas nacionales” (LUXEMBURGO, 1988). Más tarde, la cuestión se incorporó a los debates sobre el programa del POSDR. Lenin, como uno de los líderes del partido, siempre tuvo el tema en la agenda. Sus afirmaciones a este respecto indicaban que en Rusia no sería posible que la revolución socialista triunfara sin prestar especial atención a la cuestión nacional: pues la ideología estatal del nacional-liberalismo pretende salvaguardar “los privilegios estatales de la gran burguesía rusa” (Lenin, 1986). 

La polémica con Rosa Luxemburg se debe a que Lenin entendía que la revolucionaria alemana no había visto lo fundamental que es la cuestión nacional para la autonomía de las naciones, y por tanto su importancia para el proyecto revolucionario. Para Rosa, la defensa de la cuestión nacional por parte de Lenin tendría como resultado la reestructuración del Estado nacional burgués. Sin embargo, es importante señalar aquí que tal apreciación no se corresponde con las afirmaciones de Lenin, para quien la autodeterminación de las naciones debía ser una de las exigencias del programa del partido revolucionario, que como tantas otras sólo podría aplicarse plenamente cuando la revolución socialista fuera victoriosa.

Es notable el esfuerzo de Lenin por elaborar algunas tesis sobre la cuestión nacional, sin quitar del horizonte el “asalto al cielo”, como objetivo central dentro del orden capitalista y la consiguiente lucha de clases que enfrenta el POSDR. La particularidad esbozada es entender que la lucha de clases se desarrolla en un “terreno nacional”, adquiriendo un “carácter internacional”. La lucha de la clase obrera contra la explotación exige una firme solidaridad y una estrecha unidad de los trabajadores de todas las naciones, al igual que la resistencia a la política “nacionalista burguesa” es independiente de la nacionalidad. Así, es necesario comprender el carácter clasista de la cuestión nacional para que no genere ilusiones y confusión entre la clase obrera, evitando así, como bien señala Lenin: “dividir para el placer de la burguesía”; “la negación del derecho de autodeterminación significará, en la práctica, el apoyo a los privilegios de la nación dominante” (Lenin, 1986).

***

Cuando examinamos el caso de América, pronto se hace evidente que esta noción de “nación”, a diferencia de la de los europeos e incluso los asiáticos, no se ajusta a nuestros pueblos. No podemos pensar en nuestras naciones mestizas predominantemente en términos étnicos, y mucho menos lingüísticos (dadas nuestras lenguas impuestas por las metrópolis). Estos formatos prefabricados de interpretación que nos llegaban (y siguen llegando) desde la realidad europea, perturbaron la autenticidad de muchos análisis de la tradición crítica, sobre todo hasta mediados del siglo XX. 

Para entrar en este debate, es necesario primero darse cuenta –como muestra Caio Prado (2000)– de que nuestros países se constituyeron a partir de la expansión mercantil de las fronteras europeas. Esta condición nos sitúa en la “periferia” del capitalismo, este sistema cuya consolidación se basaría no sólo en la riqueza material, sino también en el conocimiento indígena (CASTRO, 1951). 

Tales discusiones fueron centrales en aquellos tiempos de formación de una auténtica reflexión sobre las realidades nacionales, dando lugar a una problemática polarización: en un extremo, los marxistas de concepción mecanicista o dogmática, que intentaban encajar artificialmente nuestras realidades en el modelo europeo (entonces considerado “universal”); en el otro extremo, los intelectuales progresistas, a veces cercanos al marxismo, pero excesivamente relativistas, que se desviaban de la tradición crítica totalizante, al exagerar las supuestas “especificidades regionales” de sus pueblos (LÖWY, 2006). 

A partir de estas dos concepciones defectuosas, los errores de interpretación histórica darían lugar a graves malentendidos políticos. En el campo de las ideas revisionistas destaca el pensamiento nacionalista-ecléctico de Haya de la Torre –de la Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana. Se trata de una posición procedente de la pequeña burguesía, y que daría lugar a una especie de indigenismo “filantrópico” (MARTINS-FONTES, 2018). 

Haya visitó la URSS y fue un admirador de Lenin, pero no del Lenin total –intelectual y hombre de acción– sino del gran líder que movilizaba a las multitudes. Además, absorbió ciertas ideas antiimperialistas (HAYA DE LA TORRE, 2017); pero sólo en la medida en que interesaba al paternalismo aprista burgués-nacional, con sus pretensiones de gran vanguardia libertaria.

En el otro polo de estos equívocos, el error del marxismo vulgar (de matriz eurocéntrica) deriva del intento de elaborar los problemas de América dentro de esquemas que, si bien pudieron ser acertados en el caso de los pueblos europeos, no fueron adecuados para nuestros pueblos, impidiendo la elaboración de una visión más justa que pudiera tener eficacia práctica. Este problema tuvo su “resolución” histórica, como sabemos, en la dura derrota sufrida por el movimiento socialista en muchos de nuestros países a partir de la década de 1960, con la instalación de regímenes militares contrarrevolucionarios “bonapartistas” (RAGO FILHO, 2001).

Entre las cuestiones fundamentales de estos debates estaba la idea de que el colonialismo en nuestras naciones había conformado modos de producción “feudales”, y que esto había dejado huellas después de la independencia, por lo que era necesario llevar a cabo una “revolución burguesa” previa. La consecuencia de esto sería la orientación estratégica que defendía la alianza de los comunistas, de forma sumisa, con fracciones de las clases dominantes (partes de la burguesía que se creían con intereses “nacionales”).

***

A partir de las vastas consecuencias sociales y teóricas de la Revolución Rusa, se crearía la Internacional Comunista, organización en cuyo seno se profundizarían las discusiones marxistas sobre la realidad de los pueblos de América. En estos nuevos debates, grandes pensadores críticos de América vendrían a jugar un papel protagónico, aportando certeras interpretaciones histórico-dialécticas de nuestras cuestiones nacionales, conceptos que convergen en la necesidad de un movimiento obrero independiente (reuniendo campo y ciudad) –lo que, aunque establezca alianzas puntuales de urgencia, no se someta a supuestas parcelas burguesas “nacionales” (inexistentes). 

Hoy, en un contexto de agravamiento de la crisis estructural del sistema, con el consiguiente aumento de la violencia capitalista (actualmente en forma neoliberal), vemos el verdadero rostro de la burguesía latinoamericana: entreguista, antinacional y hasta fascista, cuando siente amenazado su poder.

Yuri Martins-Fontes, Solange Struwka, Paulo Alves Junior**

octubre de 2022

Referencias bibliográficas

CASTRO, Josué. Geopolítica da Fome. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1951.

CUEVA, Agustín. O desenvolvimento do capitalismo na América Latina. São Paulo: Global, 1983.

FERNANDES, Florestan. Poder e contrapoder na América Latina. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1981.

HOBSBAWM, Eric. Nações e nacionalismos desde 1780. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1991.

HAYA DE LA TORRE. La devoción por Lênin (original: Claridad, nov. 1924, ano 2, n.7). Vanguarda Aprista. Disp: vanguardiaaprista.com. Acesso: 01/ago/2017.

IANNI, Octavio. O labirinto latino-americano, Petrópolis (RJ): Vozes, 1993.

LÊNIN, Vladimir Ilitch. Lenine e a IIIª Internacional. Lisboa: Estampa, 1971.

LÊNIN, Vladimir Ilitch. O imperialismo: fase superior do capitalismo. São Paulo: Global, 1987.

LENIN, Vladimir Ilitch. Obras escolhidas. São Paulo: Alfa Ômega, 1986.

LÖWY, Michael (org.). O marxismo na América Latina. São Paulo: Perseu Abramo, 2006.

LUXEMBURGO, Rosa. A questão nacional e a autonomia. Belo Horizonte: Oficina de Livros, 1988.

MARIÁTEGUI, José Carlos. Siete ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana. Lima: Amauta, 1989 [1928]

MARINI, Ruy Mauro. Dialética da Dependência (trad. Marcelo Carcanholo e Carlos E. Martins). México: Editora Era, 1990 [1973].

MARINI, Ruy Mauro. Subdesenvolvimento e revolução. Florianópolis: Insular, 2017 [1968].

MARTINS-FONTES, Yuri. Marx na América: a práxis de Caio Prado e Mariátegui. São Paulo: Alameda/Fapesp, 2018.

MARTINS-FONTES, Y. STRUWKA, S.; ALVES Jr., P.. Pensamento crítico e questão nacional na América Latina do entre-guerras. In: SUZUKI; NEPOMUCENO; ARAÚJO (orgs.). A dimensão cultural nos processos de integração entre países da América Latina. São Paulo: PROLAM-USP/FFLCH-USP, 2021. Acesso: 6 jun. 2022. Disp: http://www.livrosabertos.sibi.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/download/735/653/2420?inline=1

MARX, Karl. O Capital: para a crítica da economia política (Livro I, volume II). Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2013.

PRADO JÚNIOR, Caio. A Revolução Brasileira. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1966.

PRADO JÚNIOR, Caio. Formação do Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo, Brasiliense, 2000 [1942].

RAGO FILHO, Antonio. Sob este signo vencerás! – a estrutura ideológica da autocracia burguesa bonapartista. Cadernos AEL, v.8, n.14/15, 2001.

VIEIRA, C. A. Cordovano. Passado colonial e reversão no Brasil contemporâneo. In: LIMA Fo.; MACEDO; NOVAES (orgs.). Movimentos sociais e crises contemporâneas: à luz dos clássicos do materialismo crítico (v. 3). Marília (SP): Lutas Anticapital, 2018. 

Notas

* Este ensayo es una versión revisada de la primera parte del artículo “Pensamento crítico e questão nacional na América Latina do entre-guerras”, capítulo del libro A dimensão cultural nos processos de integração entre países da América Latina  (Prolam-USP/ FFLCH-USP, 2021).

**Sobre los autores:

Yuri Martins-Fontes es doctor en Historia Económica (USP-Brasil/CNRS-Francia), con estudios posdoctorales en Ética y Filosofía Política (USP) e Historia, Cultura y Trabajo (PUC-SP); escritor, filósofo y coordinador del Núcleo Práxis da USP. 

Solange Struwka es doctora en Psicología Social (USP); profesora adjunta de grado y postgrado en la UNIR (RO); miembro del Movimento de Mulheres Camponesas (Brasil) y coordinadora del Núcleo Práxis da USP. 

Paulo Alves Jr. es doctor en Sociología (Unesp); profesor asistente de Historia en la Unilab (BA); coordinador del Núcleo Práxis da USP y miembro del Centro Integrado de Investigação Transdisciplinar ‘Cultura, Espaço e Memória’ de la Universidad de Oporto.

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.

***

EFF is announcing a letter signed by 44 community groups who stand united in opposition to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors authorizing the San Francisco Police Department to deploy deadly force with remote-control robots. The signers include racial justice groups, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, LGBTQ organizations, and labor unions.

You can read the entire letter here.

From the letter:

“SFPD’s proposal, if approved, threatens the privacy and safety of city residents and visitors. Police in the United States have killed 1,054 people in the last year. Black Americans are three times more likely than white Americans to be killed during police encounters. San Francisco is no exception; according to Mapping Police Violence, from 2013 to 2021, Black people were 9.7 times as likely and Latinx people were 4.3 times as likely to be killed by SFPD as a white person by population. According to Mission Local, from 2000 to 2021, over 30 percent of fatal police shootings in San Francisco killed Black people, even though Black people were only about 5 percent of the city’s population. And despite California having one of the strongest laws governing police use of deadly force in the country,  unarmed people and bystanders are killed with disturbing frequency.

 There is no basis to believe that robots toting explosives might be an exception to police overuse of deadly force. Using robots that are designed to disarm bombs to instead deliver them is a perfect example of this pattern of escalation, and of the militarization of the police force that concerns so many across the city.”

We thank all of the groups who signed onto this letter, and the many groups and residents who attended today’s Stop Killer Robots rally outside of city hall. We again commend Supervisors Walton, Ronen, and Preston for their continued leadership in support of civil rights and civil liberties issues.

The policy passed with a vote of 8-to-3 last week, but is not effective without another vote at the Board of Supervisor meeting on Tuesday, December 6. Responding to public outcry, Supervisor Mar announced he will be changing his vote. We thank him for doing so, and urge other members of the Board to do the same.

Residents must continue reaching out to their supervisors and tell them to vote against SFPD’s  killer robots. You can find an email contact for your Board of Supervisors member here, and determine which Supervisor to contact here. Here’s text you can use (or edit):

Do not give SFPD permission to kill people with robots. This broad policy would allow police to bring armed robots to every arrest, and every execution of a warrant to search a house or vehicle or device. Depending on how police choose to define the words “critical” or “exigent,” police might even bring armed robots to a protest. While police could only use armed robots as deadly force when the risk of death is imminent, this problematic legal standard has often been under-enforced by courts and criticized by activists. For the sake of your constituents’ rights and safety, please vote no.

*

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 not a recent photo, from Wikimedia Commons

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 survey indicates that Americans’ support for Kiev is slipping. According to polling conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, the number of citizens who want the White House to pursue a diplomatic path is nearly equal to those who advocate indefinite military aid to Ukraine. 

The survey shows a declining number of Republicans who want to give military assistance to Kiev, carrying on a six-month trend. Global Affairs polling in March found that 80% of GOP-leaning respondents wanted the White House to arm Ukraine. That number declined to 64% in July, and was down to 55% in the latest poll released on Sunday. Democratic Party support has also dropped, though at a slower pace.

Additionally, the results show waning approval for the Joe Biden administration’s policy regarding the war in Ukraine. The US and its NATO partners have committed to providing the country with military aid for as long as it needs to win the war, all the while urging Kiev not to negotiate with Moscow.

However, the new polling indicates that only 48% of Americans agree with arming Ukraine indefinitely. That figure is down by 10% since July, with the number of citizens urging for long-term military assistance now nearly equal to those who want Biden to push Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to talk with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

The vast majority of Americans continue to oppose direct involvement in the war. Only 32% of respondents said they want US troops deployed to Ukraine.

While some taxpayers may be growing tired of paying for massive aid shipments to Kiev, nearly three-quarters of people responding to the poll said they continue to back the Western economic war on Russia despite the impact sanctions might have, including skyrocketing inflation in the US and soaring fuel prices in Europe.

*

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

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

Featured image: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seen earlier this year. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Service)

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 Department of Defense secretly altered the most advanced weapons systems the US has transferred to Ukraine. The change prevented the platform from firing long-range munitions, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

The White House has sent 20 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) to Ukraine over the past six months, out of a total of 38 units authorized for Kiev. Without telling their Ukrainian counterparts, the Pentagon outfitted the systems with a component to prevent them from firing munitions with a range of over 50 miles.

President Joe Biden has sent thousands of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GLMRS) rockets to Ukraine with a range of 50 miles. However, Kiev has repeatedly requested the longer-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which can strike targets nearly 200 miles away. Both munitions can be fired from the HIMARS platform.

The Biden administration has said it will not transfer rockers with a range longer than 50 miles out of concern the munitions will be used for attacks on Russian soil. Ukraine has offered the White House control over selecting targets in an effort to alleviate US concerns, but Washington apparently has yet to budge on the issue.

The Journal spoke with American officials who said the Biden administration fears that sending longer-range munitions will escalate the war. Some NATO members, such as Latvia, have disagreed with Biden’s decision and urged him to supply the weapons, arguing it is unwise to let Russia determine Western policies.

“We should allow Ukrainians to use weapons to target missile sites or air fields from where those operations are being launched,” Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics said on the sidelines of last week’s NATO summit, adding that allies “should not fear” retaliation by Moscow.

Additionally, the US officials said the modification for the HIMARS indicates distrust between Washington and Kiev. “[The alterations] reflect apprehensions among administration officials that their Ukrainian partner might stop keeping its promise not to strike Russian territory with US-provided weapons,” the Journal added.

*

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

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

Featured image is from The Libertarian 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.

***

Sales of arms and military services by the 100 largest companies in the industry reached $592 billion in 2021, a 1.9 per cent increase compared with 2020 in real terms. This is according to new data released today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The increase marked the seventh consecutive year of rising global arms sales. However, while the rate of growth in 2020–21 was higher than in 2019–20 (1.1 per cent), it was still below the average for the four years leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic (3.7 per cent).

Supply chain issues seen in 2021 likely to worsen due to Ukraine war

Many parts of the arms industry were still affected by pandemic-related disruptions in global supply chains in 2021, which included delays in global shipping and shortages of vital components.

‘We might have expected even greater growth in arms sales in 2021 without persistent supply chain issues,’ said Dr Lucie Béraud-Sudreau, Director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘Both larger and smaller arms companies said that their sales had been affected during the year. Some companies, such as Airbus and General Dynamics, also reported labour shortages.’

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has added to supply chain challenges for arms companies, not least because Russia is a major supplier of raw materials used in arms production. This could hamper ongoing efforts in the United States and Europe to strengthen their armed forces and to replenish their stockpiles after sending billions of dollars’ worth of ammunition and other equipment to Ukraine.

‘Increasing output takes time,’ said Dr Diego Lopes da Silva, SIPRI Senior Researcher. ‘If supply chain disruptions continue, it may take several years for some of the main arms producers to meet the new demand created by the Ukraine war.’

While reports indicate that Russian companies are increasing production because of the war, they have had difficulty accessing semiconductors. They are also being impacted by war-related sanctions. For example, Almaz-Antey (not included in the Top 100 for 2021 due to lack of data) has stated that it has not been able to receive payments for some of its arms export deliveries.

US companies dominate the Top 100, but sales decline

The arms sales of the 40 US companies in the listing totalled $299 billion in 2021. North America was the only region to see a drop in arms sales compared with 2020. The 0.8 per cent real-terms decline was partly due to high inflation in the US economy during 2021. Since 2018, the top five companies in the Top 100 have all been based in the USA.

A recent wave of mergers and acquisitions in the US arms industry continued in 2021. One of the most significant acquisitions was Peraton’s purchase of Perspecta, a government IT specialist, for $7.1 billion.

‘We can probably expect to see stronger action from the US government to limit arms industry mergers and acquisitions in the next few years,’ said Dr Nan Tian, SIPRI Senior Researcher. ‘The US Department of Defense has expressed concern that reduced competition in the industry could have knock-on effects on procurement costs and product innovation.’

Europe: Aerospace sales fall, shipbuilding rises

In 2021 there were 27 Top 100 companies headquartered in Europe. Their combined arms sales increased by 4.2 per cent compared with 2020, reaching $123 billion.

‘Most of the European companies that specialize in military aerospace reported losses for 2021, which they blamed on supply chain disruptions,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘In contrast, European shipbuilders seem to have been less affected by the pandemic fallout and were able to increase their sales in 2021.’

Dassault Aviation Group bucked the trend in the military aerospace sector. The company’s arms sales saw a sharp 59 per cent increase to $6.3 billion in 2021, driven by deliveries of a total of 25 Rafale combat aircraft.

Chinese companies drive rapid growth in Asian arms sales

The combined arms sales of the 21 companies in Asia and Oceania included in the Top 100 reached $136 billion in 2021—5.8 per cent more than in 2020. The eight Chinese arms companies in the listing had total arms sales of $109 billion, a 6.3 per cent increase.

‘There has been a wave of consolidation in the Chinese arms industry since the mid 2010s,’ said Xiao Liang, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘In 2021 this saw China’s CSSC becoming the biggest military shipbuilder in the world, with arms sales of $11.1 billion, after a merger between two existing companies.’

The combined arms sales of the four South Korean companies in the Top 100 grew by 3.6 per cent compared with 2020, reaching $7.2 billion. This was largely due to a 7.6 per cent rise in arms sales by Hanwha Aerospace, to $2.6 billion. Hanwha’s arms sales are expected to grow significantly in the coming years, after it signed a major arms deal with Poland in 2022, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Other notable developments

• Six Russian companies are included in the Top 100 for 2021. Their arms sales totalled $17.8 billion—an increase of only 0.4 per cent over 2020. There were signs that stagnation was widespread across the Russian arms industry.
• The five Top 100 companies based in the Middle East generated $15.0 billion in arms sales in 2021. This was a 6.5 per cent increase compared with 2020, the fastest pace of growth of all regions represented in the Top 100.
• The aggregated arms sales of the four Top 100 companies based in Japan was $9.0 billion, a decline of 1.4 per cent compared with 2020.
• This is the first year in which a Taiwanese firm appears in the Top 100. NCSIST (ranked 60th), which specializes in missiles and military electronics, recorded arms sales of $2.0 billion in 2021.
• Private equity companies are becoming more active in the arms industry, particularly in the USA. This could affect the transparency of arms sales data, due to less stringent financial reporting requirements compared with public companies.

*

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: Close-up of the Head of a Sidewinder Rocket on a Fighter Jet. Photo. Shutterstock

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.

***

What can I say? I dipped in and out of various sessions this year at the Davos event with much interest.

Unfortunately, Davos 2023 will be held in less than 44 days. Can you believe it?

This year’s event was titled “History at a Turning Point” and we all remember when the Swiss Military were ordered to protect Schwab and the Global Elites with 5,000 troops.

Schwab also warned those who trivialized or hijacked the event’s key messages, like the often-mentioned Great Reset, that they would be treated with contempt.

At the key note address Klaus Schwab said:

“This war is really a turning point in history, and it will ‘reshape’ our political and economic landscape in the coming years.” – Klaus Schwab.

‘Cooperation in a Fragmented World’ will be the theme of the Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos, Klosters from 16-20 January, 2023. Over 2,500 leaders from government, business, and civil society will attend.

“Taking place at a pivotal time for the world, the Annual Meeting 2023 will bring together more than 2,500 leaders from government, business and civil society. The Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have triggered big changes. The promise of a “decade of action” could turn into a decade of uncertainty and fragility if systemic risks aren’t addressed.

To navigate the current cascading crises but, more importantly, to drive tangible, system-positive change for the long term, the World Economic Forum is holding its 53rd Annual Meeting in January to reaffirm the value and imperative of dialogue and public-private cooperation.”

The main themes for 2023 will include:

1. Energy and Food Crises in the context of a New System for Energy, Climate and Nature

2. High Inflation, Low Growth, High Debt Economy in the context of a New System for Investment, Trade and Infrastructure

3. Industry Headwinds in the context of a New System for Harnessing Frontier Technologies for Private Sector Innovation and Resilience

4. Social Vulnerabilities in the context of a New System for Work, Skills and Care

5. Geopolitical Risks in the context of a New System for Dialogue and Cooperation in a Multipolar World

You can expect Klaus Schwab and his confab to fly into Davos on carbon-heavy planes and eat filet mignon while directing us to “cycle and eat bugs”.

Over 400 sessions were held last year, all aligned with the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. They’re all working towards global government and digital control via the UN SDG’s.

They say we’re at a critical inflection point today. The sheer number of crises calls for bold action.

At the Annual Meeting, government, business, and civil society leaders will discuss the state of the world and priorities for the year. Through their cherished public-private collaboration, it will provide a platform for so-called “constructive, forward-looking dialogue”.

They’re building solutions to problems they’ve created. The Davos Men have been trained to believe in and support a globalist form of unelected government, where business is the driving force.

Don’t also forget that the WEF isn’t just a talking shop like some fact checkers and the mainstream media would have you believe. WEF has the same formal status as an official international institution like the Red Cross or the International Olympic Committee.

Hence, it’s going to be another round of globalist announcements, causing havoc without actually fixing anything. Watch as they decide outside of democracy and bring in predetermined solutions such as digital identity, CBDC, and carbon tracking. Through this, they can control and enslave governments and people.

TruthTalk.UK will be covering this event.

*

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

The writer and editor of TruthTalk.UK, Sikh for Truth, is a well-known freedom fighter who studies surveillance technology such as Vaccine Passports, Digital Identity, and Central Bank Digital Currencies. You can email me on [email protected].

Featured image is from Sikh for Truth

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.

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on June 3, 2022

***

You remember “1984” by George Orwell? 

The film based on the book of the same title, was released in the US in 1984, here available on Youtube in its original format. You can watch here or right below.

Watching it gives you a similar impression as listening to and watching the 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF), that played out in Davos, Switzerland, from 23 – 26 May 2022. 

It displayed a dystopian world, where war is peace and peace is war,

where lies are propagated 24/7,

so you believe they are the truth, and when you finally look the truth into the eyes, you laugh, because it’s so incredible, that you believe it is just another lie.

We are living right in 1984.

That’s the WEF. That’s Davos. That’s the Globalists.

That’s the dark cult of the elite, the truth of the eugenists.

That’s what the Great Reset, UN Agenda 2030 – and the 4th Industrial Revolution would have in store for us, if we allowed it to happen – that’s Klaus Schwab’s wet dream. 

He and his WEF – and all the elite-adherents – believe this will be their future world, a dystopian world, where nothing is what it seems, with a drastically reduced population, with the surviving people being digitized transhumans, slaves for the elite, who own nothing but are happy.   

That’s what the WEF’s plans are, or rather were, before Davos 2022, with WHO holding its annual World Health Assembly in parallel with the WEF – remember, there are no coincidences – debating on how to overrule the sovereignty of its 194 member countries with an all controlling “Pandemic Treaty”, transferring the privately owned WHO into WHT, for World Health Tyranny. 

Yes, 80% of the WHO is owned by private interests, it’s not really a UN agency, it responds to those who fund it: largely Big Pharma, Bill Gates, and numerous other private interest groups and billionaire individuals. 

They are failing bitterly.

At least for now. Globalization, their dream, is falling apart. They will continue trying, and we have to be on continuous alert.

Remember, Freedom doesn’t come for free. 

We have to fight for it.

But We, the People, shall overcome!

*

“No, Putin Did Not Start the War in Ukraine”. Towards a U.S. War Against Russia?

By Mike Whitney, December 05, 2022

The United States is deliberately misleading Ukraine so it can use its territory to prosecute its war on Russia. It is a cynical manipulation tantamount to genocide. The US has no vital national security interests in Ukraine nor does it care whether its cities and people are pounded into oblivion.

Vaccine Passport, Digital Identity, Social Credit System, Digital Currency (CBDC): An Invisible Prison Has Been Built Just for You

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, December 06, 2022

An international vaccine passport, digital identity, a social credit system and a central bank digital currency (CBDC) form a digital control system that will lock down the population in perpetuity. Facial recognition is an essential part of the control structure, as it’s the “password” to your digital identity.

Video: Putin Just Scored a Knockout Blow to Europe and the WEF

By Clayton Morris, December 06, 2022

Europe just announced a $60 per barrel of oil cap against Russian oil at the same time Putin and China are increasing trade. Europe is facing a slow boiling energy disaster. Meanwhile OPEC+ says they’re not changing anything which means 2 million barrels of oil will continue to be slashed from daily output.

The China Protests – Legitimate Grievances Hijacked by Outside Elements

By Gavin OReilly, December 05, 2022

On the 24^th of November, minor anti-lockdown protests that had begun at the start of the month following the decision by the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou to re-impose restrictions, would grow exponentially in the aftermath of an apartment fire in the north-western Xinjiang province, leading to the deaths of ten residents, with lockdown restrictions being blamed on preventing firefighters from reaching the scene.

Found Dead at Home After COVID-19 Vaccination

By Dr. Peter McCullough, December 05, 2022

The public is becoming increasingly disturbed with reports of death among the vaccinated.  It is natural to ask “was the death caused by vaccination?”  The most definitive way of answering that question is with autopsy.  Schwab et al reported on deaths after vaccination with detailed autopsies in Heidelberg, Germany.

UK Government Deployed 15 Staff on Secret Operation to Seize Julian Assange

By Matt Kennard, December 05, 2022

The British government assigned at least 15 people to the secret operation to seize Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, new information shows. The WikiLeaks founder was given political asylum by Ecuador in 2012, but was never allowed safe passage out of Britain to avoid persecution by the US government.

The Fascinating History of Folklore

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, December 05, 2022

The history of folklore as an area of study is relatively recent compared to its ancient origins. In the eighteenth century the role of Enlightenment science in changing attitudes towards the study of folklore soon showed benefits with an increased understanding of ourselves and our history of survival throughout the centuries.

Narrative Versus Reality: “Sorry, Russia Is Winning the War”

By James G. Rickards, December 05, 2022

Here’s the mainstream narrative: The status of the war in Ukraine is best understood as a competition between the narrative and reality. The narrative consists of what you hear from mainstream media, the White House, the Pentagon and official sources in the U.K., France, Germany and both EU and NATO headquarters in Brussels. The reality consists of what’s actually going on based on the best available sources. Let’s consider the narrative first.

The Ever-Widening War. Escalation Is Proceeding

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, December 05, 2022

Escalation is proceeding as it did in Vietnam.  A Washington puppet would not have voiced a provocative proposal without Washington’s permission. By “inside Russia” Rinkevics means territory beyond the territory Russia recently reincorporated.  He is calling for widening the war by crossing a red line that President Putin could not ignore.

Our Authentically Fake and Hypocritical Society of Copies. Bob Dylan’s New Book

By Edward Curtin, December 05, 2022

Sometimes a trifling contretemps can open a window onto significant issues. As a case in point, The New York Times, a newspaper that regularly publishes U.S. propaganda without a bit of shame or remorse, recently reported on a controversy involving Simon & Schuster and Bob Dylan’s new book, The Philosophy of Modern Song. The report with the same information was repeated across the media.

Hypocrites and Psychopaths: EU’s Russia War Crimes Tribunal

By Kurt Nimmo, December 05, 2022

On November 30, the European Commission, the executive of the European Union, proposed “options to Member States to make sure that Russia is held accountable for the atrocities and crimes committed during the war in Ukraine.”

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.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

Tuesday December 6, 2022. You are cordially invited by the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) to the launching of Michel Chossudovsky’s book 

The Worldwide Corona Crisis,

Global Coup d’État Against Humanity

Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression

by

Michel Chossudovsky

December 6, 2022

Los Angeles, Vancouver. Pacific Time PT 10.00am

Chicago, Houston CST 12.00pm

New York, Montreal ET 13.00pm

London UK, UT, 18.00pm

Paris, Brussels, CET, 19.00pm

The presentation and debate will be chaired and coordinated by renowned Economist and Geopolitical Analyst Peter Koenig

The book in pdf can be downloaded free of charge, click here. 

The book includes 15 Chapters. For details and book reviews click here

Join the Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84332369739?pwd=MTAxU3QyaGJwRm1BQlE2VzZPYnYzUT09 

Meeting ID: 843 3236 9739

Passcode: 441309

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: 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

***

Video. Interview with Michel Chossudovsky, December 5, 2022

The Worldwide Corona Crisis “What we Need is “Democratic Regime Change”

Useful Articles and Videos on the Corona Crisis

“Economic Warfare” Directed against China? The Shanghai “Covid Zero Tolerance Mandate” Extends its Grip to Major Industrial Cities

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 03, 2022

J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, October 22, 2022

Video: Ottawa Freedom Convoy. Justin Trudeau Accused Them of “Violence” and “Racism”. Emergency Act Inquiry Refutes Trudeau Lies

By Jean-François Girard, December 03, 2022

The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 26, 2022

What Will the World Look Like in 2032? Reversing the Covid Narrative, Confronting “The Great Reset”, Restoring Democracy

By Peter Koenig, November 23, 2022

Video: Planet Lockdown. The Most Devastating Crisis in Modern History: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Vaccine Choice Canada, November 24, 2022 

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 23, 2022

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.

***

After years of illegal persecution, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on Kiev lawmakers to draft a law banning the Russian Orthodox Church from Ukrainian territory. The justification would be the “necessity” to ban institutions linked to Russia due to the current conflict. With this, once again the Ukrainian government shows that it does not prioritize popular interests, considering that Orthodoxy is the majority religion of the Ukrainian people.

The new Ukrainian measure comes amid the recent initiative to extinguish all Russian organizations active on Ukrainian territory. Previously, companies and associations linked to Russian citizens had already been outlawed. Now, the focus is on attacking religious institutions. In addition to calling on lawmakers to approve a law to prohibit the Moscow Patriarchate’s activities in Ukraine, Zelensky also signed a Decree ordering the Security Council to impose personal sanctions against representatives of Russian religious groups, which will target all the clergy of the Orthodox Church.

In his statement on the matter, Zelensky said that Kiev cannot allow Russia to “build an empire” and “weaken Ukraine from within”, nor to “manipulate” Ukrainian citizens in favor of the so-called “Russian aggression”. In other words, Zelensky asserts that he wants to end Russian-Ukrainian ties and prevent the continuity of cultural and religious heritage between the two countries.

Zelensky’s argument is absolutely fallacious. In fact, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, but this is a consequence of the historical formation of that region. Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were for centuries a single empire, not different states, with the fragmentation of the region being a post-Soviet political phenomenon. The distribution of the canonical territories of the Church does not necessarily follow the laws of the legal borders of the National States, since the borders are constantly changed as a result of political events, while in the Church the changes are not so frequent.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has always had broad administrative autonomy, and there has never been any kind of political imposition by the Moscow Patriarchate on the local faithful. There is no data to corroborate Zelensky’s claim that Russia is building an empire to “weaken Ukraine from within”, this rhetoric being just an attempt to disguise the indisputable fact that the Kiev regime is promoting religious persecution against the majority faith of its own people.

However, this is not really surprising. Since 2014, the Orthodox Church has been persecuted in Ukraine. The genocide in Donbass included since its beginning the massacre of Orthodox Christians linked to Russian traditions, as well as the bombing of churches, monasteries, and the assassination of clergymen in the Eastern oblasts. The situation worsened in 2019, when, after an anti-canonical maneuver financed by NATO, a Ukrainian ultranationalist schism that had been formed in the 1990s came to be “recognized” by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then the Kiev regime began a wave of support for this sect, considering it a kind of “Ukrainian national church” to the detriment of the real Orthodox Church – which is linked to Moscow.

Since then, the Ukrainian state has carried out various crimes against Orthodoxy, including using police force to illegally confiscate properties of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine and give them to the schismatic nationalists. It is important to mention that the nationalist ideology of this schism is so strong that in religious rituals it is even common to venerate Ukrainian national leaders as Christian saints, including the Nazi agent Stepan Bandera – which is why this “church” receives wide support from the neo-Nazi regime and the West.

In this sense, what is happening now is not something actually “new”, but the formalization and officialization of a persecutory practice that was already becoming common in the recent years. At first, the Church was persecuted mainly in Donbass, illegally. Now, the State will be able to carry out operations against Orthodoxy throughout the entire national territory – and in full accordance with the legislation of the neo-Nazi government.

This is just one more step in the project of anti-Russian cultural genocide. After banning literature, music and language, now they ban religion. In fact, Ukraine’s de-russification campaign can only be stopped with the success of Moscow’s special military operation. Kiev is determined to serve the Western interest in removing any ties between Russia and Ukraine, even if this is not in the benefit of the local people, considering that even among ethnic Ukrainians the Orthodox Church is the majority religion. Kiev’s plan is to replace the legitimate, traditional Orthodox Church followed by the majority with the Western-backed ultranationalist schismatic sect.

*

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 InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Laying the groundwork for forced vaccination…

*

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 SHTFplan.com

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.

***

Europe just announced a $60 per barrel of oil cap against Russian oil at the same time Putin and China are increasing trade. Europe is facing a slow boiling energy disaster.

Meanwhile OPEC+ says they’re not changing anything which means 2 million barrels of oil will continue to be slashed from daily output.

All Putin has to do is cut uranium sales to Europe and the U.S. and it will be lights out.

We are watching these moron globalists destroy our way of life right before our eyes, and the latest moves this weekend prove my point.

*

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

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

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 time has come to pick up threads from my blog of January 27 titled The West co-opts the Taliban. Indeed, the wheel has come full circle since the three-day conclave in Oslo on January 23-25 between a core group of Western diplomats with Taliban officials failed to work out a reasonable modus vivendi. The pendulum has since swung to the other extreme. 

Afghanistan has once again become the cockpit of big power rivalries due to developments intrinsic to Afghan situation, a regime change in Pakistan and the shifts in regional politics in Central Asia due to the fallouts from the collective West’s proxy war with Russia in Europe.

To recapitulate, Russia and China brilliantly undercut the US’ attempt in Oslo to co-opt the Taliban government as its partner. The terms of partnership were not acceptable to the Taliban, especially the leeway that the US and British intelligence sought to stage covert operations from Afghan soil. 

Russia and China created space for Taliban to negotiate with the US by simply offering them the prospect of a beneficial relationship. The US’s core objective was to use Afghanistan as a staging post for its containment strategies against Russia, China and Iran.

Since then, the US estimates that with Russia bogged down in Ukraine and China remaining extra-cautious in consorting with Moscow, a window of opportunity is available for it to proactively work toward promoting regime changes in Central Asia and wrest the region from the Russian orbit.

Attempts were made in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan but the regimes in those countries were vigilant.  The failed attempts once again drew attention to the importance of Afghanistan as a high ground in the geopolitics of the Central Asian region. Hence the need to regain control over Kabul.

This is a truly collective effort by the Western intelligence, with the US, UK, France and Germany in the lead role. Unsurprisingly, the West’s focus has shifted to the northern regions of Afghanistan bordering the ex-Soviet republics of Central Asia. 

With a pro-Western regime in power in Pakistan, the US gets a free hand to work with the non-Taliban groups. The Western powers assess that the so-called National Resistance Front (NRF) led by the Panjshiri leader Ahmed Massoud provides a congenial platform for advancing their regional agenda. 

Apart from the Massoud clan’s decades-old links with the French intelligence, Ahmed Massoud himself was trained in Sandhurst. The Panjshiris are irreconcilably opposed to Pashtun rule and also have ethnic affinities with Tajikistan. 

Enter Emmanuel Macron. France has a score to settle with the Kremlin ever since Russia’s Wagner Group summarily replaced the French Legion as the provider of security to the Francophone countries in the Sahel region, which were historically France’s playpen. Macron intends to retaliate in Central Asia and the Caucasus.  

In this shadow play, Macron sees as quasi-ally the president of Tajikistan Imomali Rahmon. Now, Rahmon’s inscrutable mind is never easy to fathom and is rather complicated in this case, as Tajik-Russian equations are also involved, but he does seem to prioritise that there is a lot of money that the West is prepared to spend to foster the NRF and Massoud, and this western venture is for sure going to be for the long haul.

Rahmon’s trump card is that Tajikistan is the gateway to Panjshir and it can provide a transit corridor for the flow of Western money, men and materials to boost the NRF’s capability to wage an armed struggle and emerge quickly as a credible political entity regionally. 

Dushanbe hosted the so-called Herat Security Dialogue earlier this week to facilitate a meet-up between the NRF (Massoud) and sundry other disgruntled Afghan politicians hostile toward Taliban rule and domiciled in the West, with the US and European intelligence officials mentoring the event. 

Clearly, the venture aims to broad-base the NRF by bringing on board all anti-Taliban elements. Interestingly, a sideshow at Dushanbe was that the Afghans networked with hand-picked invitees from regional states as well, including Russia and Iran, largely self-styled “liberals” who are willing to subserve the West’s agenda.  

In a nutshell, the venture aims to build up another Afghan resistance movement to oust the Taliban from power. The ground is being prepared for a new civil war where the West hopes to emerge victorious eventually but without having to put “boots on the ground.”

However, this incoming civil war is going to be very unlike all previous ones in Afghan history. For, this is being projected as a culture war — a struggle for dominance between groups within the Afghan society arising from their different beliefs or practices — although quintessentially it could be regraded as yet another grab for political power with foreign help.

It bears similarity with the culture wars playing out in America during the past two decades and more between the liberal secular society and a conservative opposition that rooted its worldview in divine scripture. Today, in America it is playing out in vicious fights over abortion, gay rights, religion in public schools and the like.

The culture war in Afghanistan too will inevitably expand from issues of religion and family culture to take over politics almost totally, creating a dangerous sense of winner-take-all conflict over the future of the country, as is happening in America.

The paradox here is that the proposed insurrection by Panjshiris is taking place in the name of Democracy, whereas, democracy at its core is an agreement that we will not kill each other over our differences, but instead we’ll talk through those differences howsoever long it may take. Massoud’s NRF, on the contrary, is wedded to violence to overthrow the Taliban government which has been in power for only a little over a year.

During this past year, Taliban coped with an extraordinary situation and the glass is half-full, objectively speaking. Yes, there are things happening out there that do not conform to the western norms of liberal democracy. Nonetheless, the rule of law exists — except that Islamic law is the guiding principle. Indeed, the belief that religious expression can contribute to democracy has a long history even in western countries, as does the belief that any religion is a good thing.

Fundamentally, there is a dangerous misconception here since politics at its core is nothing but an artifact of culture. And culture underwrites politics in all countries, including America or France. To be sure, the Taliban will see the incoming civil war promoted by the West as an existential threat to their way of life, to the things they hold sacred. That is to say, the Taliban’s resistance to the NRF will be rooted in fear of extinction. They will fight to death for a way of life.

Why is the West doing this to Afghanistan after having destroyed that country’s social fabric through the past two decades perpetrating such horrific war crimes? At the very least, first return that country’s money in western banks and allow the Afghan nation a decent respite to lick its war wounds, before inciting another civil war. At the present juncture, without doubt, it is the humanitarian crisis that ought to be the number one priority for the international community.  

Abdul Latif Pedram, a rare progressive-minded Afghan politician known for his integrity, wrote in a tweet, “I was invited to the security meeting of Herat (at Dushanbe), but I did not participate in the meeting due to the presence of corrupt people.” 

Indeed, it is an insult to the Afghan people that the westerners continue to treat them like mute cattle. Pedram added that the invitees to the Dushanbe meeting were all associated with the corrupt regime that the Taliban replaced, and are bankrupt in ideas to improve the tragic situation in his 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 is from The Cradle

In questa puntata di Grandangolo Dentro la Notizia riportiamo l’intervista integrale (di cui abbiamo anticipato un estratto in Grandangolo 72), effettuata a Mosca da Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti, a Olga Zinoviev, responsabile del Centro internazionale di ricerca e formazione Zinoviev all’Università Statale di Mosca, copresidente del Club Zinoviev. 

Alla domanda “La Russia è in guerra. Come vede la situazione?”, Olga Zinoviev risponde:”Non è la Russia in guerra, ma l’intero Occidente è in guerra contro la Russia. Non è stata una nostra decisione rendere così complicata la vita del popolo ucraino. È sicuramente una decisione dell’Occidente distruggere tutto ciò che determina il nostro futuro. I paesi occidentali e in primo luogo l’Inghilterra, gli Stati Uniti e i loro satelliti, non sopportano che abbiamo una nostra vita, sono messi a disagio perfino dalla nostra stessa esistenza, sia quando c’era l’Unione Sovietica, sia oggi che c’è la Russia. L’Unione Sovietica è stata distrutta agli inizi degli anni Novanta. E hanno pensato di poter adottare la stessa ricetta per distruggere la vita di altri paesi: la Siria, il Libano e così via. Anche verso la Federazione Iugoslava hanno adottato lo stesso metodo. Per questo hanno bombardato la Federazione Iugoslava, un paese indipendente. Alexander mi diceva che era l’inizio di un piano per distruggere la Russia. E aveva ragione”.

Alla domanda di che cosa pensi della posizione assunta dall’Unione Europea, Olga Zinoviv risponde: “Temo per l’Europa, perché gradualmente perde la propria indipendenza già compromessa fin dall’inizio dal progetto dell’Unione Europea che in realtà era il progetto degli Stati Uniti per esercitare la loro egemonia sull’Europa” Ribadisce quindi il concetto; “Il mondo multipolare rappresenta la nostra visione del mondo. Abbiamo così tante popolazioni, abbiamo così tante lingue. Perché siamo obbligati a pensare in inglese, perché siamo obbligati a obbedire, come se fossimo sotto le armi, a ciò che Washington vuole da noi? Abbiamo diverse religioni, diverse culture, culture enormemente interessanti”.

STASERA ALLE 21

SUL CANALE TV NAZIONALE 262 BYOBLU

GRANDANGOLO DENTRO LA NOTIZIA

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

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

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

***

In the two years since the World Health Organisation declared the beginning of the COVID-19 ‘Pandemic’, anti-lockdown protests around the world have been routinely demonised by corporate media outlets.

Regularly lambasted as being ‘organised by the far-right’ and ‘super-spreader’ events, protests against lockdowns and vaccine mandates have also drawn a brutal state response in a number of Western countries, including Germany, Holland, and perhaps most notably, Canada.

In January 2022, following Ottawa’s decision to impose a vaccine mandate on truck drivers re-entering the country from the US, the world’s largest land border and a vital component of the Canadian economy, a nationwide Freedom Convoy would commence in the second largest country on the planet.

In response, the government of Justin Trudeau – previously mooted by the World Economic Forum as one of its ‘Young Global Leaders’ – would respond in an authoritarian fashion, freezing the bank accounts of protest organisers and attacking demonstrators using mounted Horses and teargas canisters.

Therefore, onlookers were bemused this week by Trudeau’s declaration of support for anti-lockdown protesters in China, currently demonstrating against Beijing’s ‘zero-Covid’ policy.

Indeed this was a view echoed by the western media in lockstep, less than a year after the same outlets were condemning European and American demonstrators for carrying out the exact same actions.

To understand the sudden change in attitude towards anti-lockdown campaigners by the corporate press, one must first look at other events that also occurred in January of this year.

During the same week as the World Economic Forum’s virtual Davos Agenda event, the two-year ‘Pandemic’ narrative collapsed almost instantaneously in multiple western countries including Ireland and Britain. The WHO, a body with a known record of corruption and ties to pharmaceutical giants, would also call for the ending of all travel restrictions during the same period.

In further coincidental timing, a week after the Davos event, Hungarian business magnate and Open Society founder George Soros would give a speech to the Hoover Institution in the United States, outlining his view of CCP Chairman Xi Jinping as being the ‘greatest threat that open societies face today’ and predicted that widespread opposition to the Chinese leader’s ‘zero-Covid’ policy would eventually lead to his removal from office. It would be a view that Soros would again express during his address of the World Economic Forum’s Davos summit in May of this year, and indeed, it is a situation that is now playing out in real time.

On the 24^th of November, minor anti-lockdown protests that had begun at the start of the month following the decision by the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou to re-impose restrictions, would grow exponentially in the aftermath of an apartment fire in the north-western Xinjiang province, leading to the deaths of ten residents, with lockdown restrictions being blamed on preventing firefighters from reaching the scene.

In classic colour revolution style, the ‘A4 Revolution’ has been given coordinated sympathetic coverage by the mainstream media, similar to the 2014 Euromaidan Ukrainian regime change operation, in which the Open Society Foundations also played a key role. What has been given less coverage however, is the decision by Chinese authorities to listen to the legitimate grievances of anti-lockdown protesters and subsequently remove restrictions in Guangzhou and the city of Chongqing, the focus shifting to the wider demand for the removal of Xi Jinping’s leadership instead.

Indeed, this was echoed in an article supportive of the protests by the National Endowment for Democracy, a Reagan-era Neoconservative foundation that effectively acts as a privatised version of the CIA, fomenting regime change from Libya, to Belarus, and now, using anti-lockdown protests that would have been widely condemned less than a year ago, China.

*

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.

Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Support him on Patreon.

Featured image: Protesters carry blank papers and chant slogans as they demonstrate in Beijing, China against the country’s notoriously strict COVID-19 lockdown measures, on Nov. 27, 2022. In response, the Chinese government has eased some of them.(NG HAN GUAN/AP)

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 public is becoming increasingly disturbed with reports of death among the vaccinated.  It is natural to ask “was the death caused by vaccination?”  The most definitive way of answering that question is with autopsy.  Schwab et al reported on deaths after vaccination with detailed autopsies in Heidelberg, Germany.[i]

Of 35 fatalities within 20 days of injection, 10 were ruled out as clearly not due to the vaccine (e.g. drug overdose).  The remaining 25 (71%) had final diagnoses consistent with a vaccine injury syndrome including myocardial infarction, worsening heart failure, vascular aneurysm, pulmonary embolism, fatal stroke, and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.  Interestingly, 5 cases had acute myocarditis as the cause of death with the histopathology in the heart muscle showing patchy inflammation very similar to what was seen in the deltoid muscle were the mRNA vaccine was injected. 

Schwab, C., Domke, L.M., Hartmann, L. et al. Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination. Clin Res Cardiol(2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5

So the report has told us:

1) 71% of deaths that occur within 20 days of taking vaccine appear to be due to conditions well known to occur with COVID-19 vaccination,

2) inflammation in the heart was coincident with the same pattern of inflammation in the arm. Thus we can conclude death within a few days of vaccination is most likely due to the genetic product and that inflammation in the arm may be a surrogate for a similar process in the heart.  The very high yield of post-vaccination autopsy should spur families and physicians to push for post-mortem exams so we can learn more on how this medical procedure is leading to such a large loss of human life.

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

*

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

Note

[i] Schwab, C., Domke, L.M., Hartmann, L. et al. Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination. Clin Res Cardiol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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 British government assigned at least 15 people to the secret operation to seize Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, new information shows. 

The WikiLeaks founder was given political asylum by Ecuador in 2012, but was never allowed safe passage out of Britain to avoid persecution by the US government.

The Australian journalist has been in Belmarsh maximum security prison for the past three and a half years and faces a potential 175-year sentence after the UK High Court green-lighted his extradition to the US in December 2021.

‘Pelican’ was the secret Metropolitan Police operation to seize Assange from his asylum, which eventually occurred in April 2019. Asylum is a right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Image: Sir Alan Duncan

The operation’s existence was only revealed in the memoirs of former foreign minister Sir Alan Duncan which were published last year. The UK government routinely blocks, or obfuscates its answers to, information requests about the Assange case.

But the Cabinet Office recently told parliament it had seven officials working on Operation Pelican. The department’s role is to “support the Prime Minister and ensure the effective running of government”, but it also has national security and intelligence functions.

It is not immediately clear why the Cabinet Office would have so many personnel working on a police operation of this kind. Asked about their role, the Cabinet Office said these seven officials “liaised” with the Metropolitan Police on the operation.

The Home Office, meanwhile, told parliament it had eight officials working on Pelican. The Home Office oversees MI5 and the head of the department has to sign off extraditions to most foreign countries. Then home secretary Priti Patel ordered Assange’s extradition to the US in June.

‘Disproportionate cost’

Other government ministries refused to say if they had staff working on Pelican, including the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

The MoJ is in charge of courts in England and Wales, where Assange’s extradition case is currently deciding whether to hear an appeal. It is also in control of its prisons, including Belmarsh maximum security jail where Assange is incarcerated.

When asked if any of its staff were assigned to Pelican, the MoJ claimed:

“The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.”

It is unclear why the Home Office, a bigger department with more staff, could answer such a question, but the MoJ could not. There is no obvious reason why the MoJ would have staff assigned to Pelican, so revelations that it did would cause embarrassment for the government.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Office told parliament it had no staff “directly assigned” to Pelican, but refused to say if people working on the operation were located on its premises.

‘Julian Assange’s Special Brexit Team’

Sir Alan Duncan, foreign minister for the Americas from 2016-19, was the key UK official in the diplomatic negotiations between the UK and Ecuador to get Assange out of the embassy. In his memoirs he wrote that he watched a live-feed of Assange’s arrest from the Operations Room at the top of the Foreign Office alongside Pelican personnel.

After Assange had been imprisoned in Belmarsh, Duncan had a drinks party at his office for the Pelican team.

“I gave them each a signed photo which we took in the Ops Room on the day, with a caption saying ‘Julian Assange’s Special Brexit Team 11th April 2019’”, he wrote.

Ecuador’s president from 2007-17, Rafael Correa, recently told Declassified he granted Assange asylum because the Australian journalist “didn’t have any possibility of a fair legal process in the United States.”

He added that the UK government “tried to deal with us like a subordinate country.”

In September 2021, 30 former US officials went on the record to reveal a CIA plot to “kill or kidnap” Assange in London. In case of Assange leaving the embassy, the article noted,

“US officials asked their British counterparts to do the shooting if gunfire was required, and the British agreed, according to a former senior administration official.”

These assurances most likely came from the Home Office.

*

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.

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

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 goal of life is living in agreement with nature. –Zeno

The world is not to be put in order. The world is order. It is for us to put ourselves in unison with this order. –Henry Miller

Man’s heart away from nature becomes hard.- Standing Bear

Introduction

The history of folklore as an area of study is relatively recent compared to its ancient origins. In the eighteenth century the role of Enlightenment science in changing attitudes towards the study of folklore soon showed benefits with an increased understanding of ourselves and our history of survival throughout the centuries. Soon, the influence of nationalist Romanticism paved the way for much research and support for folklore as an integral part of every country’s cultural heritage in the nineteenth century. By the early twentieth century folklore had moved from being the culture of ‘backward peoples’ to becoming a major tool in the hands of the state, leading to very different approaches to folklore in the Soviet Union and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Post World War 2 and the decline of nationalism, folklore and folk music have taken a back seat in the spread of globalised cosmopolitan commercialism.

However, the anxiety over the rapid pace of the destruction of nature (land, forests, wildlife, and seas) in the twenty-first century paves the way for a re-evaluation of folklore, not as an ancient tradition that was perceived to be replaced by science in the nineteenth century, but as a pro-nature ideology that was cleverly replaced by anti-nature industrialisation, thereby choking off its continuing relevance as an important part of our cultural and political struggle to end the ruination of the planet.

Taking place every winter in villages and cities in Romania’s eastern region of Moldova, the Dance of the Bear symbolizes the death and rebirth of time. Performed between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, this ancient ritual brings together the whole community, who gather to watch the performance. The Dance of the Bear sees men of all ages, and increasingly more women, dress in real bear skins and dance to the rhythm of pan flutes and drums, to ward off evil spirits and ring in the new year. Traditionally, the procession, which can include between six and 24 bears, would visit every household of the village.

History of folklore

Folklore is generally defined as the traditions common to a culture, subculture or group of people. It encompasses oral traditions such as tales and legends, material culture such as traditional building styles and customary lore such as the forms and rituals of Christmas, weddings, folk dances and initiation rites. Folklore is transmitted from place to another or one generation to the next and these traditions tend to be passed informally from one person to another through demonstration or verbal instruction.

In 1846, the British writer W. J. Thoms invented the word ‘folklore’ to replace ‘popular antiquities’ or ‘popular literature’. The meaning of ‘folk’ at the time generally meant rural, poor and illiterate peasants. ‘Lore’ comes from Old English lār ‘instruction’,  the knowledge and traditions of a particular group, frequently passed along by word of mouth.

The initial basis for the study of folklore derived from changing ideas about the peasantry who were seen to be losing their culture in the fast developing process of industrialisation. During the Enlightenment, the philosopher, Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803), not only wroteabout the importance of the nation and patriotism but he also gave the idea of the ‘people’ a new significance when he stated that “there is only one class in the state, the Volk, (not the rabble), and the king belongs to this class as well as the peasant”. If the people were defined as significant (not backward and uncultured), then their culture and folk traditions were also significant and necessary for the process of nation building.

Thus, local traditions and rituals which were largely ignored previously were transformed into an area of culture and history that could be studied, and “from the 1860s there was a boom in the collection and discussion of folklore – the rise of social Darwinism, a growing population and increased urbanisation generated an upsurge in the idea of survivalism and a fear that these rural traditions might be lost.” In England, the first female president of the Folklore Society, Charlotte Sophia Burne (1850–1923) defined folklore as:

‘the generic term under which the traditional Beliefs, Customs, Stories, Songs and Sayings current among backward peoples, or retained by the uncultured classes of more advanced peoples, are comprehended and included.’

As we can see from this quote, folklore was perceived as “relics of behaviour from the distant past” that has been passed down through the generations. The middle and upper classes, largely the beneficiaries of industrialisation, had a background of success and wealth that buttressed their view of the working class and peasantry as the ‘uncultured classes’. In many countries the changes in society brought about by industrialisation created an anxiety about cultural loss:

“Encroaching modernity caused the Victorians to worry that old traditions were under threat and in need of preservation. A rising panic at the changes wrought by technology, industrialisation, and burgeoning capitalism collided with fears about the booming population and the move to city life, creating a nostalgia for the rural idyll. It was against this backdrop that an interest in recording folklore grew, alongside an anxiety that it was a way of life quickly passing.”

Enlightenment

Image: Carved idol of Peko. Radaja Seto Museum Photo by Ivo Kruusamägi Peko (Finnish spelling Pekko, Pekka, Pellon Pekko) is an ancient Estonian and Finnish god of crops, especially barley and brewing.

The Enlightenment approach to folklore involved a “systematic, scientific study of behaviour – the folklore collected dispassionately for future analysis” and, moreover, the benefits of such study were quickly becoming apparent:

“Nobody now disputes that the superstitions, the customs, the tales, the songs, and even the proverbial sayings of a people may throw unexpected light upon its history; and from the investigation and comparison of such things as these, once deemed unworthy of notice, scientific men have begun to reconstruct the unrecorded past of humanity.”

The new interest in mythology and folklore also became a tool in the hands of Enlightenment rationalists and skeptics who used it to undermine Christianity and the Church. As Robert D. Richardson noted:

“When Pierre Bayle scoffs at the story of Athena being born without the aid of a mother from the head of Jupiter, he does it in such a way as to emphasize the story’s similarity to that of Christ’s having been born without the aid of a mortal father. If we smile at the miracles in Greek mythology, how can we not smile at similar miracles in the Bible?” -The Enlightenment View of Myth and Joel Barlow’s “Vision of Columbus” Author(s): Robert D. Richardson, Jr.

However, the study of folklore and mythology also revealed ancient and pre-Christian beliefs centered around a profound respect and worship of nature. In his book The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, the Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941) speculated that: “shared elements of religious belief and scientific thought, discussing fertility rites, human sacrifice, the dying god, the scapegoat, and many other symbols and practices whose influences had extended into 20th-century culture.” Frazer’s thesis was that “old religions were fertility cults that revolved around the worship and periodic sacrifice of a sacred king.” Frazer proposed that “mankind progresses from magic through religious belief to scientific thought.”

Image: Prajapati with similar iconographical features associated with Brahma, a sculpture from Tamil Nadu. Prajapati’s role varies within the Vedic texts such as being one who created heaven and earth, all of water and beings, the chief, the father of gods, the creator of devas and asuras, the cosmic egg and the Purusha (spirit).

Romantic nationalism

With the rise of Romantic nationalism during the nineteenth century, folklore took on a new significance as the ‘soul’ of the people. The nation state claimed its political legitimacy based on an organic unity of the people which in turn was based on elements such as “language, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and customs of the nation in its primal sense of those who were born within its culture.”  This unity from below was emphasised by nationalists in reaction to the dynastic or imperial hegemony of feudalism which claimed its authority from above, for example, the divine right of kings who were mandated by God to rule over the people.

Folklore was useful to nationalists from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, not only to counter the old ideology of monarchy but it also served to counter the future threat of socialist ideas. For nationalists, the rural-based folklore of the people could form the basis of a class-conciliatory popular ideology in opposition to the spreading socialist concepts of working class culture, class warfare and revolution among the radicals. The rise of the socialist movements, culminating in the creation of Soviet Russia in 1917 heralded both positive and negative views of folklore.

The Soviet Union

Folklore studies thrived in the Soviet Union in the 1920s as there was little state control and the government was more concerned with the new economy, trying to reverse decades of underdevelopment. However, by the late 1920s the Soviet government “repressed Folklore, believing that it supported the old tsarist system and a capitalist economy.” Stories about feudal princes and princesses eventually came under criticism by the Soviet government:

Image: Xochiquetzal, from the Codex Rios, 16th century. In Aztec mythology, Xochiquetzal was a goddess associated with fertility, beauty, and love, serving as a protector of young mothers and a patroness of pregnancy, childbirth, and the crafts. Worshipers wore animal and flower masks at a festival, held in her honor every eight years.

“They saw it as a remnant of the backward Russian society that the Bolsheviks were working to surpass. To keep folklore studies in check and prevent inappropriate ideas from spreading amongst the masses, the government created the RAPP – the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers. The RAPP specifically focused on censoring fairy tales and children’s literature, believing that fantasies and “bourgeois nonsense” harmed the development of upstanding Soviet citizens. Faerie tales were removed from bookshelves and children were encouraged to read books focusing on nature and science.”

A new way of seeing folklore was developed that put emphasis on “traditional legends and faerie tales [that] showed ideal, community-oriented characters, which exemplified the model Soviet citizen” in particular “tales that showed members of the working class outsmarting their cruel masters, again working to prove folklore’s value to Soviet ideology and the nation’s society at large.”

Certain customs were changed (in terms of content) or adapted (in terms of form), for example, the Christmas tree. In Russia, the tradition of installing and decorating a Yolka (tr: spruce tree) for Christmas was very popular but fell into disfavor (as a tradition originating in Germany – Russia’s enemy during World War I) and was subsequently banned by the Synod in 1916. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, Christmas celebrations and other religious holidays were prohibited under the Marxist-Leninist policy of state atheism in the Soviet Union. Although the Christmas tree was banned, people continued the tradition with New Year trees which eventually gained acceptance in 1935:

“The New Year tree was encouraged in the USSR after the famous letter by Pavel Postyshev, published in Pravda on 28 December 1935, in which he asked for trees to be installed in schools, children’s homes, Young Pioneer Palaces, children’s clubs, children’s theaters and cinemas.” See this.

The Yolka tree remains an essential part of the Russian New Year traditions when Ded Moroz or ‘Grandfather Frost’ (with assistance from his granddaughter Snegurochka,’Snow Maiden’), like Santa Claus, brings presents for children to put under the tree or to distribute them directly to the children on New Year’s morning performances. Thus, native folklore and traditions in Russia and the Soviet Union were customised to suit the changing material conditions of society in a rational process of adaptation that contrasted sharply with the irrationalist over-importance given to them in Nazi Germany.

Image: In Māori mythology, Rongo or Rongo-mā-Tāne (also Rongo-hīrea, Rongo-marae-roa,[1] and Rongo-marae-roa-a-Rangi[2]) is a major god (atua) of cultivated plants, especially kumara (spelled kūmara in Māori), a vital crop.

National socialism

The rise of the national socialists in Germany in the 1930s also shifted folklore in a new direction as the Nazis not only linked the concept of peasant folklore with that of national unity, but looked abroad for suitable models (the “strong and heroic” Nordic tradition), despite feeling ‘guilty’ about the ‘foreign elements’ in German folklore:

“After 1935, German folklore professors were under pressure adapt their theories and findings to the National Socialist Weltanschauung [worldview]. This not only implied the obligation to join in the search for Nordic-Germanic symbols at the expense of other interests, but it also meant giving priority to those elements that might be of immediate ideological usefulness to the Party.” [1]

According to the German anti-Nazi philosopher Ernst Bloch, “Hitler painted the ethnic heterogeneity of Germany as a major reason for the country’s economic and political weakness, and he promised to restore a German realm based on a cleansed, and hence strong, German people.”

Folklore, as part of the ideology of German national self-consciousness, became a way of reading and understanding history itself:

“The social and religious order of the Nordic-Germanic tribes, they claimed, was the order of the present and, certainly, the order of the future.  In their effort to strengthen the German national self-consciousness, the Nazi ideologists emphasized not only an identification with the heroic age but also a deep contempt for the Roman civilization. In their view, the glorification of Rome and everything Roman had led to a serious weakening of Germany’s folk unity. The “healthy” resources of Germany’s own past had been sacrificed to the admiration of Rome.” [2]

This Romanticist, irrationalist view of history (and ‘folk unity’) was part of the glorification of the peasant as the repository of the primary culture of traditional heritage. The peasant, previously seen as backward and uncultured, was now held up as the ideal model for society and culture as elites worried about the growth of the working class. The study of folklore was also reduced to a limited racial point of view to justify German ‘superiority’ that would underpin the German elite’s desire to conquer Europe.

Overall we can see that in the twentieth century folklore and myth served multiple purposes in differing political ideologies of nationalism, national socialism, and socialism.

Susanoo subduing and making a pact with various spirits of disease (dated 1860, copy of original work by Katsushika Hokusai)
Susanoo (スサノオ; historical orthography: スサノヲ, ‘Susanowo’) is a kami in Japanese mythology. The younger brother of Amaterasu, goddess of the sun and mythical ancestress of the Japanese imperial line, he is a multifaceted deity with contradictory characteristics (both good and bad), being portrayed in various stories either as a wild, impetuous god associated with the sea and storms, as a heroic figure who killed a monstrous serpent, or as a local deity linked with the harvest and agriculture.

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.

***

Here’s the mainstream narrative: The status of the war in Ukraine is best understood as a competition between the narrative and reality.

The narrative consists of what you hear from mainstream media, the White House, the Pentagon and official sources in the U.K., France, Germany and both EU and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The reality consists of what’s actually going on based on the best available sources. Let’s consider the narrative first.

According to the White House, EU and NATO, things are going relatively well for Ukraine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) have advanced in eastern Ukraine along a line that runs parallel to the Russian fortified lines between Donetsk and Luhansk.

Ukraine has also reoccupied the regional capital of Kherson, which lies strategically on the Dnieper River, and is Kyiv’s main access to the Black Sea and international trade.

Based on these advances, the narrative says that Russia is in retreat, Russian troops are demoralized, Putin is in jeopardy of being replaced and complete victory for Ukraine is just a matter of time.

The narrative is then used as a basis for increased financial aid from the United States (over $60 billion and growing) and increased weapons shipments from NATO members. President Zelenskyy touts these accomplishments in his customary green T-shirt on video presentations to the U.N., G20 and other international audiences.

Here’s the reality…

The actual situation on the battlefield is almost completely at odds with the narrative. Ukraine did make advances in the east, but they were against lightly defended Russian positions on or near open terrain.

The Russians organized an orderly retreat to fortified lines and let the Ukrainians have the open land. Russia withdrew from Kherson because they regarded it as a nonstrategic salient.

They withdrew to the east bank of the Dnieper River while allowing Ukrainian troops to reoccupy the center of Kherson. Russia avoided a fight over a city of little strategic value while retaining a chokehold on river traffic from the east bank. Russia regarded Kherson as a nonstrategic salient.

The Russians essentially organized an orderly retreat to fortified lines and let the Ukrainians have the open land, which will become a killing field for Russian artillery.

Even with that withdrawal, almost all the industrial, technological and natural resource capacity of former Ukraine is in the Donbas now under Russian control.

In the meantime, Russia is now preparing to launch a massive counteroffensive. Russia has completed its 300,000-person mobilization. Over 180,000 of those troops are now deployed behind Russian lines in combat formations. The remaining 120,000 troops will arrive soon. This brings total Russian strength up to about 30 divisions.

They are being supplemented with Iranian drones, a major force multiplier. The major objectives of this counteroffensive are Kharkiv in the northeast, Odesa in the southwest, and Zaporizhzhia in the center part of the country on the Dnieper River.

Completion of these missions will give Russia control of the entire coast from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea. It will also give Russia control of the Dnieper River and the largest nuclear power plant in Europe.

Russia will incorporate all of this territory into the Russian Federation and will likely move further into Moldova to reunite with a pro-Russian corridor called Transnistria with its capital in Tiraspol. At that point, Russian strategic objectives will be complete. Ukraine will be left as a rump state between Kyiv and Lviv.

Ukrainian officials are preparing for a brutal winter ahead by evacuating civilians from cities likely to be the scene of new battles with Russian troops. These Ukrainian expectations seem at odds with the mainstream narrative of victorious Ukrainians on the offensive against demoralized Russian troops.

Meanwhile, AFU strength has been greatly diminished due to high casualty rates. Meanwhile, advanced weapons supplied to the AFU will be of little use because the AFU has not been trained to use them and there are logistical obstacles to moving them to the front lines.

Many so-called Ukrainian troops are actually Polish forces in Ukrainian uniforms. Again, Russian forces are well-rested and well-supplied, and are being supplemented with Iranian drones, a major force multiplier.

The economic impact of these developments is momentous. Biden has vowed that the sanctions will not be lifted until Russia leaves Ukraine. But Russia is not leaving. This implies that sanctions will continue indefinitely.

The sanctions have had little economic impact on Russia. But the effect on Europe and the U.S. has been devastating including energy shortages, inflation and supply chain disruption. These effects will persist and cause the EU and U.S. to fall into a severe recession in the first half of 2023.

The dollar will remain strong for reasons independent of the war in Ukraine, having to do with a growing global liquidity crisis. Stocks will fall significantly due to recessionary conditions.

Bonds will perform well as interest rates decline alongside economic decline. Gold will remain strong as more countries look for ways to avoid U.S. economic sanctions and as central banks diversify away from dollars toward gold.

Brace yourself for more volatility as we head toward the winter months. Moving cash to the sidelines is a prudent thing to do.

*

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

James G. Rickards is the editor of Strategic Intelligence, Project Prophesy, Crash Speculator, and Gold Speculator. He is an American lawyer, economist, and investment banker with 40 years of experience working in capital markets on Wall Street. He was the principal negotiator of the rescue of Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM) by the U.S Federal Reserve in 1998. His clients include institutional investors and government directorates.

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.

***

This corrupted CEO must be investigated with Bancel of Moderna, and if they are clean, praise. But if shown they were reckless and their vaccine killed people, if shown the trials were fraud and corrupted and the vaccine is dangerous, we clean this guy out financially and jail him for 25 years!

‘Pfizer’s CEO has been rapped by the UK’s pharmaceutical watchdog for making “misleading” statements about children’s vaccines, The Telegraph can disclose.

Dr Albert Bourla used an interview with the BBC last December to claim that “there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favour of” vaccinating youngsters aged five to 11 against Covid-19.

He argued that

“Covid in schools is thriving” adding: “This is disturbing, significantly, the educational system, and there are kids that will have severe symptoms.”

The interview was published on Dec 2 – before the vaccine had been approved by Britain’s medical regulator for this age group.

Shortly after the article’s publication, a complaint was submitted to the pharmaceutical watchdog – the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) – by UsForThem, a parent campaign group which was set up to promote the plight of children during the pandemic.

‘Extremely promotional in nature’

The complaint alleged that Dr Bourla’s remarks about the children’s vaccine were “disgracefully misleading” and “extremely promotional in nature”, arguing that it breached several clauses of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s (ABPI) code of practice.

“There is simply no evidence that healthy schoolchildren in the UK are at significant risk from the SARS COV-2 virus and to imply that they are is disgracefully misleading,” they said.

In September 2021, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), had advised against a mass roll-out for children aged 12-15, saying the “margin of benefit” was “considered too small” and citing the low risk to healthy children from the virus.

But less than a fortnight later, ministers gave the green light for youngsters to be given a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab with the UK’s chief medical officers arguing that this would help to keep schools open.

It was not until February 2022 that the JCVI ruled that children aged 5-11 could be offered the vaccine – but ministers said the decision should be left up to parents.

A code of practice panel, convened by the PMCPA, found that Pfizer had breached the code in a number of different ways, including by misleading the public, making unsubstantiated claims, and by failing to present information in a factual and balanced way.

‘Up-to-date scientific evidence’

Pfizer appealed against the findings, strongly refuting UsForThem’s claims that Dr Bourla had breached the code of practice. They argued that his remarks were based on “up-to-date scientific evidence” and could be substantiated by the “publicly available independent benefit-risk assessments”.

Earlier in November an appeal board met to consider their arguments. The breaches of the code relating to misleading the public, making unsubstantiated claims and the lack of balance were upheld.

But the more serious findings – including that Pfizer had brought discredit to the industry, had encouraged irrational use of a medicine and had failed to maintain high standards – were overturned. PMCPA said the full case report will be published in the coming weeks.

A spokesman for Pfizer said they are “committed to the highest levels of integrity in any interaction with the public”.

They added:

“We are pleased the UK’s PMCPA Appeal Board found Pfizer to have maintained high standards and upheld confidence in our industry, the two most serious rulings in this complaint from a UK campaign group.

“In the UK, we have always endeavoured to follow the principles and letter of our industry Code of Practice throughout. We will review the case report in detail when we receive it, to inform future activity.

“Throughout the pandemic, our communications have been focused on providing clarity regarding the progress of our science and supporting transparent scientific exchange in the interests of public health.”  UsForThem were approached for comment.’

*

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

Source

Featured image is from Health Thoroughfare

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.

***

Republicans in the Senate have threatened to block the National Defense Authorization Act unless a vote is held on the current COVID vaccine mandate for military personnel.

The effort is being headed up by Florida Senator Rick Scott and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, along with 11 other senators, including Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.

As a veteran & member of @SASCGOP, I fully support our military & have fought hard for big nat'l security wins in the NDAA. But, before this bill moves forward, we must stand with our military members & reverse the @DeptofDefense's COVID vax mandate. U.S. readiness depends on it. pic.twitter.com/DoRgn5cJZh

— Rick Scott (@SenRickScott) November 30, 2022

Scott told Fox News

“I think on the NDAA one thing that’s going to be important is that we don’t give cloture unless they agree that we’re not going to keep kicking people out of the service for their – if they’re unvaccinated,” adding “I think that we’ve got to start standing up for people.”

In a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Senators state

“The Department of Defense COVID-19 vaccine mandate has ruined the livelihoods of men and women who have honorably served our country.”

“While the Department of Defense certainly must make decisions that will bolster military readiness, the effects of the mandate are antithetical to readiness of our force, and the policy must be revoked,” the letter further states.

I’m opposing moving forward on the NDAA unless the Senate votes on an amendment to prohibit discharges from the Armed Forces solely because of vaccination status. The amendment will also reinstate service members already discharged w/ back pay. Read more: https://t.co/ejcYF64Koa pic.twitter.com/4qa3Gu74r4

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) November 30, 2022

During a press conference, Paul stated

“The vaccination mandate has forced our nation’s young patriotic men and women to choose between their faith, their medical autonomy and their careers.”

“At a time when the military is struggling to meet targets for recruitment, the administration is firing soldiers we invested in and trained,” Paul further noted.

For five decades now, the NDAA has been viewed as vital legislation for Congress each year, covering spending for the military, including the annual pay raise and new program starts.

Despite attempts to stop mandatory vaccines for active duty personnel, and to uphold exemption rights, the Biden administration has continually pushed for dishonourable discharges and even court martialing for troops who disobey orders to get the shots.

*

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: Pfc. Shaniah Edwards, Medical Detachment, prepares to administer the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to soldiers and airmen at the Joint Force Headquarters, February 12, 2021. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Leona C. Hendrickson – Source.)

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.

***

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” William Burns, US ambassador to Moscow writing to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 2008

“There’s nothing inevitable about the “multipolar world”. Its emergence depends entirely on a war that is just beginning and whose outcome is still unknown.” From the text

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center: “About half of Americans… say they are either extremely (24%) or very (26%) concerned about the possibility of U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine leading to a U.S. war with Russia.” (“Americans’ Concerns About War in Ukraine: Wider Conflict, Possible U.S.-Russia Clash”, Pew Research Center)

This is a smaller percentage than one might expect given the risk that an unexpected escalation that could trigger a nuclear war. Even so, this is what the data tell us and the data don’t lie.

But here’s the interesting part: Even though half of the country is worried about a direct conflagration with Russia, they still overwhelmingly support the other measures Biden has taken to punish Russia for its alleged “aggression”. Here’s more from the survey:

Wide support in both parties for U.S. actions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Sizable majorities of both Republicans (73%) and Democrats (80%) say they approve of the U.S. placing strict economic sanctions on Russia. Similar shares say they approve of sending military equipment and weapons to Ukraine.

About seven-in-ten Democrats and six-in-ten Republicans also say they approve of stationing large numbers of U.S. military in NATO countries near Ukraine.” (“Americans’ Concerns About War in Ukraine: Wider Conflict, Possible U.S.-Russia Clash”, Pew Research Center)

What does this mean? Why do Americans overwhelmingly support onerous sanctions, additional troop deployments, and the endless provision of lethal weapons when –at the same time– they acknowledge that they are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the possibility “of a U.S. war with Russia?” Don’t they realize that these hybrid attacks on Russia are a form of warfare that will eventually lead to a direct military clash between Washington and Moscow?

And why do Americans support these draconian measures anyway? Don’t they know that Putin warned that NATO expansion to Ukraine would force Russia to respond militarily? Don’t they know that many of our brightest foreign policy experts have warned against NATO expansion to Ukraine? Don’t they know that Russia has repeatedly warned that NATO expansion could lead to war? Don’t they know that the democratically-elected president of Ukraine was toppled in a CIA-backed coup in 2014 and replaced with a Washington stooge?

Still holds. pic.twitter.com/HBsmp2Be0W

— Big Serge ☦️🇺🇸🇷🇺 (@witte_sergei) September 24, 2022

Don’t they know that from 2015-on the CIA has been training far-right Ukrainian paramilitaries and extremists (neo-Nazis) to conduct an insurgency against Russian forces that were going to be lured across the border in an attempt to create an “Afghanistan-type” quagmire?

Don’t they know that Washington has been planning to use Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia in order to spread its military bases across Central Asia (to encircle China) for at least the last 8 years? Don’t they know that the Ukrainian army had been shelling residential areas in the area inhabited by ethnic Russians for 8 days before Putin was forced to send in his troops?

Don’t they know that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has admitted that the war started 8 years ago when the legitimate government was toppled? (He told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, “I made a point that the war in Ukraine has been lasting for 8 years. It’s not just some special military operation”)

Don’t they know that –if Zelensky had maintained the status quo and Ukraine had remained a “neutral” country– the war never would have begun?

Don’t they know our own Director of the CIA called NATO membership for Ukraine the “reddest of red lines” for Russia?

Don’t they know that NATO’s eastward expansion is, and has always been, a material threat to Russia’s national security? Aren’t Russian mothers and children deserving of the same safety and security provided to American mothers and children or should we insist that they live with Washington’s combat troops, tanks and nuclear missiles pointed at them across the border? Aren’t they entitled to live their lives without NATO’s gun pointed at their heads or Washington’s dagger put to their throats? This is from an article at antiwar.com:

NATO has long known that Russian leaders since the end of the Cold War–not just Putin–have perceived NATO’s eastward expansion, and particularly its expansion to Ukraine, as a threat. In response to NATO’s statement at the 2008 summit in Bucharest, the Russian leadership made clear that they saw this promise as an existential threat. Putin warned that NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine was “a direct threat” to Russian security.…

How could Russia not see NATO as a threat? … How else could Russia perceive an alliance that moved to its borders, absorbed its neighbors, but exclusively excluded it as anything but hostile? Robert Gates observed that it was “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.”…

In a February 2022 press conference, Putin said,

“Today we see where NATO is: in Poland, in Romania and in the Baltic states. . .. Now anti-ballistic missile launchers are deployed in Romania and are being set up in Poland. They will probably be there soon if they are not yet built. These are MK-41 launchers that can launch Tomahawks. In other words, they are no longer just counter-missiles, and these assault weapons can cover thousands of kilometers of our territory. Isn’t this a threat to us?”

Weeks before, Putin had also complained that “elements of the US global defense system are being deployed near Russia.” He spoke again of the MK-41 launchers in Romania and, soon, in Poland. At that time, he added that “If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes, or even five minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security.” (“Stoltenberg’s Provocative Pledge on Ukraine’s NATO Membership”, Ted Snider, antiwar.com)

How is it that the American people don’t know these things?

How is it that the vast majority of them think that ‘Putin started the war’ or that the war started on February 24 when Russian tanks crossed the border into Ukraine?

How can the majority of the population in a democratic country that is (ostensibly) committed to free speech and freedom of the press be so tragically misinformed, propagandized and indoctrinated?

Is that it? Are Americans actually the most weak-minded, brainwashed sheeple on earth? This is from The American Conservative:

“From the onset of the Ukraine war, the corporate media, politicians, and all the controlled NGOs throughout America and Western Europe were lockstep in their claim that the Russian military action in eastern Ukraine was unprovoked and unjustified—an act of aggression that could not be allowed to stand.

There was one problem with this propaganda blitz: it was totally untrue. The Deep State—the government elites, intelligence community, and the military establishment—has spent decades threatening and provoking Russia by pushing NATO up against their border.

You do not have to like Russia to see this, and you can detest Vladimir Putin until the cows come home. The fundamental issue remains the same: the Russians view NATO on their border as an act of aggression and a threat to their national security, and we have known this for decades.

The record is clear and unassailable.” (“Blame the Deep State for Carnage in Ukraine”, George D O’Neill jr, The American Conservative)

So, no, the war in Ukraine did NOT start on February 24.

And, no, “evil” Putin did NOT start the war.

What the evidence shows is that this Ukrainian conflict is another bloody confection that was conjured up long-ago in elite think tanks and neocon hideaways where Russia’s economic integration with Europe (and the eventual emergence of a free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok) was seen as “real and present danger” to Washington’s voracious lust for global power.

These same elites settled on Ukraine as the launching pad for their war on Russia despite the fact that Ukraine would ultimately face disintegration as part of a Moscow-imposed final settlement and despite the fact that all of Europe would be plunged into another Dark Ages of energy and food scarcity, widespread deindustrialization and third-world destitution. Check out this quote from foreign policy giant George Kennan, who authored America’s “containment” strategy that was used during the Cold War. Here’s what he told the New York Times in 1998:

‘I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.” (“Blame the Deep State for Carnage in Ukraine”, George D O’Neill jr, The American Conservative)

Have you wondered why respected foreign policy analysts like George Kennan, former Sec-Def William Perry, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack F. Matlock Jr. all oppose NATO membership for Ukraine?

Have you ever asked yourself why a foreign policy mandarin like John Mearsheimer would put his reputation on the chopping block to inform the people that if the policy persists Ukraine will be obliterated and the US will likely end up in a nuclear war with Russia? Here’s Mearsheimer:

“The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked… What we’re doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. We’re encouraging the Ukrainians to think that they’ll ultimately become part of the west because we will ultimately defeat the Russians…. And, of course, the Ukrainians are playing along with this and the Ukrainians are almost completely unwilling to compromise with the Russians and, instead, want to pursue a hardline policy. Well, as I said to you before, if they do that the end result is that their country is going to be wrecked. And, what we are doing is, in effect, encouraging that outcome.” John Mearsheimer, “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path”, You Tube, 1:32

The United States is deliberately misleading Ukraine so it can use its territory to prosecute its war on Russia. It is a cynical manipulation tantamount to genocide.

The US has no vital national security interests in Ukraine nor does it care whether its cities and people are pounded into oblivion.

What matters to Washington is delivering a blow to Russia, seducing Russia into a conflict that will cause it to “overextend itself militarily or economically” (Rand), thus, rendering it incapable of projecting power beyond its borders. That’s the goal, and that has always been the goal, to “weaken Russia”. None of this has anything to do with Ukraine or the Ukrainian people. It’s all about power; pure, unalloyed geopolitical power.

Bottom line: Foreign policy elites and their globalist allies have decided that the only way to arrest America’s accelerating economic decline and preserve the nation’s role as the world’s preeminent superpower, is through the use of military force.

Clearly, that decision has already been made. What we’re seeing in Ukraine (and soon Taiwan) is further evidence that America’s hawkish powerbrokers are not going to relinquish their exalted position in the world without a fight. They are going to use every weapon in their arsenal to maintain their vice-like grip on power. This tells us that the transition away from the “rules-based system” will not be quick or bloodless. And– despite optimistic predictions to the contrary– there’s nothing inevitable about the “multipolar world”. Its emergence depends entirely on a war that is just beginning and whose outcome is still unknown.

*

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 from TUR

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

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

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

***

While the United States’ European allies are now fighting aggressive American subsidies (a crisis that risks dividing the political West), Taiwan, another US ally, also faces Washington’s protectionism. This fits into the US pattern of hurting close allies in many different ways.

Biden and Apple’s CEO Tim Cook are visiting Arizona on December 6 to launch the $12 billion American plant of chip giant TSMC – it is the company’s first advanced chip in the US. The US $52 billion chip subsidy bill (passed in July) has been described as vital to the construction of the TSMC plant in Arizona. This will basically transfer Taiwan’s productivity and its most advanced technology to the US and such news has not been well received in Taiwan.

Journalist Zhang Zhouxiang has described this new development as TSMC draining itself. According to him, Taiwan is moving “high-end jobs” away, which hurts Taiwanese economy.

Semiconductors play a key role in cybersecurity and military applications. Since the pandemic, there has been a shortage of chips (semiconductors) and earlier this year the US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo described this situation as a “national security” issue.

Regarding chips, national interests and national security concerns are thus often intertwined. The British government has basically imposed a semiconductor blockage on China, by having taken actions to retrospectively block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab (one of the country’s largest semiconductors plants) to Nexperia, a Dutch company owned by China’s Wingtech. Just days before, the German government had blocked the sale of Elmos Semiconductor’s factory to Silex, a Swedish subsidiary of China’s Sai Microelectronics. In both Germany and Britain concerns about security and economic as well as technological sovereignty have been voiced. There are also concerns about the possible outflow of technical know-how.

Likewise, as part of the ongoing New Cold War, the US government, in early October, banned Chinese companies from purchasing (without a license) both chip-making equipment and advanced chips. Singapore’s foreign minister Vivian Balakrishnan went so far as to describe the American ban as “all but a declaration of a technology war”. Former US Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers has also described the American chip restrictions as a “de facto declaration of economic war” (against China), and added that it is a “disproportionate response”.

Chipmaking has been a new front in American-Chinese tensions, and now, with the aforementioned German and British decision, tensions are also escalating in Europe. Such European decisions are also the result of Washington’s pressure, according to Xiaomeng Lu, director of geo‑technology at Eurasia Group.

In February, amid the escalation of tensions between Beijing and Washington over Taiwan, I wrote on how Taiwan stands between the two superpowers in their technological competition. Amid the ongoing chip race, many different countries have introduced incentives to foster the semiconductors’ industry. Taiwan is the planet’s largest chip manufacturer and is also the center of Chinese-US tensions today. This is the ironic context of TSMC’s Arizona move.

It is increasingly difficult today to insulate industries from geopolitical disputes. Beijing aspires to become a tech superpower, something which American political elites will not tolerate. Although the  Chinese semiconductor industry has been growing quite quickly, it still remains behind the cutting edge in chips, largely due to American efforts to block Chinese endeavors to acquire the necessary equipment and know-how.

However, the American economic war on Beijing in fact endangers the global microchip industry itself and increases the risk of butterfly effects, China being a key part of the globalized world. Moreover, while the US never  had an intensive economic relationship with its Soviet rival during the old Cold War, China today remains the United States’ third largest market for exports. In addition, as historian and foreign-policy analyst Max Boot has remarked, a single factory in China, Foxconn, is reported to produce about half the world’s iPhones, for example. This being so, according to Boot, while Washington does not want to see any Western technology being “transferred” to the Chinese military, it can’t, on the other hand, endanger supply chains for chips and other vital parts.

Moreover, the so-called American “chip war” and its export curbs can in fact bring record losses for Taiwanese, Japanese and South Korean makers (all of these nations being US allies).

Washington’s aggressive subsidies and protectionism have arguably stopped the country from rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a trade agreement among 12 Asia-Pacific nations). Its Inflation Reduction Act in turn has alienated important allies such as Germany and France – the very states Washington counts on in its plans to counter China.

Harvard professor William Overholt has stated that today the US “wants everybody to join economic alliances” with them, while not giving anything in return. Meanwhile, ironically, Communist-Party ruled China, according to him, has promoted freer trade and investment around the world.

With the Belt and Road Initiative, among others, geoeconomics has been the very core of Beijing’s geostrategic approaches. Washington, in turn, has been dangerously weaponizing its economic and financial policies to “counter” China and Russia, also hurting close allies in the process. The irony is that the more the US employs economic leverage to aggressively coerce other states, the greater the incentive to come up with alternatives against Washington.

To sum it up, currently, the US is overextended and overburdened, trying to simultaneously encircle and contain both Moscow and Beijing. Its aggressive protectionism in turn has been enraging and alienating important allies, such as the EU and Taiwan. All of this signals the decline of the American superpower and of the US-led global order.

*

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.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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.

***

“Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics called for NATO to allow Ukraine to conduct strikes inside Russian territory, adding the alliance should not fear Moscow’s response. The White House has resisted sending Kiev missiles with the range to hit targets inside Russia.

“During an interview on the sidelines of  NATO summit in Romania, Rinkevics stated ‘we should allow Ukrainians to use weapons to target missile sites or air fields from where those operations are being launched.’ Allies ‘should not fear’ escalation from Moscow, he added. ”

See this.

Escalation is proceeding as it did in Vietnam.  A Washington puppet would not have voiced a provocative proposal without Washington’s permission. By “inside Russia” Rinkevics means territory beyond the territory Russia recently reincorporated.  He is calling for widening the war by crossing a red line that President Putin could not ignore.

It is, of course, Washington that has widened the Kremlin’s limited military operation into an ever larger war with increasing Western participation.  But it was President Putin’s decision in favor of a slow moving limited war, which did not hamper Ukraine’s ability to fight the war, that enabled Washington to widen the war.  Washington had plenty of time to create the narrative and control the explanation of the war.  Washington’s propaganda created sympathy for Ukraine and hatred of Russia. What the Kremlin needed was a quick decisive victory and a new Ukrainian government before Washington had time to react.

More importantly, by entering the conflict with insufficient soldiers and no reserves, the extended Russian lines became indefensible.  Russian pullbacks were used in the West to create the impression that Russia could be defeated.  The UK Telegraph even wrote a few days go that Ukraine would be in Crimea by Christmas.

The belief that Russia can be defeated will prevent realistic negotiations and will encourage more provocations that sooner or later will cross a red line that cannot be ignored. The go-slow limited military action is a certain path to wider war.  Before long Washington will be too involved, too committed to step back.  Far from being limited, the conflict is leading to nuclear confrontation.  If the Kremlin cannot find the wisdom to quickly bring the conflict to an end, it will spin out of control.

The Kremlin seems to be having a difficult time recognizing reality.  For many months the Kremlin has been complaining about each new “indirect” participation by the US/NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has recently elevated this complaint to “direct participation.”  In other words, the Kremlin has finally acknowledged that the US/NATO are at war with Russia. See this.

Lavrov admits that the risk of escalaion into nuclear war is enormous.

So why doesn’t the Kremlin do what it should have done long ago and bring the conflict to a quick close by destroying the infrastructure that permits Ukraine to continue the war and replace Zelensky, an American puppet, with a leader friendly to Russia?

Conflict became inevitable when the Kremlin stood aside and permitted Washington to overthrow the Ukrainian government and install a puppet. The conflict moved forward when the Kremlin refused the Donbass’ request to be reincorporated into Russia along with Crimea.  In 2014 I said that this mistake would result in war.  When the conflict began last February, it was clear that anything but a quick decisive Russian victory would result in US/NATO involvement.

For the Kremlin the lessons remain unlearned.  More pointless complaints, ignored by the West, issue from the Kremlin while its spokesman gives assurances that Russia has no intention of removing Zelensky.

There seems to be no Kremlin decision to correct the highly unfavorable situation the Kremlin has created for itself.

Leaders don’t like to admit mistakes.  This is especially the case when leaders decide on a course of action based on moral considerations, which Putin did.  He tried for eight years to keep Donbass in Ukraine with the Minsk Agreement that Ukraine and the West refused to keep. He decided on a  military operation limited to clearing Ukrainian soldiers out of the Donbass republics, and refused to invade and conquer Ukraine. Not desiring a ruined and poverty-stricken Ukraine on Russia’s border, Putin  left secure until very recently Ukrainian power, water, and transportation infrastructure that permitted Ukraine, armed and trained by the West, to engage in a full-scale war that the Kremlin pretended to itself was limited. But from what Putin recently told Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, these recent  infrastructure attacks are not components of a revised Russian war policy.  They are tit for tat exercises. Putin explained the attacks on Ukrainian war-enabling infrastructure as retaliation for attacks on the Crimea bridge and Nord Stream pipelines. See this.

In other words, it seems that the Kremlin’s policy is to kick the can down the road. Putin is still wedded to his limited damage operation to free the areas that wish to escape the tyranny of the neo-Nazi Ukrainian government, and Putin still lacks the realization that Washington’s involvement has cancelled his “limited military operation.”  If Putin fails to realize that he is in a war and to use the necessary force to bring it to a quick end, he will lose control of the situation.

Putin’s intentions were good, but suffered from a lack of realism.  The Kremlin must have assumed that it was the only player on the chessboard.

The Kremlin’s mistakes have compounded.  Possibly the Kremlin has left it too long, but unless the Kremlin is content with something like a demilitarized zone and an unresolved conflict like in Korea, the alternative of knocking out Ukraine in 48 hours and installing a new government could end the conflict before Washington escalates it further.

Waiting has never paid off for Putin.  Waiting let Washington train and equip  a large Ukrainian army.

More waiting is letting NATO build a large army on Russia’s border, expanding the NATO force from 40,000 to 300,000 according to NATO’s Secretary General.

A NATO member’s top general says US troops are combat ready on Russia’s border, ready to “fight immediately.” See this.

The Kremlin’s confusion and indecisiveness guarantees a larger war.

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image: Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

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

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

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

***

The US Army has awarded Raytheon a $1.2 billion contract to produce an air defense system for Ukraine as part of US military aid for the country.

The contract is for six National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS), a system the US recently began providing Ukraine. The funds for the contract are coming from the fifth package from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which allows the US to purchase arms for Kyiv.

NASAMS typically take 24 months to produce, but the US Army said it will work to expedite the timeline. Either way, the systems will likely take at least about two years to deliver, demonstrating how the US is planning to support Ukraine against Russia in the long term.

Raytheon, the former employer of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, has benefited greatly from the US’s Ukraine policy. The company, and other US defense contractors, are getting contracts to make weapons for Ukraine, to replenish US military stockpiles, and for US allies in Europe.

Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes said last week that the US is looking to send NASMS deployed in the Middle East to Ukraine. “There are NASAMS deployed across the Middle East, and some of our NATO allies and we [the US] are actually working with a couple of Middle Eastern countries that currently employ NASAMS and trying to direct those back up to Ukraine,” Hayes said, according to POLITICO.

If NASMS in the Middle East are sent to Ukraine, Hayes said those systems would then be backfilled with new ones, meaning more contracts for Raytheon. Hayes said that sending already deployed NASMS gets the system into Ukraine’s hands much faster than producing new systems. “Just because it takes 24 months to build, it doesn’t mean it’s going to take 24 months to get in country,” he said.

*

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

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image:  Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor at White Sands Missile Range. Image: Raytheon Missiles & Defense

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

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

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

***

Until the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Professor John Mearsheimer was mainly known in academic circles as a leading scholar in the “realist” school of foreign policy. That is to say, he takes an unsentimental view of world affairs as being a muscular competition between great powers for regional hegemony.

But with the Ukrainian “Maidan revolution” in 2014 and then the Russian invasion this February, he became a figurehead for the millions of people worldwide who have misgivings about the wisdom of Western actions in Ukraine. A single lecture delivered in 2015 entitled “Why is Ukraine the West’s fault” has been viewed a staggering 28 million times on YouTube.

His central argument, that by expanding Nato eastwards and inviting Ukraine to join the bloc, the West (and in particular the United States) created an intolerable situation for Vladimir Putin which would inevitably result in Russia taking action to “wreck” Ukraine, is politically unsayable today. His critics denounce him as a Putin apologist; his supporters, however, believe the invasion was proof that he was right all along.

When I meet Mearsheimer, I am keen to focus on what we have learned since the February invasion began. I want to know how can he still maintain that there is “no evidence” that Russia had ambitions to conquer Ukraine? How else are we to interpret that shocking moment when it became clear that the Russians were launching a full-scale invasion — from the North, the South and the East of the country?

“The Russians invaded Ukraine with 190,000 troops at the very most,” he replies. “They made no effort to conquer all of Ukraine. They didn’t even come close. There is no way they could have conquered Ukraine with 190,000 troops. And they didn’t have the troops in reserve to do that. When the Germans invaded Poland, in 1939, they invaded with 1.5 million troops. That’s the size army you need to conquer a country like Ukraine, occupy it and then incorporate it into a greater Russia. You need a massive army. This was a limited aim strategy.”

In which case, what was that limited aim?

“What the Russians have said they have wanted from the beginning is a neutral Ukraine. And if they can’t get a neutral Ukraine, what they’re going to do is create a dysfunctional rump state… They’ve taken a huge swath of territory in the East, they’ve annexed those oblasts that are now part of Russia. And at the same time, they’re destroying Ukrainian infrastructure. They’re wrecking the Ukrainian economy. It’s sickening to see what’s happening to Ukraine.”

This assessment of the situation on the ground is very different from the reports we hear every day of Ukrainian successes and Russian retreats. The underdog nation, by most accounts, is performing astonishingly well against the aggressor.

Mearsheimer concedes that he was surprised by how poorly the Russians have performed, but that doesn’t seem to have affected his assessment of the realpolitik. I put it to him that the progress of the Ukraine war thus far can be seen as a repudiation of his “realist” theory of international affairs. The smaller power is outperforming the greater, in part through the sheer moral conviction of its people defending their homeland — evidence, surely, of the intangible moral element that is missing from his coldly “realist” world view?

“The key word here is nationalism,” he responds. “There’s no doubt that when the Russians invaded Ukraine, nationalism came racing to the fore, and that Ukrainian nationalism is a force multiplier. There’s also no doubt that nationalism is not part of the realist theory of international politics that I have, but nationalism is consistent with realism. Nationalism and Realism fit together rather neatly. But the point you want to remember is that Nationalism is also at play on the Russian side. And the more time goes by, and the more the Russians feel that the West has its gun sights on Russia, and is trying to not only defeat Russia, but knock Russia out of the ranks of the great powers, the more Russian nationalism will kick in. You want to be very careful not to judge the outcome of this war at this particular juncture. This war has got a long time to go and it’s going to play itself out in ways that are hard to predict. But I think there is a good chance that in the end, the Russians will prevail.”

Bleakly, Mearsheimer now believes that the opportunity for peace has been lost, and that there is no realistic deal that could be reached in Ukraine. Russia will not surrender the gains made in Eastern Ukraine, while the West cannot tolerate their continued occupation; meanwhile, a neutral Ukraine is also impossible, as the only power capable of guaranteeing that neutrality is the US, which would of course be intolerable to Russia. As he puts it, succinctly:

“There are no realistic options. We’re screwed.”

He believes that escalation is likely, and the chance of a nuclear event is “non-trivial”. He lays out his rationale for why the Russians might well go there, step by step:

“If the Russians were to use nuclear weapons, the most likely scenario is that they would use them in Ukraine. And Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons of its own. So the Ukrainians would not be able to retaliate against the Russians with their own nuclear weapons. So that weakens deterrence. Furthermore, if the Russians use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the West, and here we’re talking mainly about the United States, is not going to retaliate with nuclear weapons against Russia, because that would lead to a general thermonuclear war.”

Western restraint cannot be relied upon in this scenario, he concedes, and the chances of catastrophic escalation remain strong, which is why he considers the current rhetoric among Western leaders about defeating Russia “foolish”.

The British are “major cheerleaders” for the policy, by his assessment, pushing the United States into stronger action. “I think the British are being remarkably foolish, just like I think, the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Americans.”

Sweden and Finland meanwhile, with their Nato membership bids, are only making the situation more dangerous. The idea that Russia is poised to invade either Finland or Sweden is a “figment of the West’s imagination” and their membership of the security pact will only heighten Russia’s sense that it is being deliberately encircled. He believes their applications should be rejected, and that nobody should have the “right” to join a security pact like Nato.

Mearsheimer’s logic all points in the same direction: if there is no peace deal now possible in Ukraine, the only logical outcome is ongoing fighting; ongoing fighting will logically lead to escalation, particularly if Russia appears to be losing; and escalation may very well eventually take a nuclear form, at which point a great power nuclear conflict becomes a real possibility.

A more positive eventual outcome than this, of course, will falsify his theory and prove him wrong. I ask him, if the Ukraine conflict ends less badly — perhaps with Russia withdrawing or accepting a fudge, Ukraine strengthened and no nuclear event — will he admit he was wrong?

“Of course,” he says. “International Politics operates in a world of what I would call radical uncertainty, it’s very hard to figure out what the future looks like, it’s very hard to make predictions… Is there a possibility that the Russians will cave at some point? I think there’s a small possibility. I also think there’s a non-trivial chance that this will lead to nuclear war. And when you marry the consequences of nuclear war with the possibility, in my mind, that means you should be remarkably cautious. Let me illustrate this by this analogy. If I have a gun, and the barrel has 100 chambers, and I put five bullets in that barrel. And I say to you, Freddie, I’m gonna pull the trigger and put the gun up to your head. But don’t worry, there’s only a 5% chance that I will kill you… The question you have to ask yourself is, are you going to be nervous? Are you going to be scared stiff? …The consequences here involve nuclear war. So there only has to be a small probability that John is right.”

The common critique of this line of argument is that it becomes hard to see how the behaviour of a nuclear power could ever be curtailed. The bully could always wield the threat of nuclear disaster to get away with a new atrocity. And that logic also leads to disaster. So where would Mearsheimer draw the line? His answers are unambiguous.

First, he believes without hesitation that the existing Nato countries must be defended, notwithstanding the risks.

“The Baltic states are in Nato. Poland and Romania are in Nato. They have an article 5 guarantee. If the Russians were to attack those countries, we would have to come to the defence of those countries, there’s no question about that. I would support that.”

More surprisingly, on the subject of China and Taiwain, which you might think bears a resemblance to Russia and Ukraine as a smaller Western-backed entity in the orbit of a rival regional hegemon, he takes the opposite view.

“I have a fundamentally different view on China than I do on Russia. And therefore, my thinking about Taiwan is different from my thinking about Ukraine. I believe that China is a peer competitor of the United States, and that it threatens to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. … From an American point of view, that’s unacceptable. And I think that’s correct. I think the United States should not want China to dominate Asia, the way we dominate the western hemisphere. So we’re going to go to great lengths to contain China. And for purposes of containing China, it is important for us to defend Taiwan.”

Mearsheimerism, then, is not quite what either his followers or his detractors might think it is. It is not an anti-war doctrine (his branch of “Offensive Realism” specifically sees aggression as a necessary part of great powers’ survival); nor is it fundamentally sceptical of American power. He supports American power being projected in its interests, but believes that the war in Ukraine is a distraction from the real threat, which is China, and worse, will drive Russia into the arms of China when it is in America’s interests to drive them apart.

A week before we met, Isaac Chotiner published a transcript of a telephone interview with Mearsheimer in the New Yorker. It was ostensibly about Ukraine, but Chotiner pushed Mearsheimer to talk about his recent meeting with Viktor Orbán. Which he refused to do. The effect was to imply that he was covering up murky friendships in the illiberal (and Russia-sympathetic) fringes of Europe.

Mearsheimer tells me, which he refused to do on the phone to Chontiner, that he was in Hungary to promote the translation of his latest book The Great Delusion, and that the prime minister and president requested a meeting via the publisher. He says he jumped at the chance, and ended up having a three-hour conversation with Orbán.

“I was very interested in talking to him for two reasons. One, I was interested in hearing his views on Ukraine, and how his views compare to the views of other European leaders and where he thought this was all headed. But I was also very interested in talking to him about nationalism and liberalism, the relationship between those two isms, this is one of the central themes in my book. What I have in common with Orbán is he thinks nationalism is a very important force, obviously, and I agree with him. But where I disagree with him is I think that liberalism is a very powerful force, and it’s all for the good. He, on the other hand, detests liberalism, so what he sees is liberalism and nationalism as polar opposites, and he favours nationalism, and wants to crush liberalism. I, on the other hand, see nationalism and liberalism as two ideologies that differ in important ways, but nevertheless, can coexist.”

Is he not worried that, whatever the content, by having those kinds of meetings, he will start to be seen as an activist with a political agenda more than an observer and an analyst?

“I’m not an activist, I’m an academic, I’m a scholar. And this is part of my research. My goal is to understand what’s going on in Europe… I’m not condoning Victor Orbán’s policies, or condemning them, I’m simply talking to him to understand what is going on in his mind and what is going on in Hungary and what is going on in Europe more generally… The fact that people are trying to smear me because I talked to Viktor Orbán is hardly surprising in the context that we now operate, because people are really not that interested these days in talking about facts and logic. What they prefer to do is to smear people who they disagree with.”

It is perhaps not surprising that Mearsheimer’s brand of cold realism has become popular in our increasingly multipolar, competitive world. But there is an impassive, observational quality to it which sounds negative and even cynical to the progressive ear. I ask him whether this uncertain, multipolar world is here to stay and if so, is that a good thing?

“I think it’s definitely here to stay. And I think it’s more dangerous than the Cold War was. I was born and raised during the Cold War, and the world was bipolar at that point in time… During the Cold War, we had the United States and the Soviet Union. During the Unipolar Moment, you just had the sole pole, the United States. And today, you have three great powers, the United States, China, and Russia. Now, you could not have great power politics in the unipolar world, because there was only one great power. What we have today, with the US-China competition in East Asia, and the US-Russia competition, mainly over Ukraine, is two conflict dyads. They’re separate conflict dyads — US-China, US-Russia. I would argue that not only do you have two instead of one, each one of those dyads is more dangerous than the conflict dyad in the Cold War.

“The United States and Russia are almost at war in Ukraine, and we can hypothesise plausible scenarios where the United States ends up fighting against Russia in Ukraine. And then we talked about the US-China competition and the problems associated with Taiwan. And Taiwan is not the only flashpoint in East Asia, there’s also the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Korean peninsula. So you can imagine a war breaking out between the United States and China in East Asia, and a war breaking out in Ukraine involving the United States and Russia, I think more easily than you could imagine a war breaking out during the Cold War in Europe, or in East Asia involving the United States and the Soviet Union.

So I think we live in more dangerous times today than we did during the Cold War, and certainly than we did during the Unipolar Moment. And I think if anything, this situation is only going to get worse.”

I really hope you’re wrong, I say.

“I hope I’m wrong too,” he replies.

*

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.

Freddie Sayers is the Executive Editor of UnHerd. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of YouGov, and founder of PoliticsHome.

Featured image is from Mediaite

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 state visit by French President Emmanuel Macron to the United States stands out as a signpost of the alignments taking place against the backdrop of the historic churning in the world order. The two leaders went to extraordinary lengths to display bonhomie but how far that impressed  the two statesmen — Macron, an erudite mind and the most vocal European statesman on his continent’s integration and strategic autonomy vis-a-vis the US, and Biden, a veteran of international diplomacy — time will show.

Macron already marked his profound difference with the US stance on Ukraine, a topic that dominated his visit, in a remark in Paris on Saturday after his return, during an interview for the French channel TF1. Macron said, 

“We must think about the security architecture, in which we will live tomorrow. I am talking, in particular, about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words that NATO is approaching Russia’s borders and deploys weapons that could threaten it. This issue will be a part of the peace discussions, and we must prepare for what will come after [the Ukrainian conflict], and think how we could protect our allies and, at the same time, provide Russia with guarantees of its own security, once the sides return to the negotiation table.” 

Macron made the above remark as the countdown begins for an expected large-scale Russian winter offensive in Ukraine. 

While the Joint Statement issued after Macron’s visit shows that the US and France are on the same page in their criticism of Moscow’s conduct of the war in Ukraine, the nuances in the respective articulation by the two leaders during their joint press conferencecannot be missed. 

Biden, of course, tore into Putin, personally holding him responsible, but Macron held back. Interestingly, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also may have marked his distance from Biden by initiating a call with Putin on Friday, his second in a row in successive months. 

The readout from Moscow highlighted that while Scholz criticised Russia’s conduct of the conflict, he went on to discuss other issues with Putin and they agreed to keep in touch. 

Both France and Germany are greatly concerned about a possible escalation of the war in Ukraine whereas the US is focused on supporting Kiev “for as long as it takes.” 

Macron highlighted France’s 3-pronged approach: “Help Ukraine resist”; “Prevent any risk of escalation in this conflict”; and, “make sure that, when the time comes, on basis of conditions to be set by Ukrainians themselves, help build peace.” But Biden was categorical that “there is one way for this war to end the rational way: Putin to pull out of Ukraine.”

Macron maintained  that

“We need to work on what could lead to a peace agreement, but it is for him [Ukrainian president Zelensky] to tell us when the time comes and what the choices of the Ukrainians are.” 

Macron indirectly stressed the need for flexibility, saying,

“If we want a sustainable peace, we have to respect the Ukrainians to decide the moment and the conditions in which they will negotiate about their territory and their future.” 

Curiously, Biden never once mentioned Zelensky, whereas, Macon openly commended “the efforts of President Zelensky to try and find a way, a path to peace while leading the heroic resistance.” 

Macron stressed,

“I believe, very much need to continue to engage with him [Zelensky] because there is a genuine willingness, on behalf of Ukraine, to discuss these matters.  And we acknowledge it, and we commend it.”  

Apart from Ukraine, as expected, Macron’s main concern was the recent Inflation Reduction Act, a $369 billion package of subsidies and tax breaks enacted by the Biden Administration to boost American green businesses, which, from a European perspective, constitutes a protectionist measure that encourages companies to shift investments from Europe and incentivises customers to “Buy American”. 

Only a month remains before the final provisions of the US law enter into force on January 1. Germany and France have hit back by joining forces to back a French push for a more subsidy-based EU industrial policy. 

At the White House talks with Macron, Biden conceded that there were “glitches” in the roll-out of America’s multi-billion-dollar package of green subsidies. To quote Biden,

“There’s tweaks that we can make that can fundamentally make it easier for European countries to participate and, or be on their own, but that is something that is a matter to be worked out.” 

The remark, perhaps, allows Macron to claim a takeaway from his visit. But how far Biden’s words get turned into practice remains to be seen, as chances of Congress amending the law is debatable, especially as Republicans are set to take narrow control of the House. 

Clearly, the Biden-Macron meeting does not include a breakthrough on Europe’s concerns. Biden’s basic stance is that “United States makes no apology,” since the IRA legislation aims to “make sure that the United States continues… not to have to rely on anybody else’s supply chain. We’re — we are our own supply chain.” 

Macron noted that he had “some very frank discussions.” He stressed,

“France simply did not come to ask for an exemption or another for — for our economy but simply to discuss the consequences of this legislation… We will continue to move forward as Europeans.  And we’re not here simply, really, to ask for ‘proof of love’.”  

The Americans are making a fortune from the Ukraine war — selling more gas to Europe at vastly higher prices and boosting arms exports to NATO countries who have supplied military hardware to Ukraine. The EU countries are suffering when the war in Ukraine is tipping them into recession, with inflation rocketing and a devastating squeeze on energy supplies threatening blackouts and rationing this winter.

The greening of America at the cost of European industry casts  shadows on the Indo-Pacific strategy. The recent visits by Scholz and Charles Michel, president of the European Council, to Beijing in quick succession underscores that the tensions in the transatlantic alliance as a fallout of the Ukraine war have a spillover effect. 

Macron’s visit to Washington showed that France’s main interest lies in “building resilience in the Pacific Islands.” Apropos China, the Biden-Macron joint statement had nothing new to announce. It resorted to a balanced formulation that the US and France will “continue to coordinate on our concerns regarding China’s challenge to the rules-based international order, including respect for human rights, and to work together with China on important global issues like climate change.” 

On Taiwan, the joint statement simply reaffirmed “the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” Conceivably, the crushing defeat Tsai Ing-wen suffered in the recent Taiwanese local elections had a sobering effect. 

At any rate, in their respective opening remarks at the press conference on the Indo-Pacific strategy, while Biden limited himself to an anodyne remark or two, Macron simply glossed over the subject.

Beijing must be quietly pleased that Michel picked Thursday for his visit. President Xi Jinping appreciated the EU’s ‘“goodwill of furthering relations with China.” Xi noted that the more unstable the international situation becomes and the more acute challenges the world faces, the greater global significance China-EU relations take on.

The EU’s foreign policy is at a juncture on whether to confront or cooperate with China. Global Times wrote that Michel’s visit “sent a signal that represents rational voices, that is, refusing to follow the US and treat China primarily through a political and ideological perspective…What the US wants is hegemony, but Europe wants survival, and the EU cannot achieve that without China.”

The bottom line is that as the conflict in Ukraine escalates, the neocons in the Biden Administration may feel elated, but the incipient tensions in the transatlantic relations can only aggravate. 

*

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: French President Emmanuel Macron (R) and US President Joe Biden met in the White House, Washington, DC, Dec. 1, 2022 (Source: Indian Punchline)

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.

***

“Ditto,” said Tweedledum.
“Ditto, ditto!” cried Tweedledee.
– Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking-Glass

Sometimes a trifling contretemps can open a window onto significant issues.

As a case in point, The New York Times, a newspaper that regularly publishes U.S. propaganda without a bit of shame or remorse, recently reported on a controversy involving Simon & Schuster and Bob Dylan’s new book, The Philosophy of Modern Song. The report with the same information was repeated across the media.

The publishing company had offered limited-edition, authenticated, hand-signed copies of the book for $600 each.  Nine Hundred collectors and die-hard fans bought a copy, many, no doubt, caught in hero worship and the thought that a Dylan-penned signature would grant them a bit of his fame through the touch of his hand upon their lives.

The quest for immortality takes many forms, and the laying on of hands, even when done remotely through a signature, has long been a popular form of sleight-of-hand.

I once shook hands with an Elvis hologram impersonator and the thrill vibrated for days.

But these Dylan aficionados noticed something strange about the signatures: They didn’t seem to be actual signatures individually written with a pen by Dylan. As anyone knows from their own handwriting, no two signatures are the same, since the human hand is not a copy machine.  These signatures were identical.

It turned out that those who smelled a deception were right.  Under pressure from astute purchasers, Simon & Schuster had to come clean – sort of.  They offered to refund all purchasers for the deception. They released the following statement:

To those who purchased The Philosophy of Modern Song limited edition, we want to apologize. As it turns out, the limited editions books do contain Bob’s original signature, but in a penned replica form. We are addressing this immediately by providing each purchaser with an immediate refund.

This statement is a perfect example of double-talk, and more.

Then Dylan also apologized, saying that he used an auto-pen since he was suffering from vertigo and “during the pandemic, it was impossible to sign anything and the vertigo didn’t help.”  His apology seems sincere compared to the publisher’s double-talk, but then again, so did his signatures.  And the controversy has spread to the limited edition prints of his artwork.

“Limited edition prints” – a deception in itself, as if limiting the number of copies of an original painting makes them more original.  Ten dittos instead of eleven.

However, I am not primarily concerned with the nuances of this tempest in a teapot, which might disappear as fast as yesterday’s bluster, or it may forever tarnish Dylan’s reputation, which would be a shame if it also damaged the genuine greatness of his songs.

I would like to focus on the following matters that I have seen through its window: language usage, a society of copies, reading texts closely, and the degradation of literacy, all of which are tangled together with non-stop government propaganda disseminated by the corporate mass media to form a major social issue.

First, language.  Note in the Simon & Schuster apology the words: “As it turns out, the limited editions books do contain Bob’s original signature, but in a penned replica form.”  This is a clear deception twice over.  The books do not contain original signatures; they contain machine copies of it.  Phrasing it that way allows the company to plead innocent while also apologizing for its innocence as if they consider themselves guilty.  What exactly are they saying they are apologizing for?  Deceptions dittoed?

And the phrase “As it turns out,” implies that Simon & Schuster was surprised that the signatures were machine generated, which is highly improbable.  It also suggests they are not responsible; such verbiage approximates the common, passive introductory phrase “it so happens” or the equally non-literate “hopefully” to begin a sentence.

“It so happens” that I am writing these words and “it so happens” that you are reading them…as if we are victims of our own free choices.  Passive language for victims of fate who have learned to write and talk this way to avoid responsibility even for their own hope, as in: “I hope.”  Or maybe the widespread copycat use of “hopefully” is an unconscious attempt to deny pervasive hopelessness.  No matter how many times you repeat something doesn’t make it true.

The use of such language is a reflection of an age in which determinism has for decades been repeatedly promulgated to extinguish people’s belief in freedom.  Ditto: Saying “the exact same” doesn’t make the same more same through redundancy.  You can’t get any more same than same since same means identical, or any more opposite than opposite even if you say “the exact opposite.”  The English language is suffering.

To top it off, an esteemed book publishing company nearly a century old concludes with a sentence that a high school freshman – circa 1960 before all the dumbing-down of schooling – would realize was redundant with the words “immediately” (misplaced) and “immediate,” as if repetition would emphasize their contrition. “We are addressing this immediately by providing each purchaser with an immediate refund.”  Ditto.

But who notices these things?

Discerning readers – whether of the examples above or of a subtle controlled-opposition media article suggesting one thing while meaning another – are becoming rarer and rarer. Ideology, political party allegiances, and plain stupidity block many from grasping propaganda and media claims made out of thin air.

Anonymous sources, subtle phrasing, real or imagined intelligence sources, the use of words such as may, might, possible, could be, etc., are a staple of so much writing and broadcast news that they fly by people used to the speed of the digital life with texting and internet browsing where repetition and copying are king.  Yes, speed kills in so many ways.  The repetition of talking points across the major corporate media, something carefully studied and confirmed years ago, has become so obvious to anyone who chooses to take the time to investigate.  It’s not hard to do but few bother; they are too “busy.”  Thus propaganda and gibberish pass unnoticed.

Just as “The Real McCoy” (see the opening “Refrain” of Hillel Schwartz’ The Culture of the Copy) was a fake and the phrase came to represent the genuine to supposedly confirm authenticity, we are now living in an era of the counterfeit everywhere. Counterfeits of counterfeits.  Imposters.  Actors playing actors. Counterfeit traitors. Fabricated reality and copies of copies.  Ditto.  Ditto.  Ditto.  Lies about not lying.  (See The New York Times’, The Guardian’s, etc. deceptive, hypocritical, and self-serving joint letter asking the U.S government to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.)

The Dylan controversy is a very minor example of a major issue that is little appreciated for its devastating impact on society.

For another minor example, we may ask how many times does one have to see the replay of Christian Pulisic’s recent goal against Iran in the 2022 World Cup to grasp its brilliance and to see that he was injured?  Two, three, five, ten?  And this is a sporting event, not some mall shooting or serious issue of war.  In a digital high-tech world repetition is the norm.  What does repetition do to the mind?

What does repetition do to the mind?

Despite the great sportsmanship shown by the players from both the U.S. and Iran on the pitch, U.S. Men’s Soccer executives, by deleting the Islamic Republic emblem from Iran’s flag on its social media sites, and the U.S. media tried repeatedly to politicize the game into a battle between the good Americans and the evil Iranians, even while a U.S. regime change color revolution was being attempted on the streets of Iran.

What does repetitious propaganda do to the mind?

Technology has not just allowed for machine signatures but has made us in many ways machine people who need to be hammered over the head time and again – and to like it. To go back again and again for more.  Everything but life has become repeatable.

Scott Fitzgerald’s Gatsby’s reply to Nick’s statement In The Great Gatsby – “You can’t repeat the past,” Nick tells Gatsby, who responds, “Can’t repeat the past? Why, off course you can!” – perfectly captures the “reality” of a digital screen culture of illusions in which many people have unconsciously come to believe that you can instantly replay life as well.

Indeed, to make people into machines is the goal of trans-humanists Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum with its Great Reset and the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda. Artificial intelligence (AI) for artificial people.  While there are innocent examples of repetition, the use of it is a fundamental tactic of propaganda, whether that be through words or images. And we are drowning in repeated media/government propaganda about the U.S. war against Russia in Ukraine, Covid19, Iran, China, Syria, etc.

It’s as easy as pie to innocently repeat, as I learned recently when my wife asked me to use her cell phone to take a photograph. Bumpkin that I am who despises these machines, rather than briefly hitting the button I held it down for a few seconds and took the same photo 67 ½ times.  It just so happened.

But the propagandists’ repetitions are no accident.  You can’t condemn Julian Assange year after year for posting U.S. war crimes – the Afghanistan War Logs – and then try to save your own ass after the man has been persecuted for more than a decade and counting.  The media who did this and then wrote the recent letter are counterfeit traitors to the truth and agents of the war criminals.  To call them journalists is to misuse language: They are imposters.

What does repetition do to the mind? asked Tweedledum to his identical twin Tweedledee.

Tweedledee replied, Look what it’s done to us.

*

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, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image is from Simon & Schuster

He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book, click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

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 30, the European Commission, the executive of the European Union, proposed “options to Member States to make sure that Russia is held accountable for the atrocities and crimes committed during the war in Ukraine.”

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission, in selective condemnation, tweeted “Russia must pay for its horrific crimes.”

Russia must pay for its horrific crimes.

We will work with the ICC and help set up a specialised court to try Russia’s crimes.

With our partners, we will make sure that Russia pays for the devastation it caused, with the frozen funds of oligarchs and assets of its central bank pic.twitter.com/RL4Z0dfVE9

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) November 30, 2022

The hypocrisy displayed by von der Leyen and the EU is nothing short of remarkable. It would seem the EU collective of unelected bureaucrats suffers from amnesia. Twenty four years ago, Bill Clinton and NATO mercilessly bombed Yugoslavia, targeting civilian infrastructure. Rick Rozoff enumerates the war crimes:

A passenger train, a religious procession, a refugee column, Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, a vacuum cleaner factory, bridges, marketplaces, apartment courtyards, the Swiss embassy in Belgrade and the Chinese embassy as well, with three journalists killed and 27 other Chinese injured. Cluster bombs, graphite bombs and depleted uranium ordnance were used widely. No one, not a single individual, has been held accountable for those war crimes. Nor for what should be a war crime and one of the most grave at that: intentionally fabricating and exaggerating atrocity stories to agitate for and escalate a war. Few Western politicians and journalists would have escaped that charge over their roles in 1999.

“There were aspects of the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia that were in breach of accepted norms of warfare, the greatest example being the bombing of the TV station. NATO deliberately targeted unarmed civilian non-combatants, that’s the bottom line,” Duncan Bullivant, author of a report on Kosovo for London’s Centre for European Reform, told the Irish Times in 2000.

No tribunal was organized for the psychopaths responsible for terrorizing and murdering Serbs. Bill Clinton, also responsible for attacking Iraq and killing civilians, in addition to making sure Iraqi children starved to death under a medieval sanctions regime, was not held responsible. In fact, he was described in “Churchillian tones” by aides and the corporate media. Clinton’s illegal and immoral bombing of the former Yugoslavia made George W. Bush’s criminal invasion of Iraq easier.

Because politicians and most of the media portrayed the war against Serbia as a moral triumph, it was easier for the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq, for the Obama administration to bomb Libya, and for the Trump administration to repeatedly bomb Syria. All of those interventions sowed chaos that continues cursing the purported beneficiaries.

Ursula von der Leyen and the EU have blood on their hands. European countries inserted Eurofighters, Tornados, MK 80 series bombs, and other munitions and death machines into the Yemen conflict. “Are European arms companies therefore aiding and abetting alleged war crimes committed by the military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Yemen?” asks the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.

Despite documented attacks on civilian homes, markets, hospitals and schools – conducted by the Saudi/UAE-led military coalition – transnational companies based in Europe continue to supply Saudi Arabia and the UAE with weapons, ammunition and logistical support. European government officials authorized the exports by granting licenses.

Despite ample evidence of war crimes, NATO and the USG received a free pass. “The United Nations’ chief war crimes prosecutor said today that there was no basis for a formal investigation into whether NATO committed war crimes during the bombing of Yugoslavia,” the New York Times reported on June 3, 2000.

NATO is the preferred executioner. Amnesty International, in 2014, criticized the USG and NATO for ignoring its numerous war crimes against civilians in Afghanistan.

NATO was also accused of committing war crimes in Libya. A report issued in 2012 by the Arab Organization for Human Rights, together with the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the International Legal Assistance Consortium, detailed wanton violation of human rights by NATO.

“Among civilian sites visited by the mission that had been struck by NATO bombs and missiles were schools and colleges, a Zliten regional food warehouse, the Office of the Administrative Controller in Tripoli, and private homes,” the report notes.

In November of  2011, “the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo, stated that ‘there are allegations of crimes committed by NATO forces (and) these allegations will be examined impartially and independently.’” The crimes include the “lynching” of Moammar Gaddafi, a brutal act that prompted a chortle from then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

No special commission was empaneled to look into these war crimes, although the ICC did order the arrest of Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, and other supporters. NATO refused to admit civilians were killed after 7,642 air-to-surface weapons were used.

“Although the prosecutor of the ICC said that he would investigate war crimes by both sides, the eagerness with which he seized on allegations of a policy by Gaddafi to encourage rape, with hundreds of victims, and the provision of ‘viagra-type medicaments’ to his forces, did nothing to enhance a perception of objectivity when they went unsubstantiated,” writes Ian Martin, the director of the UN’s support mission in Libya from 2011-12 and the former head of Amnesty International.

The war crimes of the EU and NATO cannot compare to those of the United States Government, an aggressive and repeat offender of international law. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 state quite explicitly:

It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away or for any other motive.

Russia is indeed in violation of this specific protocol. However, here in the “West,” we are only given half of the story. In fact, we are given less than half, and are expected to believe a passel of lies, daily cranked out by the corporate war propaganda media. No mention of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine dedicated to abducting, torturing, and killing ethnic Russians in Lugansk, Donetsk, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Ukraine. For an example of the brutal punishment these ultranationalists inflict on their enemies, look no further than the arson of the labor building in Odesa.

Corporate media mention of war crimes is highly selective and biased.

No mention of the USG-orchestrated illegal coup overthrowing the elected leader of Ukraine for his crime of seeking a better deal with Russia than the neoliberal espousing EU.

No mention of Neo-Nazi thugs setting fire to a labor building in Odesa, killing around 50 or more anti-Maidan activists (this largely ignored news item is buried beneath stories depicting alleged Russian crimes).

No mention of the ignored Minsk I and II agreements hammered out in 2014 and 2015 to end the “civil war” between the Neo-Nazi brigades embedded in the Ukrainian military and “separatists” in Donbas.

The USG and its European “partners” (in crime) count on the amnesiac perception of a perpetually lied to and manipulated public to support, or remain disconnected and apathetic to its bloody neoliberal wars and resource-grabbing predations.

Iraq serves as the primary example, although what the USG did there is largely forgotten and not considered relevant to the conflict in Ukraine.

“The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq’s infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition,” the 1992 Report to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal charged.

Iraq’s civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities. The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war. Among the facilities targeted and destroyed were:

• electric power generation, relay and transmission;
• water treatment, pumping and distribution systems and reservoirs;
• telephone and radio exchanges, relay stations, towers and transmission facilities;
• food processing, storage and distribution facilities and markets, infant milk formula and beverage plants, animal vaccination facilities and irrigation sites;
• railroad transportation facilities, bus depots, bridges, highway overpasses, highways, highway repair stations, trains, buses and other public transportation vehicles, commercial and private vehicles;
• oil wells and pumps, pipelines, refineries, oil storage tanks, gasoline filling stations and fuel delivery tank cars and trucks, and kerosene storage tanks;
• sewage treatment and disposal systems; factories engaged in civilian production, e.g., textile and automobile assembly; and
• historical markers and ancient sites.

However, there is a difference between Putin’s SMO and Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Russia faces an antagonistic enemy on its border, installing missiles systems and conducting military exercises, while supporting rabid ultranationalist Neo-Nazis busy bombing ethnic Russian civilians in Donbas.

Iraq, on the other hand, did not have troops and missiles on the border of the United States, and it did not pose a threat to USG “interests” in the Middle East. It was a neoliberal hit job to take down an Arab nation that was at the time the most advanced in the Middle East (Libya, the most advanced nation in Africa, with the possible exception of South Africa, was also taken out under false “humanitarian” pretense). The neocons lied about weapons of mass destruction, same as they are now lying about Russia wanting to reclaim its lost Soviet territory.

Ursula von der Leyen presides over a criminal organization responsible for the death and destruction of manufactured “enemies” that do not threaten Europe. She is, in essence, calling for the freezing of Europeans dependent on natural gas from Russia at bargain basement prices and war without end or a perceivable exit.

Psychopaths lie and wage war without compunction. Biden and his coterie of neocons and “humanitarian interventionists” have flatly stated there will be no peace until Zelensky and his ultranationalist psychopaths decide to negotiate with Putin. They have absolutely no incentive to do so, considering the manifest and irrational hatred of all things Russian.

“Andriy Biletsky, Leader of the National Corps party, threatened President Volodymyr Zelensky with violence in 2019 if he ordered Ukrainian military forces to pull back from the Donbas,” writes David Shavin.

Biletsky was the first commander of the Azov Battalion and a co-founder of the nationalist movement Socialist National party—in other words, he is a dedicated neo-Nazi guilty, among other crimes, of beating a journalist within an inch of his life. Biletsky’s philosophy can be encapsulated by the following quote: it is the job of the neo-Nazis to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen.”

This is the sort of individual millions of woefully ignorant people unknowingly support when they put a little yellow and blue Ukrainian flag on their social media accounts.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Who Needs or Wants GMOs? Not the Public, Not India’s Farmers

By Colin Todhunter, December 02, 2022

Many scientists lobbying for the deregulation of agricultural biotechnology ‘new genomic techniques’ (NGTs) in the European Union have either direct or indirect interests in commercialising and marketing new genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have patents or patent applications or other connections to the seed industry.

Latest Ukraine Psycho Fear Porn: “Mail Bombs” and “Pig Eyes”

By Kurt Nimmo, December 05, 2022

CNN didn’t come out and directly accuse Russia of sending mail bombs and animal parts to Ukrainian embassies in Europe. There is no evidence of that, not that evidence gets in the way of reality-anemic war propagandists working for the national security state and its corporate media propaganda division.

Turkish and Egyptian Leaders Meet at the World Cup in Qatar

By Steven Sahiounie, December 05, 2022

Football diplomacy brought Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan together in Doha for the opening of the World Cup 2022 in Qatar. Years of tension between the two were broken with a friendly handshake.  The big differences between the two large countries centered on Erdogan’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization banned in Egypt, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, but not banned in America.

Bypassing U.S. Dollar Hegemony: The Global South Births a New Game-changing Payment System

By Pepe Escobar, December 05, 2022

The Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) is speeding up its design of a common payment system, which has been closely discussed for nearly a year with the Chinese under the stewardship of Sergey Glazyev, the EAEU’s minister in charge of Integration and Macro-economy.

The 2002 Bush Junior Doctrine and the Pandora Box of “Preemptive Warfare”

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, December 05, 2022

Originally, the Bush Doctrine was a political phrase with the aim to describe the US foreign policy goals during the 43^rd US President George W. Bush (Bush Junior), 2001−2009. The doctrine had four basic standpoints. All of them were centered around American military superiority after the Cold War 1.0 as the US being the only global hyperpower in international relations.

Turning Cats into Sheep: The Mafiosi Tactics of the Medical Council of New Zealand

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, December 05, 2022

Years ago as the head of a fairly large group of psychoanalytic psychiatrists in Philadelphia, a group that had formed in response to the inroads of managed care – inroads that actually kept patients from the insurance benefits to which they were entitled, among other things – the old adage about herding cats was often in the air. Physicians were generally stubbornly independent and they tended to resist any attempts to impose uniformity, even when in agreement with a common mission.

The Raider Spirit: The Unveiling of the B-21 Stealth Bomber

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, December 05, 2022

The US military industrial complex has made news with another eye-wateringly expensive product, a near totemic tribute to waste in a time of crisis.  The $700 million B-21 Raider stealth bomber was unveiled by Northrop Grumman Corp. and the United States Air Force on December 2 at Airforce Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.

Ukraine: An “Afghanistan” in the Heart of Europe

By Manlio Dinucci, December 05, 2022

The United States and NATO are supplying Kiev not only with increasing quantities of weapons, but with long-range weapon systems and projectiles that are automatically directed at targets. As a result, Russia uses increasingly sophisticated weaponry. All this results in the escalation to increasingly dangerous levels of military confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Video: Ottawa Freedom Convoy. Justin Trudeau Accused Them of “Violence” and “Racism”. Emergency Act Inquiry Refutes Trudeau Lies

By Jean-François Girard, December 04, 2022

On the 31st of January, the prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau addressed the nation regarding the Freedom Convoy protest movement at a Press Conference from an undisclosed location which was broadcast live.

Biden Has Handed America Over to the Biodefense Cartel

By Patrick Wood, December 05, 2022

On the heels of Biden’s September 12th Executive Order titled The National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative, I wrote two days later that it “is a complete capitulation of our government to Big Pharma, the biotechnology industry and the entire transhuman cabal that wants to create Humanity 2.0 by changing our genetic structure.”

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.

***

Elon Musk’s Neuralink—the company which promises to enable a direct interface between the human brain and computers—plans to begin human trials of its implantable brain chip, the billionaire said during a live-streamed event demonstrating the technology Wednesday. Here’s what it’s all about:

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.

***

I dedicate this essay to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky and his new book, “The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity”.  

Click here to download Chossudovsky’s Book

My aim is to highlight the splendid scientific and literary achievement of a great and multi-faceted scholar.

Michel has guided the Global Research vessel since he founded this flag ship of enlightened activism in 2001. It has been my great honour and pleasure to work with Michel and the GR Team in the cause of exposing the lies and crimes of Corona officialdom. This exposure forms a necessary condition for restoring a measure of health to our own now-endangered species.  

***

“You need to designate the group as a terrorist group and seize their assets and impair them.” —Planning Notes of Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of the Canadian Government. Feb. 13, 2022 in Preparation for a Clampdown on the Freedom Convoy Members 

We are in dire need of some effective reckoning with the culprits who manufactured and who continue to exploit the COVID-19 Apocalypse. The terms for such a reckoning were suggested by the many negative commentaries raised in response to a trial balloon calling for a “Pandemic Amnesty.” Brown University Professor, Emily Oster, floated this much-discussed proposal for an amnesty in The Atlantic Magazine.

If Oster’s concepts were to be implemented, all legal accountability would be bypassed and deleted for a catastrophic crime spree mounted in the name of fighting COVID. This criminal activity gave rise to tsunamis of lies about many topics including COVID tests and deaths. The ongoing COVID Hoax continues to energize the accelerating decline in the viability of many societies worldwide. 

The manufactured COVID crisis has proven to be a catalyst in the radicalization of increasingly authoritarian dictatorships. These regimes are caught up in intertwined globalist agendas whose effect is to unhinge governments from even a semblance of adherence to the rule of law. This decline into lawless tyranny is already well advanced in many polities including Canada, the United States, Israel, and the UK.

Oster’s essay was published prominently in a venue well within the regime whose aim is to impose a template of mental conformity largely through the legacy media’s imposition of lockstep propaganda.

See this. 

Oster is clearly speaking for a large and influential constituency with her request that an amnesty should be granted. This double-edged proposal includes an implicit admission that serious crimes have indeed been committed in the name of fighting COVID-19. 

Many commentators have aligned their voices in rejecting Oster’s proposal. Ever since the WHO-declared pandemic began, Oster has used her academic and journalistic platforms to actively demonize critics of the COVID officialdom.

A key objective of COVID-driven globalism is to transfer jurisdiction over health care from national governments to the UN’s World Health Organization. This uploading of authority from elected officials to unelected operatives at the United Nations is meant to advance the centralization of authority. Such supranational centralization is avidly sought by the leadership of the World Economic Forum and the corporatist agencies and interests its leadership represents.   

Oster argues that the COVID saga developed under a dark cloud of uncertainty and confusion. As she would have it, everyone’s judgment was equally impaired. Getting things right or wrong was, in Oster’s opinion, simply a matter of luck. “We simply didn’t know.”

The Big Kill

Some, however, obviously did know more than others. More important yet, some of those who did hold superior levels of scientific expertise and understanding also had the courage and temerity to speak truth to power. One of them is the outspoken Alberta physician, Dr. Roger Hodkinson. He refers to the unfolding holocaust in our midst as “the big kill.”

Even now, the main critics of the scientific and ethical impoverishment afflicting COVID officialdom continue to face serious recriminations. The critics of lockdowns as well as mandatory masking and COVID jabs are subject to efforts aimed at intimidating them into silence by ruining their careers, reputations, and livelihoods.

As with the assaults on Dr. Charles Hoffe and Dr. Francis Christian in Canada, the persecution of Dr. Peter McCullough in the United States points to the deep corruption permeating many of the medical profession’s governing bodies. 

See this, this, this and this.

There are scores of illustrations revealing the severity of the witchhunt aimed at those engaged in exposing the unscientific bafflegab integral to the COVID-19 power grab.

Oster’s many critics, including me, have made it clear that we reject the core concepts supporting her proposal for an amnesty. Such a concession makes no sense, but especially now that we are gaining a fuller sense of the enormous scale and intensity of the drive to cull the human population. This depopulation is happening simultaneously with the onslaught of transhumanist projects aimed at altering the genetic, biological and physical characteristics of the enfeebled survivors. 

On a more personal level, we refuse to ignore the treatment that Oster and her cronies directed against those of us who now stand vindicated because of our refusals to take the untested gene-modifying jabs.

Saying No to Oster’s Whitewash

Of many dozens of thoughtful critiques of Oster’s Atlantic essay, Neil Oliver’s commentary stands out for its principled balance and coherence.  An archaeologist and historian who shot to prominence in making documentary films in the UK, Oliver sees as “absurd” Oster’s argument that an amnesty is required to “move forward.” Oster’s interpretation opens the door to what Oliver characterizes as a cynical “whitewash.”  

Oliver reminds us that the Covidian crimes that Oster seeks to sweep under the rug include the hugely destructive travesty of mandatory lockdowns that treated citizens like prisoners to be subdued.

The lockdowns targeted workers and small businesses. The lockdowns were meant to impoverish and demoralize many people; to drive them into depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide.

Oliver also highlighted the invocation of coercive state power to enforce mandatory masking whose destructive impacts include the extensive damage done to the healthy learning of school-aged children.

“Emergency Measures” as Subversive Means of Grabbing Power and Money

In the prelude to the imposition of the most massive medical procedure ever imposed on the global population, many of even the most basic rules for the development of relatively safe and effective medical products were ignored and thereby transgressed. The requirements for animal and double-blind placebo tests, for instance, were mostly neglected or sabotaged by the drug makers as well as by their cronies in thoroughly captured and corrupted federal regulatory agencies.

One of the main means of bypassing the safety rules was provided by a legal abomination known as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The US Federal and Drug Administration (FDA) clarified the distribution of the Pfizer-BionTech shots was “unapproved” yet “permitted.”

Underlying this internally contradictory statement is officialdom’s ill-backed position that the supposedly new coronavirus was so lethal that it created a global emergency, one that justified the emergency release of improperly-tested medical products.

[See Michel Chossudovsly, The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État Against Humanity. Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, (Montreal: Centre for Research in Globalization, 2022),  Chapter 8, passim]

The legal provisions of EUA were put in place as a one of the sweetheart deals extended by corrupt lawmakers seeking inclusion in Big Pharma’s financial bonanza. The EUA protects drug makers from being sued for the injuries and deaths caused by their hastily produced products. When seen in the light of the abundant evidence of the millions of injuries and deaths caused by the COVID injections, the EUA can be seen as a federal license to kill and to maim on a grand scale.

The criminal abuses of the authoritarian powers claimed in the name of emergency measures, draw on many of the precedents established following the pervasive misrepresentations of the 9/11 false flag. See this.

The widespread mischaracterization of the events of 9/11 in 2001 was exploited to justify the massive inflation of arbitrary powers available to the executive branches at all levels of government. With the new powers came the capacity of top executive authorities to designate, incarcerate and sometimes torture and kill suspected “terrorists” without the safeguards of due process.

Many governments abused the authority to classify their most effective political opponents as terrorists, a travesty being attempted again in the 2020s by the Biden government in USA and the Trudeau government in Canada.

The manufactured COVID crisis resulted in the further expansion of emergency measures powers far beyond those seized in 2001. Beginning in 2020 many governments pushed their agendas forward by invoking the shortcut of regulatory fiat to bypass the more demanding requirements of legislative procedures.

An elaborate collection of emergency measure declarations piled up across Canada culminating in the federal executive branch’s decision in February of 2022 to invoke the outgrowth of the War Measures Act. Some facets of the process attending the Canadian government’s invocation of the Emergency Act on 14 Feb. 2022 will be highlighted below. 

A Turn Against the Sanctity of Life and the Mysteries Animating the Unique Spirit of Every Human Being   

The COVID emergency measures are already creating the prototype for many “Green” emergency measures to follow. To help this process along we are being subjected to a series of cabal-created and cabal-augmented catastrophes. From war mongering to attacks on food supplies, energy sources, supply chains, as well as on any and all platforms providing economic security for average working people, an unprecedented plan of global depopulation and enfeeblement is well underway.

See this.

Suddenly even the façade of respect for the sanctity of human life is being abolished by many of those engaged in our top-down governance. Such governors and their agents apparently want to make a virtue of creating the conditions for the breakdown of human fertility as well as for surges of injury, sickness and premature deaths.

What are we to make of this turn, a turn by some of the most powerful people on earth against any reverence for the eternal mysteries animating the unique spirit of every human being? The obsession with shrinking and eliminating carbon footprints is being stretched to outrageous extremes.

The Green preoccupation with eliminating carbon, the primary ingredient in the chemistry of all life, is forming the basis of the eugenic drive to eliminate people along with our footprints. This genocidal event is well reflected by a growing body of compelling evidence. The evidence includes statistics showing startling rises in all-cause mortality since the COVID injections began.

See this, this, this and this.   

We cannot allow recognition of the lethal crime wave in our midst to be waved aside any longer as “conspiracy theories.” The stakes have become too high to allow for the continuation of such willful blindness especially on the part of those most responsible for the depopulation event unfolding in our midst.

See this.

Conflict of Interest Built into the Emergency Act Inquiry 

Neil Oliver presents a succinct list of the criteria that would have to be met before there can be any consideration of amnesty for those who maliciously engineered and continue to broaden the manufactured COVID crisis. He asks, “How can you seek an amnesty and seek to put behind you things you are still doing now?” Oliver stipulated that no amnesty should be put on the table without

1. confessions of guilt
2. acceptance of culpability
3. taking of responsibility
4. necessary punishment
5. assurances that nothing similar will ever be done again

See this video.

A common thread running through all these criteria is that there would have to be some sequence leading from probing investigations to fair and objective trials of those credibly accused of pushing and exploiting the COVID crisis. Such a process would have to include provision for studying, formulating, implementing, and enforcing appropriate terms as the preconditions for any kind of amnesty settlement.  

In Canada a federal investigation known as the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) is presently taking place. This inquiry veers quite far from the kind of procedures we most require across many configurations and levels of governance as exercised in both the public and private sectors.

Nevertheless, in spite of the abundant shortcomings of the inquiry, the Canadian example opens the door of national and international consideration to some aspects of what a proper investigation of the COVID crisis and its attending crimes might look like.

The Emergency Act was initially invoked by the Liberal Party minority government led by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The enactment came in response to the many-faceted public education activities generated by the Truckers Freedom Convoy and its supporters over a three-week period in late January and February of 2022. The Truckers’ Convoy touched down in Ottawa and in several sympathy protests organized along the Canada-US border.

The Public Order Emergency Commission was established to fulfill the provision of the Emergency Act that calls for a Canadian government inquiry to be followed by a report to both legislative bodies of Parliament. This inquiry is “to examine and assess” the soundness of the Canadian government’s decision to invoke the Emergency Act which it did from February 14 to February 23 of 2022. See this.

The biggest problem with the POEC is that it was largely created of, by, and for the Liberal Party government of Justin Trudeau. Trudeau thus finds himself in a classic conflict of interest. The Trudeau government has engaged in establishing the makeup and procedures to investigate federal actions and decisions for which Justin Trudeau is ultimately responsible.

This setup reflects the problem that Neil Oliver anticipated. In rejecting Emily Oster’s call for a COVID amnesty, Oliver predicted that the main protagonists in creating and exploiting the COVID crisis “are going to investigate themselves and each other.”

How might this Catch 22 be transcended in future processes of investigation? What new  departures in procedure would be required to move beyond the phenomenon of having COVID culprits investigate other COVID culprits? In the Canadian context this problem is compounded because of the actions and decisions made by many judges. By and large Canadian judges abandoned their judicial independence by making themselves enforcers rather than objective arbitrators of government COVID measures. See this.

The Liberal Party bias of the Emergency Act Inquiry was well reflected in Trudeau’s choice of a well-known Liberal Party insider, Justice Paul S. Rouleau, to lead the POEC. Before becoming a judge, Paul Rouleau helped elect and staff the Liberal governments of Prime Ministers John Turner and Paul Martin. Paul Rouleau was briefly a partner in Heenan Blaike, the Montreal law firm that hired both Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien after each of them left the job of prime minister. See this and this.

True to his reputation for speciousness, Trudeau explained to the public that the Emergency Act Inquiry was initiated through the Prime Minister’s benevolence rather than on the basis of legislative requirement. Trudeau announced,

“We called this inquiry so Canadians could see exactly why we needed to invoke the Emergency Act, and how, when we invoked it, we invoked it in ways that were responsible, limited and targeted on solving the problems as quickly as possible.”

Whose Violence Against Persons and Property?

The question of whether or not the Trudeau government had “reasonable grounds” to invoke the Emergency Act is the subject of the report being prepared by Justice Rouleau on behalf of the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC). Commissioner Rouleau’s final report is due on February 6, 2023.

See this.

A key aspect of the Commissioner’s findings will be based on his assessment of whether federal authorities acted in accord with a key provision of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (CSIS ACT).

Section 2 (c) of the CSIS Act, which was reproduced in February of 2022 as part of the Proclamation Declaring a Public Order Emergency, stipulates that a threat to Canada’s security exists when “ activities within or relating to Canada [are] directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state.” See this and this.

A major theme addressed throughout many of the Commission’s examinations of more than 70 witnesses during a six-week period, concerned various perceptions concerning the “threat” of “serious violence against persons and property.” Much of this discussion was based on the perceptions of witnesses about what they feared might happen, rather than what actually did happen.

What did happen is a peaceful protest combined with some expressions of civil disobedience in the form of illegal parking and some early rounds of excessive honking.

The discussion of violence in the inquiry’s proceedings would have been much enriched by a more comparative approach. Many Truckers and their supporters surely conceived of their own actions as attempts to put checks on various types of invasive violence directed at people and property through a series of ill-considered government decisions and actions.

Cancelling Out Diverse Perspectives and Interpretations to Impose a Single COVID Narrative on Canada and the World

These irrational and arguably illegal violent acts of the state were not exclusive to Canada but were replicated in varying degrees throughout many of the world’s 195 countries. A key aspect of the global reproduction of similar sets of wrongful government actions has to do with the lockstep managing and messaging of the legacy media in country after country.

How was this many-faceted coordination of media communications achieved? This subject is one that awaits penetrating rounds of national and transnational investigation. Even in the proceedings of the POEC, there are conspicuous absences when it comes to considering the role of the media.

Much like in many other countries, clearly a decision was made far above the level of Parliament and the Supreme Court that the legacy media would direct the responses of officialdom and the public to the manufactured COVID crisis. The big media venues would publicize and legitimize a uniform COVID narrative no matter how specious. They would develop and coordinate a single narrative rather than provide fair and balanced news coverage so that their audiences could have sufficient access to a range of perspectives enabling them to develop well-informed decisions for themselves and their families.

This same single narrative approach was extended even into the now-discredited medical profession where independent analysis became more the exception than the rule.

The Largest Case of Medical Malpratice Ever

Presently the most intense surge of COVID violence against people is being expressed in the unnecessary injuries, illnesses and deaths caused by the COVID injections. We are well past the point when these harms can be dismissed as occasional aberrations or rare events.

The media-reinforced blindspots concerning injection deaths and injuries are fast giving way to growing public understanding that something is going seriously awry when it comes to the extent of the growing harms being done by clot shots.

Even in the course of the Commission’s proceedings Prime Minister Trudeau and the Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, continued the mantra that the injections are “safe and effective.” In fact Trudeau asserted that his continuing promotion of COVID booster shots was an expression of his responsibility to keep Canadians “safe and alive.” See this.

Trudeau’s abject incompetence, let alone his obvious deficit in honesty, integrity and basic common sense, is making his prime ministership increasingly notorious throughout Canada and the world. See video below.

As with many top officials, Trudeau’s empty reassurances in encouraging clot-shot compliance augments the toll of the injured and dead that continue to be cut down by the largest case of medical malpractice ever. Trudeau has not yet even come to grips with the fact that the COVID jabs do not prevent infection from, or transmission of, COVID-19.

🚨 BREAKING:

In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission.

"Get vaccinated for others" was always a lie.

The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.

The world needs to know. Share this video! ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/su1WqgB4dO

— Rob Roos MEP 🇳🇱 (@Rob_Roos) October 11, 2022

This failure of the COVID injections to prevent against transmission makes a lewd mockery of coercive vaccine mandates, of vaccine passports as well as of the schemes to segregate and punish the unvaccinated. As times goes by the anti-science diatribes from the likes of Justin Trudeau help to broaden the predations of an injected bioweapon that sometimes kills people and always attacks their natural immunity.

As for the violence to property, the completely nonsensical and economically devastating lockdowns did infinitely more damage than any of slowdowns in commerce attributed to the Truckers and their supporters.  Many of them took action with the goal of bringing an end to the COVID madness, but especially the economic madness done to small business, to wage-earning workers, and to those most endangered by the rapid acceleration of runaway inflation.

The Same Set of Flawed Responses to Similar Bodies of Contrived Evidence

One of the factors that helped mute early public outcries condemning the COVID restrictions and mandates was that the same sets of wrongheaded policies were introduced and implemented on a worldwide basis.

The uniformity of policies and crimes across many international borders helped cultivate forms of groupthink and conformity on an unprecedented scale. How was it that the same set of flawed responses to similar bodies of contrived evidence was replicated in country after country?

The global community requires a global investigation of how it was that the manufactured COVID crisis unfolded worldwide. The United Nations cannot be a credible participant in the conduct of this investigation given its own role, but especially that of the World Health Organization, in the genesis of this fiasco.

Indeed, part of the ongoing COVID-19 power grab and attending crime spree is to advance centralized global governance by empowering the WHO to take the lead role in supplanting the international system of sovereign nation states. Justin Trudeau is a major proponent of this “postnational” globalism. See this.

A major problem with the POEC process in Canada is that it treats the current emergency measures crisis within a national context when this manufactured crisis is best understood as part of a global phenomenon.

Indeed, one of the alarms that helped draw the Freedom Convoy to Ottawa was the realization that Parliament is becoming marginal in Trudeau’s preoccupation with sabotaging Canada’s institutions of national sovereignty. Trudeau and his WEF-groomed cabinet seem especially representative of the thesis that Canada’s current government is more based in Davos than in Ottawa. The appalling reception the Freedom Convoy faced in the national capital could be seen as the reflection of the sickly state of Canada’s Ottawa-based parliamentary democracy.

Government Acts Against the Truckers in the “Fog of War”

Of all the witnesses to appear before the POEC the Finance Minister, neocon Liberal Chrystia Freeland, came closest to setting the crisis in a wider international setting. Her testimony seemed, at least on the surface, to explain much about the genesis of the Trudeau’s government’s main plan in invoking the Emergency Act on Feb. 14.

That plan was to create an “economic incentive” for the Truckers to leave Ottawa by freezing their assets, undermining their businesses, and seizing many millions of dollars donated to their cause on Internet crowd-sourcing platforms. See this.

Freeland explained to the POEC on Nov. 24 that the plan to freeze bank accounts was developed on Feb. 13 in consultation of two unnamed banking officials. One of the bankers proposed to Freeland that the government should “sanction” the Truckers as if they were terrorists.

Within a day, this banker’s advice was adopted and implemented after an early morning First Minister zoom conference. At 4:30 pm on the afternoon of Feb. 14, Freeland and Trudeau announced the Trudeau government’s Emergency Act scheme would include the use of Canada’s financial institution to coerce the Truckers to leave Ottawa.

Without any judicial green lighting and with the proviso that the banks could not be sued for their actions, Canadians learned that financial institutions had started to seize the Truckers’ accounts as part of a larger set of attacks on the viability of their transport businesses. This announcement did result in many Truckers seeking to fend off financial ruin by firing up their rigs and pointing them out of Ottawa asap. See this.

Freeland’s quick willingness to adopt an anti-terrorist orientation towards the Truckers and their supporters is consistent with her militaristic choice of language in the POEC proceedings. Freeland made it clear that she viewed the Truckers as “illegal protestors” trying “to hold our democracy hostage.” Their strategy of parking their trucks in Ottawa for an extended period was the same as “forcing change at gunpoint.” As Freeland saw it, she was immersed in the “the fog of war” when she spoke to the bankers on Feb. 13. See this.

The advice to Freeland from the other banker was very different. He expressed the trepidation that any seizure of trucker’s accounts might be perceived “as the banking system being used as a political weapon of the government.” He added, “we [bankers] can’t be seen as an arm of the government…we can’t politicize the banks.” The unnamed bank officer concluded by suggesting that the Trudeau government might defuse the protest by dropping the mandates. See this.

Further advice to end the mandates came from Alan Kestenbaum. Kestenbaum is the American CEO of Stelco, the Hamilton-based steel maker. In a text he explained to Freeland, “I know it sucks to reverse course and back down, but does it really pay to carry on a policy in support of a mandate for a vaccine that doesn’t stop the spread of omicron.” See this.

What Transpired in the Absence of Formal Talks and Deliberations?

Prominent among the witnesses that appeared before the POEC were some of the main figures that played leading roles in getting the Freedom Convoy rolling and then instrumental once the truckers reached their destinations.

The combined testimony of the Trucker leadership has created a very valuable record of how one of the most significant protest movements in Canadian and even world history came to be. This group of witnesses included Tamara Lich, James Bauder, John Barber, Pat King, Tom Mazarro, Brigitte Belton, Daniel Bulford, Benjamin Dichter and Marco Van Huigenbos.

Like all the witnesses to appear before the POEC the Convoy leaders were cross-examined by lawyers for the POEC, for the government of Canada, and for Ottawa residents and businesses. Other groups permitted to ask questions of the witnesses included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Democracy Fund and the Canadian Constitutional Centre. Police officers were active both as witnesses and as members of law enforcement organizations with legal standing in the proceedings.

Several witnesses from the Freedom Convoy explained how by the time they reached Ottawa they had the sense of being envoys of a very large and enthusiastic constituency. Many in this constituency of Convoy supporters had turned out to greet the Truckers, assist them, share information with them, thank them, and encourage them in their constructive quest for much-needed remedial change.

Instead of finding a decent and civil reception from the Canadian government, however, the Freedom Convoy members and their supporters were stigmatized collectively by an irate Prime Minister. Trudeau will forever be remembered for calling the diverse array of citizens who wheeled into Ottawa a “fringe minority.

In repeated rounds of antagonistic language, Trudeau made it clear that he regarded the Freedom Convoy group as a reprehensible bunch of bigoted, ignorant and hate-filled fools. When asked to explain his attacks in his testimony at the POEC hearing, Trudeau speciously denied he had called the Truckers “names.” In fact his name calling directed at the Truckers is now legendary throughout the world.

After the Truckers arrived Trudeau made himself scarce. His response made it absolutely clear that the PM and his government wanted no part in talks and deliberation. By doing so Trudeau became the primary decision maker in creating the conditions of the ensuing standoff. The Convoy participants dug in for a prolonged stay.

During their time in Ottawa the Truckers hosted many live events on social media. These events highlighted the presentations of invited doctors, lawyers, academics, and other expert practitioners.

Many of the invited presenters shared interpretations that often exposed the poverty of the standard COVID narrative pushed in lockstep by government officials and the legacy media. In this fashion Millions of people worldwide developed an appreciation for perspectives and interpretations denied them by the censorious zealots of COVID officialdom.

With some few exceptions the Truckers took the high ground on responding to the ritual spurning and defaming by their detractors. Most of the Convoy participants and supporters kept their demonstration sites as well as the locations of their parked habitations tidy. Some made a point of trying to contribute to the community of Ottawa by feeding the homeless, shovelling sidewalks and such.

Trudeau Has Been Contemplating the Invocation of the Emergency Act since 2020

In some ways the standoff provided Trudeau with a platform for the kind of wedge politics the Prime Minister embraces. In his testimony to the POEC, Trudeau indicated he was thinking of invoking the Emergency Act since the first hours of the Truckers’ arrival in Ottawa. Other testimony indicated that Trudeau had considered unleashing the Emergency Act back in the spring of 2020 when the manufactured COVID crisis first began gathering momentum.

Some members of the Trudeau government cabinet, including Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, Attorney General David Lametti and Chyrista Freelandland, referred satirically to the Freedom Convoy as a natural target of martial law and military tanks in the streets of Ottawa. Mendicino tweeted to Lametti asking him, “how many tanks are you asking for?” See this. 

As the announcement of the Emergency Act became imminent, the whole project was more and more poised on the need to outlaw the Truckers as terrorists. Ever since the response to 9/11, the power grabs facilitated by the invocation of emergency measures has depended on the demonization of certain groups.

First it was Muslims that were stereotyped as the primary embodiments of “terror.” Now it is working class Truckers whose opposition to COVID policies is being transformed into “domestic terrorism” by federally-funded spin doctors such as Bernie Farber’s so-called “Anti-Hate” Network of former undercover cops and wonkey spin doctors. See this.

Since 9/11 the invention of terrorist enemies has become a lucrative business and, when successful, a source of considerable political traction for ruling parties. It seems that if Justin Trudeau, Chyrstia Freeland and Canada’s propagandistic media monopolies get their way, the Freedom Convoy is on its way to being rebranded as a “home-grown” equivalent of al-Qaeda.

Designate the Truckers as a Terrorist Group, Seize Their Assets, and Impair Them

In his cross-examination of Freeland on Nov. 24, Brendan Miller, one of the lawyers for the organizational outgrowth of the Freedom Convoy, asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she considered Tamara Lich to be a terrorist. Freeland awkwardly tried to deflect the question indicating that responsibility to designate terrorists belonged to other officials in her government.

Then Miller presented Freeland and the national audience of the POEC with a powerpoint slide picturing her own notes of Feb. 13. The notes referred to a a person described simply as “Dave.” When asked, Freeland indicated she couldn’t remember who Dave was.

In Freeland’s own handwriting the televised note indicated, “ You need to designate the group as a terrorist group and seize their assets and impair them.”

This note describes in a nutshell precisely the process that was initiated late in the afternoon of the next day. Is it possible or credible that the Trudeau government developed the banking plan and began to implement it in one day? Or is there much more to this story than anything that was revealed by the Trudeau government in the POEC proceedings?

The other main aspect of the changes that came about with the invocation of the Emergency Act, was the unleashing of police to commit acts of violent assault aimed at clearing Parliament Hill of peaceful protestors. See video below.

Weapons Said to be Smuggled into the Coutts Protest Site By Undercover Infiltrators Employed by the RCMP

The ever-controversial Brendon Miller emerged pretty much as the legal maverick of the Public Order Emergency Hearings. One of Miller’s projects in his lawyering during the POEC proceedings was to seek further evidence on the possibility that Liberal Party operatives, including a prominent PR firm, planted the much-photographed swastika as well as the Confederate flag, amidst the Parliament Hill demonstrations.

This type of tactic is not uncommon in the rough and tumble world of information wars. Planting objectionable images to smear your enemy is standard procedure for some unscrupulous lobbies.

Near the end of the proceedings Brendan Miller and Commissioner Rouleau exchanged criticisms with the result that the former was asked to leave the building. See video below.

Miller complied with Justice Rouleau’s order and then hosted a spontaneous media scrum on Wellington Street where he described his perception of a number of Liberal Party dirty tricks in the timing and redaction of document dumps. See video below.

Brendon Miller questioned Marlin Degrand, an Alberta government intelligence official with a background in the RCMP. The subject was the Trucker’s sympathy protest at Coutts on the border between Alberta and Montana. Here in nearby Lethbridge where I Iive, I have witnessed some parts of a court process involving the Crown’s treatment of four Coutts protestors charged by the RCMP with “conspiracy to commit murder.”

These men were arrested in the early hours of 14 February. The arrests took place shortly before the Emergency Act was announced and a few hours after Freeland penned her note about “the need to designate the group as terrorists.”

This sequence of events raises suspicions that the need was felt in Ottawa on Feb. 13 to have RCMP officials in Coutts immediately come up with some sort of real or fabricated evidence of a terrorist-style event. The RCMP is no stranger to entrapment of targeted individuals with the goal of creating terrorist scares to advance the political agendas of their paymasters. See this.

In his questioning of Degrand, Miller noted that public records show that the RCMP employed two female undercover agents at Coutts “from a very early point in the demonstrations.” Miller continued, indicating that the RCMP infiltrators “smuggled in a hockey bag [with] a whole bunch of guns into the protest.” Is this surprising remark connected to the still-unexplained RCMP photograph of a weapons arsenal alleged to have been seized at Coutts? See this video, see 3 hours, 13 minutes.

Transcripts of the testimony of undercover police agents at Coutts were used in the Crown’s evidence to deny bail to the four men now in jail waiting for their trial sometime in mid to late 2023. These police agents and assets were not present in the bail hearings to be cross-examined. The evidence they have given is thus problematic.

Nevertheless, based on this flawed process four men convicted of nothing were denied bail. They have been sentenced to stay in jail for a year and a half that will culminate in their show trial when their guilt or innocence will be decided.

Who would deny that the Coutts Four can be considered political prisoners in Alberta? When they do get their days in court the judge and jury will be swayed by the fact that they have already been deemed to be dangerous and untrustworthy.

Bail Hearings That Curtail Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Movement When No Guilt Has Been Proven

The abuses of judicial processes in the giving or withholding of bail have been significant in the treatment of those charged with criminal acts in connection to the activities of the Freedom Convoy movement. Many of those so charged are tagged with the nuisance allegation of “mischief.” When bail is allowed, as with the mischief charge directed at Tamara Lich, there are many conditions attached.

These conditions often prohibit the accused from using social media, from talking with certain individuals, and from travelling to certain places. Such conditions imply the accused has already been found guilty of something. Freedom  speech, assembly and movement is thus limited and the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty is violated.

Lich herself was jailed for a second time because she broke a condition of her bail by talking with Tom Marazzo at an awards ceremony in Toronto. The ceremony was organized by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in order to honour Ms Lich with a Freedom Award. See this.

Looking Beyond the Emergency Act Inquiry in Canada

In its zeal to discredit and criminalize the Freedom Convoy movement, the Trudeau government may have committed crimes of its own that violate domestic and international laws. In this sense the proceedings of the Emergency Act Inquiry have produced new evidence that augments prior suspicions especially in relation to the protests at Coutts. The Coutts protests ended on Feb. 15.

The Trudeau government’s suspected violations are consistent with a well-documented pattern that has unfolded in many countries. After 9/11, the waging of the War on Terror was exploited by many corrupt regimes to discredit their main political opponents by smearing them as terrorists. Are Trudeau and Freeland and their accomplices inside government and law enforcement agencies guilty of the same transgressions?

We must look beyond the Canadian Emergency Act Inquiry. The PEOC can be seen as a procedure that has helped to clarify the need for further investigations not tainted by partisanship. These investigations would have to address the growing body of evidence that the manufactured COVID crisis initiated a broader, more many-faceted process aimed at undermining the remaining rights and freedoms of most people on Earth.

In the final analysis we must grapple with the evidence that a hybrid war is being waged on the largest part of humanity. Rather than meeting the violence we are facing with more violence, the time has come to create the basis for a comprehensive judicial process to address the war crimes and crimes against humanity pointed against us. If such a process were to be mounted, then the conditions would be in place to begin discussing a lasting amnesty.

*

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

Anthony J. Hall is Professor Emeritus at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. His Ph.D. is in History (University of Toronto, 1984) and in his academic career he has taught in the fields of Native American Studies, Globalization Studies, and Liberal Education. Prof. Hall is former Editor-In-Chief of American Herald Tribune and publishes widely both in peer-reviewed and popular venues. His most well known books include The American Empire and the Fourth World as well as Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism (McGill-Queens University Press).  

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will provide $1 million in grant funding to develop “a “public health tool” to predict vaccine “misinformation trends.””

Two federal public health agencies will provide $1 million in grant funding to develop “a “public health tool” to predict vaccine “misinformation trends.”

According to the grants.gov website, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will accept grant applications until Jan. 6, 2023 for research:

“ … to develop a predictive forecasting model that identifies new or reemerging misinformation narratives that are likely to disseminate widely and have a high potential for impact on vaccine confidence.

“The information from this model will then be used to develop a tool that public health agencies could use to predict misinformation trends in the populations served. Finally, the researchers will evaluate the tool’s predictive capabilities on both future social media misinformation narratives and real-world events.”

A single applicant will receive an award ranging from $400,000 to $500,000 to develop “a forecasting model that aims to identify potential misinformation on vaccines and how it will affect people as it spreads on social media,” according to Fox News.

The grant opportunity, announced in October, is part of the “Immunization Research, Demonstration, Public Information and Education Training and Clinical Skills Improvement Projects” funding category.

The funding comes amid ongoing lawsuits challenging other federal government attempts to fight “misinformation” on constitutional grounds.

Public and private actors — including public institutions of higher education, state, city and county governments, independent school districts and nonprofit organizations — are eligible to apply for the funding.

The final grantee will be selected at a March 7, 2023 meeting that will be closed to the public, according to the Federal Register notice, which states:

“The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Government should not be ‘policing thought crimes’

The new grant opportunity captured the attention of media outlets, lawmakers and analysts.

“The grant runs through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has a history of efforts to combat misinformation,” Fox News reported. “Internal documents obtained by American First Legal in July revealed how the CDC coordinated with Facebook, Twitter and Google to counter online content it deemed to be misinformation.”

Several Biden administration officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, were deposed or will be deposed as part of a lawsuit against the federal government by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri alleging that government officials colluded with Big Tech platforms to censor content critical of COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), speaking to Fox News about the grant, said the federal government should not be policing “thought crimes:”

“This latest revelation proves the CDC is rolling full steam ahead with their censorship campaign against citizens who speak up. This new scheme to use taxpayer money — intended to further scientific inquiry — to instead stifle researchers and anyone who dares dissent from the Biden administration’s ever-changing COVID narrative is unsurprising and unacceptable.

“The CDC has no business trying to predict future ‘thought crimes’ nor, as they’ve done in the past, leverage their power to collude with big tech companies against the American people.”

Adam Andrzejewski, CEO and founder of OpenTheBooks, a government spending watchdog, told JustTheNews:

“Government agencies have no place in determining what constitutes ‘misinformation,’ particularly in an environment where facts on the ground continue to change.

“As we’ve seen with the COVID vaccines, Moderna’s leadership has now openly admitted that preventing transmission was never an outcome they tested for. Yet the ‘disease of the unvaccinated’ and the assertion that a vaccine would ‘stop the spread’ permeated throughout public health guidance. Who was around to label that ‘misinformation?’”

It remains unclear how the proposed HHS-CDC model will determine what constitutes “misinformation,” but according to JustTheNews, the CDC signaled that “information gleaned from the program will ultimately be used in continuing federal attempts to prebunk and debunk independent research and opinion diverging from approved narratives.”

Social media platforms such as Twitter employ “pre-bunking” as a new strategy to warn the public of purported misinformation before it spreads, earning the praise of media outlets such as NPR, itself engaged in efforts to combat alleged “misinformation.”

Multiple government agencies have ‘misinformation’ initiatives in play

The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit alleges a number of First Amendment violations on the part of the U.S. government, including that federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring those who criticized the government’s covid policies.

In 2021, President Biden stated, “They’re killing people,” in reference to social media platforms like Facebook and the “vaccine misinformation” available there, Politico reported in its coverage of the lawsuit.

In July 2021, Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy and HHS, issued an advisory warning the American public about the “threat of health misinformation” and a Request for Information asking social media platforms to collect data on the “spread and impact of misinformation” and to “prioritize early detection of misinformation ‘super-spreaders’ and repeat offenders” by “impos[ing] clear consequences for accounts that repeatedly violate platform policies.”

A Request for Information and subsequent actions by the Biden administration were part of its National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan, first announced during his 2021 State of the Union address, according to the plaintiffs.

Despite Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, federal efforts to combat alleged “misinformation” and “disinformation” continue. According to Fox News:

“Despite the ongoing lawsuit and vocal criticism by members of Congress, Biden’s agencies remain focused on countering disinformation from foreign adversaries attempting to influence U.S. elections and on certain topics, including COVID-19 origins, the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal and more.”

This includes initiatives launched by the surgeon general, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Pentagon to fight online content that they claim constitutes “misinformation” and “disinformation, Fox News reported.

*

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

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD

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 the heels of Biden’s September 12th Executive Order titled The National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative, I wrote two days later that it “is a complete capitulation of our government to Big Pharma, the biotechnology industry and the entire transhuman cabal that wants to create Humanity 2.0 by changing our genetic structure.”

The Initiative literally opens the floodgates of taxpayer resources and turns over government control to the biotech and Big Pharma industry. Some highlights include:

• “We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale-up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.”
• “bolster and coordinate Federal investment in key research and development (R&D) areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in order to further societal goals”
• “Building a Vibrant Domestic Biomanufacturing Ecosystem.”
• “expand training and education opportunities for all Americans in biotechnology and biomanufacturing.”
• “Federal investments in biological sciences, biotechnology, and biomanufacturing to enhance biosafety and biosecurity best practices throughout the bioeconomy R&D enterprise.”

In sum, our nation has become the vassal of the biodefense cartel to finance its R&D, build its manufacturing capacity and train workers to fill its factories. What’s wrong with this picture?

The Executive Order required a number of reports to be compiled and submitted to the President on how to implement the Order. Just one month later, the White House released the National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan. It dovetails perfectly with the Executive Order except that preparation started on the first day of Biden’s presidency. According to the American Economic Association (AEA),

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration fulfills a commitment that President Biden made on his first day in office: to review existing national biopreparedness policies and develop recommendations for how the Federal Government should update them, based on lessons learned from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and other biological threats our Nation faces.

Thus, we can see that this massive transfer of power actually started with Biden’s election and has been orchestrated for theater ever since.

Biodefense Enterprise

The National Biodefense Strategy reveals more details of this Transhuman and Technocratic takeover. One new term that appears 21 times in the document is “biodefense enterprise”. Enterprise normally applies to a commercial business or corporation, but here it states “the United States will support an efficient and coordinated biodefense enterprise to protect the American People and its global interests.” In Annex I: Definitions, we get a glimpse of what biodefense enterprise means:

Stakeholders with a role in the prevention, preparedness, detection, response, and recovery from bioincidents (e.g., Federal and SLTT governments, nongovernmental and private sector entities, and international partners).

Stakeholders? Nongovernmental and private sector entities? International partners?

This language clearly reveals that the “biodefense enterprise” is a massive Public Private Partnership where the managing partner is not the Federal Administration, but rather it is the biotech/Big Pharma industry itself!

Biosurveillance

This term shows up 13 times in the National Biodefense Strategy and is clearly linked to the “biodefense enterprise”:

Enhancing the national biodefense enterprise will help protect the United States and its partners abroad from biological incidents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate in origin. It will simultaneously build the U.S. innovation base for cutting-edge countermeasures, biosensors, diagnostics, and biosurveillance information technologies, and advance the biomedical and agricultural industries’ biodefense capabilities.

Again, the document offers a definition:

Biosurveillance: The process of gathering, integrating, interpreting, and communicating essential information and indications related to all-hazard threats or disease activity affecting human, animal, plant, and environmental health to achieve early detection and provide early warning, contribute to overall situational awareness of the health aspects of the incident, and enable better decision-making at all levels.

Thus, biosurveillance will dovetail perfectly into the industry’s already existing plan for digital surveillance, universal health id’s and digital vaccine passports.

If you think existing surveillance is intrusive and a threat to freedom and personal liberty, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Whole-of-Society

I have discussed the “whole-of-government” strategy where the entire structure of Federal agencies is harmonized to a common purpose and objective. This in itself is a dangerous precedent that permits the weaponization of the whole government toward a common objective.

The concept of whole-of-society is a close relative. Here all sectors of society are lined up for a common purpose. What sectors? Humans, animals, plants and ecosystems. Furthermore, it’s top-to-bottom from national all the way down to local enforcement.

Driving down to local communities is the only way to achieve Section 3.1 Domestic Health Capacity:

Increase vaccine uptake rates for all recommended vaccines to over 85% of American population.

A secondary goal is to expand the propaganda machine to reach 80% of the American public, “while also countering and mitigating the spread of disinformation and misinformation.”

Fast Track From Lab-to-Jab

All cautionary methodologies and testing are thrown to the wind. Vaccines will be created within 100 days of virus detection (i.e., a self-declared “pandemic”), mass produced within 130 days, distributed with military efficiency and speed, and injected into:

…at-risk human and impacted animal populations the necessary vaccine quantities to control a nationally or internationally significant biological incident, within one hundred days following authorization or approval.

Not Your Grandmother’s Vaccine

I know there are some readers who are thinking they would like to get vaccines faster to prevent disease. However, none of this applies to old-school vaccines. Nope. None. This is all pointed toward an endless conveyor belt of mRNA and DNA injections designed to hack your human condition. – you and eighty-five percent of the population, in perpetuity. Biden cleared that up in his original Executive Order:

We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.

Are you ready? Are you awake to what is taking place here?

I have addressed the whole picture in my new book. Solutions and resistance will not arise without understanding the nature of this evil beast that has come upon us.

The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism

Perhaps you can see why I used the word “Evil” in the title of my just-released book. Perhaps you can picture the golden skulls, all ornate and rich looking on the outside, but revealing death underneath. Indeed, Technocracy and Transhumanism are promoting a future that only holds death and destruction for mankind.

*

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.

Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

***

CNN didn’t come out and directly accuse Russia of sending mail bombs and animal parts to Ukrainian embassies in Europe. There is no evidence of that, not that evidence gets in the way of reality-anemic war propagandists working for the national security state and its corporate media propaganda division.

Instead, it allowed Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, to insinuate Russia is behind the gruesome acts.

“This campaign is aimed at sowing fear,” Kuleba told CNN’s Matthew Chance in an “exclusive interview” in Kyiv on Friday.  “I feel tempted to say, to name Russia straight away, because first of all you have to answer the question, who benefits?”

How in the world does Russia benefit from sending mail bombs and pig eyes to embassies in Europe? It doesn’t. Moreover, such terroristic behavior is not required. After all, Russia is slowly but surely disarming and denazifying Ukraine, and such grotesque behavior is not required and would be extremely counterproductive.

A couple of weeks ago Pramila Patten, the UN’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, said Russian soldiers are given Viagra and instructed to rape Ukrainian women.

#BREAKING Rape used in Ukraine as part of Russian 'military strategy': UN envoy pic.twitter.com/zIKMoB9xfF

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) October 14, 2022

As it turns out, Ms. Patten was making things up, not that the corporate media felt obliged to set the record straight. In fact, Patten, apparently lacking the ability to construct an original lie, borrowed from the past. The Viagra lie was used during the criminal invasion and destruction of Libya. USG military and intelligence officials later said the absurd claim was bunkum.

“The investigation is going on by the Human Rights Monitoring Team and the International Commission of Inquiry. In their reports so far, there’s nothing about Viagra,” Patten admitted during an interview.

No headlines in the NYT or CNN refuting the claim. For the intellectually lazy headline skimmer who puts a little yellow and blue Ukronazi flag on his social media, the idiotic accusation has become truth, little different than the ugly lies about Huns bayonetting babies during the “Great War” to “end all wars” more than a hundred years ago.

Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, had a one-word response to Kuleba’s accusation: “psycho.”

Indeed, Ukraine is chock full of psychos, not merely the kind that tells obvious lies, knowing an ignorant public in the “West” will sup it up without question, but also the violent sort that strangles pregnant women to death and burns activists alive.

As to the latter, the arson, and murder of over 50 “separatists” in a Soviet-era labor building in Odesa in 2014, Human Rights Watch called for the Ukrainian government to investigate. Obviously, HRW is clueless as a large percentage of the American public. The Zelensky government, rife with misanthropic neo-Nazis, certainly will not investigate this horrible mass murder. The folks at HRW are either stupid or think we are.

Meanwhile, the “fact checkers” are busy at work trying to cover up and spin the brutal handiwork of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis. Good luck with that.

Eventually, reality and truth will triumph over cynical lies and deception, and absurd stories of pig eyes and animal parts mailed to hapless Ukrainian diplomats will be revealed for what they are—psychological operations designed to drum up consensus for an effort to “weaken Russia,” even if that effort terminates in a thermonuclear war.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics

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.

***

Football diplomacy brought Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan together in Doha for the opening of the World Cup 2022 in Qatar.

Years of tension between the two were broken with a friendly handshake.  The big differences between the two large countries centered on Erdogan’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization banned in Egypt, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, but not banned in America.

Erdogan said later that the ministers of both countries will meet and begin a process that may develop into talks to build the relationship between the two.  The sideline meeting lasted about 45 minutes at the World Cup.  Sisi released a statement that the meeting was a new start in bilateral relations between them.  Intelligence delegations from the two sides met in Egypt recently.

“We had narrowly focused talks with Mr. Sisi there and said now let’s have ministers coming and going at a low level. After that, let’s broaden and widen these talks,” Erdogan said, also signaling the possibility of improving ties with Syria.

“Just as this business is now on track with Egypt, things may also get on track with Syria,” he said.

Erdogan had strongly supported Mohamed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood as the first elected President of Egypt, following the US-engineered election which saw Lila Jafaar, a US citizen from California, sentenced to five years in prison, in absentia, for election meddling. She was rescued from hiding in the US Embassy in Cairo by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Sisi led the 2013 revolution of the people to oust Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Erdogan had bemoaned the ouster of Mursi and his Muslim Brotherhood associates and supporters.

In 2021, Erdogan began a push to repair broken relationships with Egypt, the UAE, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.  Erdogan’s support and personal allegiance to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to create a global Islamic State, has been the source of contention between Turkey and other countries.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told reporters on November 28 that Ankara and Cairo may restore full diplomatic ties and re-appoint ambassadors “in coming months”.  According to a senior Turkish official, “significant” discussions had begun between them, and Turkey and Egypt are set to start talks on military, political, and commercial issues including energy projects.

Ankara wasted no time in directing Turkey-based media outlets associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and opposed to Egypt’s government, to stop attacking the Egyptian government.

Turkish Intelligence recently began investigations into the Muslim Brotherhood for attacks in Egypt, support of ISIS in Syria, and money laundering operations. Part of the investigation focuses on how the Muslim Brotherhood sent fighters and weapons into Syria.  A source told Al-Arabiya, the investigation includes how the Muslim Brotherhood supported ISIS and carried out fundraising for the support of ISIS families in Turkey and Syria.  Turkey has arrested Muslim Brotherhood members for creating fake documents for profit.

Turkish private hospitals that carry out organ transplants for foreigners are also under scrutiny by Turkish Intelligence for their links to the Muslim Brotherhood which may have supplied the harvested organs from soldiers and civilians killed in Syria.

In the last 90 days, Turkey has deported some members of the Muslim Brotherhood for crimes. In the last few months, the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey has wire-transferred extremely large sums of money to banks in London and the US, with no known source for those funds.

Turkey has shut down charities that raised funds for people in Yemen and Syria because of their ties to using the funds to support terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey

Erdogan backed terrorists of all types and nationalities in his effort to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to install a US-backed Muslim Brotherhood government.  Once ISIS became a dominant force among the terrorists in Syria, Turkey turned a blind eye and instead focused on attacking the Syrian Kurds who had become military partners with the US occupation forces.

The Justice and Development party (AKP), Erdogan’s ruling party, wanted to dominate regional politics by hosting the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organization. Brotherhood leaders moved to Turkey and created a network of support forming branches into Syria and the oil-rich Arab Gulf monarchies.

Turkey became the designated depot for weapons the US confiscated in their attack on Libya with the shipment arriving in the southern port of Turkey and then trucked into Syria by Turkish intelligence officers. Turkish Intelligence officer Irshad Hoz was arrested in Egypt for supplying weapons to Muslim Brotherhood terrorists there in the uprising to oust Mursi.  Many of the wanted fugitives later were taken in by Turkey.

In 2019, the US Treasury put sanctions on Turkey for support of ISIS networks.

“These jihadists, which include ISIS, have really entrenched networks inside Turkey,” said Merve Tahiroglu, Turkey program coordinator at the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED).

“It is very unnerving but at the same time quite believable that Turkey hasn’t been really going after these jihadist networks because Turkish law enforcement has been busy hunting down dissidents and government critics,” Tahiroglu told Voice of America.

The Obama administration’s support of the MB

US President Obama supported the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood during the 2011 “Arab Spring” and sought to use the terrorist group as the rulers of a “New Middle East” while aligning with the US and Israel.

John Rossomando, a counter-terrorism expert, wrote ‘The Arab Spring Ruse: How the Muslim Brotherhood Duped Washington in Libya and Syria’ (2021).  Rossomando uncovers how Obama supported it in Egypt, Libya, and Syria while deviating from past US foreign policy which labeled the Muslim Brotherhood as dangerous and linked to terrorism.

“The decision to engage the Muslim Brotherhood marked a historic change in American foreign policy, created a new paradigm in the Middle East, and set into motion a series of events that had catastrophic results: the Muslim Brotherhood’s resurgence, the overthrow of at least two governments, Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s transformation into the ISIS [the Islamic State group] caliphate, failed governments in Syria and Iraq, millions of refugees and displaced individuals, and the resulting destabilizing migration flows,” Rossomando writes.

“The Arab Spring began with rhetoric about freedom and democracy, but we now know it was an Islamist Spring that brought only death, suffering, and oppression. Who knows what might have been had Barack Obama stood against the Brotherhood and its supporters,” concludes Rossomando.

The Muslim Brotherhood has a lengthy criminal and terrorist record, starting from the 1940s in Egypt and then moving to other countries. Long before ISIS and al-Qaeda, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Osama bin Laden, and Ayman al-Zawahiri belonged to a common ideological precursor, the Muslim Brotherhood. Although their strategies may differ, all three groups maintain a shared vision of establishing a global Islamic State.

*

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

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 Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) is speeding up its design of a common payment system, which has been closely discussed for nearly a year with the Chinese under the stewardship of Sergey Glazyev, the EAEU’s minister in charge of Integration and Macro-economy.

Through its regulatory body, the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), the EAEU has just extended a very serious proposal to the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) which, crucially, are already on the way to turning into BRICS+: a sort of G20 of the Global South.

The system will include a single payment card – in direct competition with Visa and Mastercard – merging the already existing Russian MIR, China’s UnionPay, India’s RuPay, Brazil’s Elo, and others.

That will represent a direct challenge to the western-designed (and enforced) monetary system, head on. And it comes on the heels of BRICS members already transacting their bilateral trade in local currencies, and bypassing the US dollar.

This EAEU-BRICS union was long in the making – and will now also move toward prefiguring a further geoeconomic merger with the member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The EAEU was established in 2015 as a customs union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, joined a year later by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Vietnam is already an EAEU free trade partner, and recently enshrined SCO member Iran is also clinching a deal.

The EAEU is designed to implement free movement of goods, services, capital, and workers between member countries. Ukraine would have been an EAEU member if not for the Maidan coup in 2014 masterminded by the Barack Obama administration.

Vladimir Kovalyov, adviser to the chairman of the EEC, summed it all up to Russian newspaper Izvestia. The focus is to establish a joint financial market, and the priority is to develop a common “exchange space:” “We’ve made substantial progress and now the work is focused on such sectors as banking, insurance, and the stock market.”

A new regulatory body for the proposed joint EEU-BRICS financial system will soon be established.

Meanwhile, trade and economic cooperation between the EAEU and BRICS have increased 1.5 times in the first half of 2022 alone.

The BRICS share in the total external trade turnover of the EAEU has reached 30 percent, Kovalyov revealed at the BRICS International Business Forum this past Monday in Moscow:

“It is advisable to combine the potentials of the BRICS and EAEU macro-financial development institutions, in particular the BRICS New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), as well as national development institutions. This will make it possible to achieve a synergistic effect and ensure synchronous investments in sustainable infrastructure, innovative production, and renewable energy sources.”

Here we once again see the advancing convergence of not only BRICS and EAEU but also the financial institutions deeply involved in projects under the China-led New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Halting the Age of Plunder

As if all that was not game-changing enough, Russian President Vladimir Putin is raising the stakes by calling for a new international payment system based on blockchain and digital currencies.

The project for such a system was recently presented at the 1st Eurasian Economic Forum in Bishkek.

At the forum, the EAEU approved a draft agreement on cross-border placement and circulation of securities in member states, and amended technical regulations.

The next big step is to organize the agenda of a crucial meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council on 14 December in Moscow. Putin will be there – in person. And there’s nothing he would love more than to make a game-changing announcement.

All of these moves acquire even more importance as they connect to fast increasing, interlocking trade between Russia, China, India, and Iran: from Russia’s drive to build new pipelines serving its Chinese market – to Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan discussing a gas union for both domestic supplies and exports, especially to main client China.

Slowly but surely, what is emerging is the Big Picture of an irretrievably fractured world featuring a dual trade/circulation system: one will be revolving around the remnants of the dollar system, the other is being built centered on the association of BRICS, EAEU, and SCO.

Pushing further on down the road, the recent pathetic metaphor coined by a tawdry Eurocrat boss: the “jungle” is breaking away from the “garden” with a vengeance. May the fracture persist, as a new international payment system – and then a new currency – will aim to halt for good the western-centric Age of Plunder.

*

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

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

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 Pentagon revealed Friday what it believes it can fight China with: the B-21 raider. 

Located at an Airforce facility in California, the raider is one of three weapon systems including silo-launched nuclear ballistic missiles and submarine-launched warheads, meant to advance warfare preparations against the “Chinese threat” keeping the US on its toes. 

In a statement, the Pentagon said this week of China’s recent military developments that it has birthed “the most consequential and systemic challenge to US national security and the free and open international system.”

Kathy Warden, Chair, CEO, and President of the aerospace and defense technology company Northrop Grumman commented:

“With the B-21 the United States Air Force will deter and defeat threats anywhere in the world,” adding: “The B-21 raider changes everything: reaffirming peace through deterrence, advancing technology, and ushering in a new paradigm in aircraft design, development, and manufacturing.”

Warden also clarified that its operation technique is “extremely advanced compared to the B-2, because the technology has evolved so much in terms of computing capability”, as she stated that the material in the coating wrapped around the B-21 makes it much harder for the adversary to locate it.

As of now, according to Sputnik, six B-21 Raiders are being produced, as the Air Force intends to build around 100 of them that can deploy either nuclear weapons or conventional bombs, which can be manually operated or from a distance.

The Air Force calculated that each B-21 Raider will cost an estimated $692 million to manufacture.

In light of these developments, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian relayed last Wednesday the ways in which the US is devising plans to maintain military hegemony and nuclear power by employing the term “Chinese threat” as a pretext.

The US Defense Department published the 2022 China Military Power Report the day before, claiming that China could catalyze the pace of the modernization of its nuclear forces in the next 10 years, producing around 1,500 nuclear warheads by the year 2035.

During a press briefing, Zhao stated,

“The United States has repeatedly inflated various versions of the Chinese threat theory in recent years to find an excuse to expand its own nuclear arsenal and maintain military hegemony, which is a common US reception,” adding that his country’s nuclear policy is transparent and consistent to the international community.

*

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: Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider in a hangar at Plant 42, Palmdale, California. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

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.

***

Years ago as the head of a fairly large group of psychoanalytic psychiatrists in Philadelphia, a group that had formed in response to the inroads of managed care – inroads that actually kept patients from the insurance benefits to which they were entitled, among other things – the old adage about herding cats was often in the air. Physicians were generally stubbornly independent and they tended to resist any attempts to impose uniformity, even when in agreement with a common mission.

After three years of the Corona War here in New Zealand, it turns out that getting the more than twenty thousand practicing physicians to bury their consciences and keep mum about the Hippocratic Oath, informed consent, the benefits of medically treating patients with Covid before they became sick enough to go to hospital, and the utter uselessness of masks, one of the principal tools of propaganda wielded by the Ministry of Health here and elsewhere around the world, has been very very easy.

Any doctor who dares to question the government’s Covid policies, no matter how irrational or destructive these policies have been, is in danger of losing his or her license to practice medicine, all thanks to the zealous Medical Council of New Zealand.

Because I had voiced my concerns about the Ministry of Health’s management of Covid in letters and in several videos in 2020 and 2021, when it came time for my license to be renewed I was informed that it had been suspended. Colleagues who espoused similar concerns were also targeted. The message was loud and clear: if you question the jab or discuss actual treatment and prevention, you’ll be jeopardizing your license and your livelihood.

Doctors had been given particularly explicit instructions to toe the line regarding ‘vaccination’. In a ‘guidance statement’ issued by the Medical and Dental Councils of New Zealand, we were warned that ‘there is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, nor any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media and advertising by health practitioners.’

To date, as far as I can gather, some twenty doctors have made it into the crosshairs of the Medical Council. Some have signed ‘voluntary undertakings’ as they protest suspensions or fight against ‘professional conduct complaints’, and these undertakings have amounted to gag orders.

I recently learned that this process has taken a particularly sinister and cruelly absurd turn: some of these doctors are now being required to agree not to obtain or prescribe Ivermectin, should they wish to retain their licenses.

Despite the growing mountain of evidence attesting to the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin; despite the ‘officially acknowledged’ right of doctors to prescribe any unrestricted medication on the pharmaceutical schedule here in New Zealand for any condition for which such medication might be useful; despite the backhanded admission by the FDA that their vigorous opposition to Ivermectin was merely a recommendation; despite the fact that in some areas of the world Ivermectin has been made an over-the-counter agent available without prescription – despite all common and ethical sense, the Medical Council persists in a mission of suppression, denigration and control.

If anything this Council and the associated professional colleges such as the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners (RNZCGP) should be rewarding those physicians who have shown fidelity to the core principles of their profession and who have pursued the rational course of helping their patients.

The MCNZ is part of a Mafia, a Mafia run by a capo that goes by the name of the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). As I have shown elsewhere, and as my colleague Dr. Bruce Dooley has revealed in a compelling interview with New Zealander Liz Gunn, the FSMB appears to be calling the shots. Although it is a private non-governmental entity, it has inveigled its way into a position of exceptional power over the State boards of medicine in the United States and then, after forming the International Association of Medical Regulatory Agencies (IAMRA) in 1994, over medical councils around the world.  The Chair-Elect of the IAMRA is none other than the current CEO of the Medical Council of New Zealand. She is, therefore, a paid employee of the FSMB/IAMRA, and I am certain she is not making peanuts. Furthermore, none other than Curtis Walker, the current Chair of the MCNZ, serves on the FSMB Workgroup on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Medical Regulation and Patient Care.

The FSMB has made it very clear that spreading Covid-19 vaccine ‘misinformation’ would put a practitioner’s license at risk. They find it ‘troubling’ that in the United States legislation has been introduced that would limit state medical boards’ disciplinary authority with respect to the ostensible threat of disinformation and would enhance the availability of Ivermectin.

Journalists and investigators are thankfully now exposing the role of this organisation, whose donors are cloaked in secrecy, and its henchmen: for further information see articles by Suzanne Berdick here and here, Tessa Lena here and here, and Dr. Meryl Nass here.

Out of the twenty thousand doctors on the Medical Council’s register, only a few hundred have joined New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science, who advocate fidelity to the pillars of their profession in the face of a seemingly incomprehensible subversion of ethical medical practice promulgated by a government and its ministries who, from the outset, claimed that the only solution to the so-called pandemic was universal inoculation.  And many more doctors who share our concerns – in private – have remained in the shadows out of fear.

If a mere five percent of these twenty thousand had listened to their better senses and opposed the senseless imposition of a gene-altering agent that is maiming and killing people; if this five percent had actively advocated for early treatment and natural immunity and healthy living and not succumbed to fear; if this five percent dared to demonstrate publicly the great harms of locking people down and masking them up … then maybe, just maybe, the Mafia could be run out of town.

Doubtless there are greater forces who are using the FSMB as their tool, but the work of cleaning out criminal rot has to start somewhere.

*

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.

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

The US military industrial complex has made news with another eye-wateringly expensive product, a near totemic tribute to waste in a time of crisis.  The $700 million B-21 Raider stealth bomber was unveiled by Northrop Grumman Corp. and the United States Air Force on December 2 at Airforce Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.

There was much slush and fudge about the project, with its release being treated as something akin to the Second Coming.  Those in public relations were kept particularly busy.  Social media was shamelessly used to advertise the event, which was livestreamed.  “Join now for our live reveal of the B-21 Raider,” tweeted Northrop Grumman.  “This changes everything.”

The occasion was the first of its type since November 1988, when the Northrop B-2 Spirit made its debut. The aircraft in question, with serial number 00001 was rolled forward, still covered in tarpaulin, from a hangar before defence and policy wonks, the press and 2,000 workers.  The removal of the covering revealed a machine reminiscent of the original B-2 with an extra-terrestrial echo, described as “space-age coatings”.

Praise was heaped upon the celebrated, as yet untested monster.  “The B-21 is the most advanced military aircraft ever built and is a product of pioneering innovation and technological excellence,” stated Doug Young, sector vice president and general manager at Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems.

A USAF news release was filled with justifications for the Raider.  (The ceremony was timed to coincide with a new report on Chinese military capabilities.)  “The B-21 Raider is the first strategic bomber in more than three decades,” declared Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin during the unveiling.  “It is a testament to America’s enduring advantages in ingenuity and innovation.  And it’s proof of the Department’s long-term commitment to building advanced capabilities that will fortify America’s ability to deter aggression, today and into the future.”

As with all defence projects of absurd expenditure, justification is easily sought and found.  Such a creation, argue defence officials, was entirely in line with the National Defense Strategy “and other analyses”.  No degree of ingenuity is required to appreciate the primary thrust of the NDS, which is “deterrence against China.”  Of its four top defence priorities outlined in the document, the PRC receives generous coverage, being seen as a “growing multi-domain threat” and any country challenging US interests in the Indo-Pacific.

As Austin has previously stated, “We’re seamlessly integrating our deterrence efforts to make a basic truth crystal clear to any potential foe.  The truth is that the cost of aggression against the United States or our allies and partners far outweigh any conceivable gains.”

This delusional effusion is striking for inverting what are overly aggressive overtures on the international scene, turning them into the more benign objective of deterrence.  Reduced to a skeletal outline, defending US supremacy is the order of the day, and any pretenders or mischief makers will be dealt with, however genuine their credentials.  And when in doubt, those ominous credentials are bound to be inflated.

The B-21 is merely one aspect of that policy.  It “is deterrence the American way,” claims Austin, which might be regarded as threatened aggression by other means.  “It’s the embodiment of America’s determination to defend the republic that we all love.  It’s a testament to our strategy of deterrence – with the capabilities to back it up, every time and everywhere.”

Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Q. Brown Jr., was careful to doff the cap to representatives of the military industrial complex, where corporation and tax payer dollars mix with little scrutiny and few scruples.  “You think about what we’re able to do in the amount of time with the workforce here from Northrop Grumman, the collaboration with the United States Air Force to bring in a capability using a digital approach which is new and different from anything we’ve done [in] any major program, that’s part of the Raider spirit.”

Those at Northrop Grumman won even greater favour with Pentagon bean counters, reportedly developing the project at an amount less than the original $25.1 billion projection by the USAF.  Time will tell.

The event itself was not exactly brimming with revelations.  Air & Space Forces Magazine bluntly noted that little by way of new information about the aircraft was supplied, be it about capabilities, dimensions, or “further programmatic details, such as the planned production rate, or even how many engines power the bomber”.  Austin boasted that it would have a range longer than any other bomber, and “won’t need to be based in theatre.  It won’t need logistical support to hold any target at risk.”

The bomber, the USAF tells us, was designed to be “a long-range, highly survivable stealth bomber capable of delivering a mix of conventional and nuclear munitions.  The aircraft will play a major role supporting national security objectives and assuring US allies and partners across the globe.”

We also learn that the B-21 unveiled on December 2 is one of six in the production line, with an eventual target of 100 or even 150 (defence officials are fickle about such projections).  “Each is considered a test aircraft, but each is being built on the same production line, using the same tools, processes, and technicians who will build production aircraft.”

Opinions and assessments, as they often are in such defence dispatches, are scripted to say nothing while clouding the main issues.  Andrew P. Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, comes up with a bubble-filled sample.  “Leveraging innovative manufacturing techniques, open systems architectures and active management allows us to integrate new technology as it matures and ensures the B-21 can adapt to future threats and be successful when and where we need it.”

While the name of the aircraft is meant to evoke the daring of the 1942 Doolittle Raid on Tokyo by 16 B-25 Mitchell bombers in retaliation for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour, the B-21 is the offspring of a very different spirit: the raider turned wasteful aggressor-in-waiting.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider in a hangar at Plant 42, Palmdale, California. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

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.

***

“Allies are providing unprecedented support to Ukraine and will continue to do so,” announces NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg.  With hundreds of NATO-supplied howitzers, Kiev forces fire thousands of rounds of ammunition in a single day, more than NATO forces fired in a month in Afghanistan. As a result, the howitzer barrels, which are 6 meters long and weigh tons, must be frequently replaced: for this purpose, the Pentagon has stationed a special unit in Poland that continuously sends spare parts to Ukraine. 

This leads to a colossal increase in war production, which becomes a decisive factor in the war.

The United States and NATO are supplying Kiev not only with increasing quantities of weapons, but with long-range weapon systems and projectiles that are automatically directed at targets. As a result, Russia uses increasingly sophisticated weaponry. All this results in the escalation to increasingly dangerous levels of military confrontation between NATO and Russia.

The situation is made even more dangerous by the growing belligerent role of the European Union.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announces that the 300 billion euros that the Russian Central Bank had deposited in European banks, already “frozen” by the EU, will now be seized and effectively used for the war against Russia. At the same time Jens Stoltenberg announces that “we are discussing how to help Ukraine move toward NATO membership.” If Ukraine joins NATO, under Article 5 the 30 NATO countries, including Italy, must send their armed forces to fight against Russian forces in Ukraine.

Against the backdrop of this scenario, the Fuori l’Italia dalla Guerra Campaign takes an added importance. Historian Franco Cardini speaks on this.

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu.

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

After initially having her license suspended by the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine for allegedly “spreading covid misinformation” and being ordered to have a psychological evaluation conducted by a doctor of the Board’s choosing, Dr. Meryl Nass, who has never had one patient complaint in her entire 42 years of practicing medicine, who has successfully treated many covid patients, and who is a pandemic expert, is fighting back.  

On Tuesday, October 11, she finally had the opportunity to face the Board in a hearing.

This hearing is an up-close view into a process that raises serious questions about the leeway medical boards have to abuse their power and destroy the lives of highly experienced, competent physicians with zero patient complaints in service of dangerous, scientifically fraudulent political agendas. 

First published on October 15, 2022

***

Video: Dr Meryl Nass and Kristina Borjesson

The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new type of virus”.  Then on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.  

Christine Massey, M.Sc conducted an extensive report over a period of more than a year. The central question raised in her study is the following:

“is there reliable evidence that SARS-CoV-2  has been isolated  from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?

Christine Massey submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to some 90 Health /Science institutions.

Does the Virus Exist? The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.” 

***

Video: Christine Massey and Michel Chossudovsky. Does the Virus Exist. Has SARS-CoV-2 Been Isolated

To access full screen on bitchute click link below

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DZUIBSfzxEUC/ 

***

Here is a screenshot of the letter sent to Health /Science institutions 

****

Christine Massey’s articles  can be consulted at  Fluoride Free Peel 

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

90 Health/Science Institutions Globally All Failed to Cite Even 1 Record of “SARS-COV-2” Purification, by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever 

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021.

Image: Adolph Hitler together with Prescott Bush, grandfather of former President George W. Bush.

First published by GR on November 13, 2019

***

Prescott Bush was a partner of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co and director of Union Banking Corporation which had close relations with German corporate interests including Thyssen Steel, a major company involved in the Third Reich’s weapons industry. 

“…[N]ew documents, declassified [in 2003], show that even after America had entered the war [December 8, 1941] and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he [Prescott Bush] worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty” (The Guardian, September 25, 2004)

.****

Without US support to Nazi Germany, the Third Reich would not have been able to wage war on the Soviet Union. Germany’s oil production was insufficient to wage a major military campaign. Throughout the war, the Third Reich relied on regular shipments of crude oil  from US Standard Oil owned by the Rockefeller family.

The main producing countries in the early 1940s were: the United States (50% of global oil production), the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, and Romania.

Without a steady supply of oil, Germany would not have been able to conduct Operation Barbarossa which was launched on June 22, 1941. The invasion of the Soviet Union was intent upon reaching and taking control of the oil resources of the Soviet Union in the Caucasus and Caspian sea regions: the oil of Baku.

The Unspoken Question. Where did Germany get its oil from?

Prior the December 1941, Texas oil was shipped on a regular basis to Nazi Germany.

While Germany was able  to transform coal into fuel, this synthetic production was insufficient. Moreover, Romania’s Ploesti oil resources (under Nazi control until 1944) were minimal. Nazi Germany largely depended on oil shipments from US Standard Oil.

The Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) occurred barely six months after the launching of Operation Barbarossa (July 1941). The United States enters World War II, declaring  war on Japan and the axis countries.

Trading with the Enemy legislation (1917) officially implemented following America’s entry into World War II did not  prevent Standard Oil of New Jersey from selling oil to Nazi Germany. This despite the Senate 1942 investigation of US Standard Oil.

While direct US oil shipments were curtailed, Standard Oil would sell US oil through third countries. US oil was shipped to occupied France through Switzerland, and from France it was shipped to Germany:

“… for the duration of the Second World War, Standard Oil, under deals Teagle had overseen, continued to supply Nazi Germany with oil. The shipments went through Spain, Vichy France’s colonies in the West Indies, and Switzerland.”

It should be noted that a large share of Nazi Germany’s oil requirements was met by shipments out of Venezuela which at the time was a de facto US colony.

Venezuela’s US sponsored (War-time) president General Isaías Medina Angarita (May 1941 – October 1945) was there to protect US oil interests as well as “trade with the enemy” from the onset of America’s entry into World War II in December 1941:

John D. Rockefeller Jr. owned a controlling interest in the Standard Oil corporation, but the next largest stockholder was the German chemical company I. G. Farben, through which the firm sold $20 million worth of gasoline and lubricants to the Nazis. And the Venezuelan branch of that company sent 13,000 tons of crude oil to Germany each month, which the Third Reich’s robust chemical industry immediately converted into gasoline.

While Medina Angarita’s government pressured by Washington in the immediate wake of Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) remained officially neutral (de facto aligned with the US, while breaking its relations with Nazi Germany), oil shipments out of Venezuela to Germany were not discontinued. In a rather unusual twist (bordering on ridicule) Venezuela declared war on Germany in February 1945, when the war was almost over.

Without those oil shipments instrumented by Standard Oil and the Rockefellers, Nazi Germany would not have been able to implement its military agenda. Without fuel, the Third Reich’s eastern front under Operation Barbarossa would most probably not have taken place, saving millions of lives. The Western front including the military occupation of France, Belgium and The Netherlands would no doubt also have been affected.

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration could have adopted severe sanctions against Standard Oil with a firm decision to enforce a blockade against Nazi Germany.

The US was not committed to peace: Washington’s unspoken objective was not only to destroy the Soviet Union, it also consisted in undermining Britain’s role  as an imperial power.

Let us be under no illusions. Without the oil shipments instrumented by US Standard Oil and its subsidiaries, Nazi Germany’s imperial design could not have been undertaken.

You cannot wage a war without fuel.

America had been “sleeping with the enemy” throughout World War II.

America’s objective was to destroy the Soviet Union.

Flash Forward to 2019

The European Union has recently adopted a resolution  entitled “Importance of European Remembrance Day for the Future of Europe which reinforces an earlier declaration (September 23, 2008),

The resolution contends that the Second World War:

“was started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, … and its secret protocols, whereby two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of influence”

This is an absurd statement which distorts history. It intimates that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies.

It denies the fact that the Soviet Union was the object of Nazi aggression resulting in more than 25 million people killed (more than 10 percent of the population).

The resolution turns the realities of history upside down. The Soviet Union played a central role in defeating both Nazi Germany and Japan, Moreover, there is ample evidence that the US was sleeping with the enemy largely with a view to destroying the USSR and killing its population.

US oil shipments to Nazi Germany (until 1944) were intended to support Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa resulting in millions of deaths. In this regard, the US was complicit is extensive war crimes by supporting Nazi Germany’s military endeavors.

The broader picture of US-Nazi Cooperation

Selling fuel to Nazi Germany was one among several strategies envisaged by the US.

American business interests continued to cooperate with Nazi corporations after Pearl Harbor.

No attempt was made to prevent Ford from retaining its interests for the Germans in Occupied France, nor were the Chase Bank or the Morgan Bank expressly forbidden to keep open their branches in Occupied Paris. It is indicated that the Reichsbank and Nazi Ministry of Economics made promises to certain U.S. corporate leaders that their properties would not be injured after the Führer was victorious. Thus, the bosses of the multinationals as we know them today had a six-spot on every side of the dice cube. Whichever side won the war, the powers that really ran nations would not be adversely affected.

“Wiping the Soviet Union of the Map”

As early as 1942 (at the height of World War II), a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union had been envisaged. According to a secret document (declassified) released on September 15, 1945 (5 weeks after Hiroshima):

“the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union  with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas. … The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 10, 2017)

A single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 resulted in the immediate death of more that 100,000 people.

Imagine what would would happen if 204 atomic bombs had been dropped on all major urban areas of the Soviet Union. This diabolical project formulated while the US and the Soviet Union were allies was tantamount to genocide.

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 August 24, 2022

***

A medical Army officer who discovered a sudden increase in disease coinciding with reports of side effects alongside COVID-19 vaccines—which the Army has dismissed as a data glitch—said he faces involuntary separation after being convicted but not punished for disobeying COVID-19 protocol.

In January 2022, First Lt. Mark Bashaw, a preventive medicine officer at the Army, started noticing some “alarming signals” within the defense epidemiological database.

The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which tracks disease and injuries of 1.3 million active component service members, showed during the pandemic a significant increase in reports of cancers, myocarditis, and pericarditis; as well as some other diseases like male infertility, tumors, a lung disease caused by blood clots, and HIV, Bashaw said.

All these illnesses are listed in FDA documentation as potential adverse reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccines, Bashaw told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program in an interview on Aug. 1.

Seeing increases in cases of these illnesses as high as 50 percent or 100 percent in some situations, Bashaw stepped forward as a whistleblower to raise concerns about his findings.

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.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

First published on November 7, 2022

***

By now, you probably know about the plans for digital IDs and digital currencies. But how far along are these plans exactly in various places around the world? What steps are being undertaken right now? Why are digital “identities” so problematic? And what are possible solutions? We will explore these questions in this article. 

Digital “identities” are problematic 

The United Nations’ project ID2020 launched in 2016; its goal is to provide every person in the world with a digital identity. But the European Union created the legal framework for the introduction of a European digital ID even earlier than that, in 2014. 

This March my colleague Ashley Sadler wrote a great article about how world elites are quietly preparing digital IDs to put a global surveillance state in place. 

When we look at Europe, we can see that digital IDs are already used by most of the population in many countries, like Italy, Austria, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.  

And even Ukraine has an all-encompassing government app called Diia, an acronym for “the State and me,” which already combines digital identification with passports, licenses, social welfare benefits, COVID “vaccination” records, etc. 

During its ongoing war with Russia, the government even added a feature with which citizens could inform the state about the location and equipment of Russian troops. Bizarrely, the app also contains a game where users can destroy Russian tanks with drones they control. 

I would argue that the very term “Digital Identity” is problematic, as it suggests to people that their identity, their entire being, could be stored on a cloud server. 

In a 2016 presentation called “A Blueprint for Digital Identity”, the World Economic Forum defined the term “identity” in the following way: 

Identity […] is a collection of individual attributes that describe an entity and determine the transactions in which that entity can participate. 

The World Economic Forum’s reductionist understanding of identity is a problem of our technocratic age, which is ruled by the dictates of a nihilistic materialism that sees the human being as nothing more than a collection of attributes or a “clump of cells” that moves through time and space without an ultimate end or meaning. In our digital age, we can be tricked into believing that a collection of digital data points about us is our identity.  

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 August 19, 2022

***

“But really, at this point, many public health officials must be secretly wondering how they will evade prosecution.” –James Howard Kunstler, August 9, 2020

“Some doctors should lose their licenses. Some bureaucrats need to lose their jobs while others need to go to trial.” –Chris Martenson, August 12, 2022

***

Listen to this parent, whose 7 year old child developed myocarditis following injection with experimental Covid19 “vaccine”. Really! listen to seven minutes of rage and frustration aimed at a pharmacist involved in advocating for Covid19 “shots” despite their dangerous, even lethal, potentials. No informed consent, no disclosure of possible disastrous impacts, particularly for children for whom Covid19 was never of real concern in the first place. As with this irrevocably damaged child, it has been full speed ahead with injection and the constantly repeated lie of “safe and effective” for everyone, regardless of age.

The basic Covid19 Pandemic strategy can be condensed to bullet point form:

1. The goal: Vaccinate all of humanity with a forthcoming experimental mRNA technology certain to yield vast fortunes.

2. To decriminalize such an experiment, declare Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

3. But EUA requires that no effective treatments be available. If there were, the plan would never fly.

4. Therefore, available and effective treatments, notably ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin must be attacked and criminalized.

During the Pandemic, too many doctors across the nation, rather than researching and administering possible therapeutics, simply sent the sick home untreated, telling them to go to an emergency ward were their illness to get worse. Practitioners educated specifically to the pharmaceutical industry’s exorbitant offerings, and correspondingly ignorant of the remedial benefits of vitamin, mineral and neutriceutical therapies, blindly and stupidly — and criminally —  followed bureaucratic protocols with the obedience of Auschwitz camp guards.

Likewise, implicated pharmacists across the nation refused to honor prescriptions for off label medicinals that — and this is key — could have saved thousands of lives (Side note: While mainstream media and the CDC/medical establishment attacked ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory was treating 200 members of Congress with it. Really). And as this was going on, dissenting medical personnel were being — and are continuing to be —  censored or defamed, threatened and terminated (eg, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ….)

When the ill finally did enter hospitals, it was hospital administrators — desk bound suits — who passed down official policy from the offices of industry-linked governmental “public health experts”, coercing morally defective practitioners of all stripe to adhere to a lucrative, governmental/industry-inspired protocol involving expensive (ie, profitable) mandated kidney-destroying remdesivir and enforced use of “respirators”, even when their use appeared to be a recipe for death. Hospitals garnered ~$39K per respirator applied. By following official protocols through its various stages, hospitals have gained on the order of $100K for each Covid19 patient who expired (For extended treatment of this issue see HERE).

The wrath expressed by the above parent is now awakening in millions (as with this father who channeled his outrage into billboard form), and it’s accumulating like white hot subterranean lava ready to blow.

Countless thousands are finally coming to grips with the fact that trusted practitioners assumed to be competent — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners — injected their now dead or mutilated loved ones with an experimental concoction, misnamed “vaccine”, that very soon after its release in December, 2020 was revealing nightmarish dangers. For the sake of hospital access, way too many followed a bureaucratic protocol they HAD to know was reckless and potentially deadly.

Yes, you might say, but the truth is now out despite the carefully nurtured mainstream- and social media censorship offensive, so what’s the point? Well, many relatives (by now millions) of the killed and maimed, and parents of permanently damaged children, won’t merely rage into a telephone or post a sign. Inevitably, some, when they realize the established system, so drenched in rot, has no intention of providing justice for what amounts to mass homicide, will be driven to take retribution into their own hands. Knowing this, federal interests will certainly be preparing for trouble. Many observers, for example, see a connection in the proposed $80 billion addition of 87,000 to an admittedly politically weaponized IRS. That 70,000 are to be armed would create a de facto, improvised army.

And how will practitioners react who finally come to their senses and realize the enormity of their decision to inject this experimental concoction despite the many warnings, and for what? —  to hold onto a job?

Will some plead Adolph Eichmann’s “I was just following orders” defense?

If they happen to encounter the families of their patients (victims) will they turn and flee? Will they try to apologize and beg forgiveness?

Might some contemplate suicide? And what of the culpable outside of the medical system that include collaborating journalists and CEOs and administrative bureaucrats who forced subservience to all below them within their networks?

How will all these people atone for their roles in what is now being seen as the fiendish project that it is?

Among the many motivated to seek redress will be doctors and scientists who refused to conform to official demands and who, as a result, suffered insult and attack from within the reputed medical community, as well as from news outlets, as being purveyors of “misinformation”, as for example Dr. Michael Yeadon: 

“To all the doctors who are silent and to all those who are actively involved in administering the vaccines, especially to young, healthy people: In my view, you are responsible for breaking the Nuremberg Code. And my participation in your prosecution will be a pleasure.” 

If he is correct and such prosecutions take place, I’ll want a ringside seat.

*

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 from Children’s Health Defense

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 August 31, 2022

***

An initiative funded in part by the Rockefeller Foundation is investing an initial $7.2 million in behavioral research. This particular study will be focused on brainwashing the public into getting the COVID-19 injections, the foundation announced last week.

The Rockefeller Foundation is a globalist organization founded by oil magnate and robber baron John D. Rockefeller in 1913. Since then, the Foundation has influenced many of the world’s largest and most powerful institutions, including the World Health Organisation, the National Institutes of Health, central banks, and governments.  These are the masters’ masters, and they need you injected with the COVID-19 sauce.

The initiative to brainwash the public, dubbed The Mercury Project, is run by the Social Science Research Council (“SSRC”). In September 2021, the SSRC received a three-year $7.5 million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation toward the costs of launching a research consortium to drive acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccination. They also funded research that will provide insights to counter health misinformation and disinformation (basically censor anyone who disagrees, or cannot be brainwashed). The grant will fund research through August 31, 2024, according to a report by the Daily Exposé.

An initial $7.2 million in behavioral research focused on convincing more people to get the COVID-19 injections, the Foundation announced last week. Apparently, they haven’t hit their target goal for how many they need to inject to carry out their agenda. They are looking specifically at “tailored” results for the following regions:

Bolivia, Brazil, Côte D’Ivoire, Ghana, Haiti, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, United States, and Zimbabwe.

“With Covid-19 prevalent and rapidly evolving everywhere, there is a pressing need to identify interventions with the potential to increase vaccination take-up. Vaccines are only effective if they become vaccinations; vaccines are a scientific marvel but their potential is unfulfilled if they are left on the shelf,” said Anna Harvey, President of SSRC. “The large volume of high-quality proposals submitted to the Mercury Project underscores just how eager the social and behavioral science community is to evaluate interventions to increase vaccination demand and build healthier information environments.”

And they are admitting that coming after the children is one of the goals. Once they can turn kids into automaton drones just repeating what they were told without any thought of their own, the battle is won:

• Conducting literacy training for secondary school students in partnership with local authorities to help students identify Covid-19 vaccine misinformation;
• Equipping trusted messengers with communication strategies to increase Covid-19 vaccination demand;
• Using social networks to share tailored, community-developed messaging to increase Covid-19 vaccination demand. –Rockefeller Foundation

Obviously, something went wrong as they are dumping millions into a brainwashing scheme to convince people to take the shots we now know are causing AIDS and SADS. We had mentioned that not enough people bought into the scamdemic the first go around, so we need to brace for what’s next: War On “Vaccine Hesitancy” Lost! Prepare For What’s Next!

When these sociopaths realize brainwashing doesn’t work on everyone, and likely only on those who already have taken these shots, they will roll out something else. Stay vigilant and prepared. They are still telling us without telling us that these injections are a part of the overall agenda and they haven’t yet convinced enough people to give themselves AIDS…yet.

*

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 from SHTFplan.com

Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store!

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate 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 10, 2022

***

A few years after WW I, the poet T.S. Eliot opened his famous poem “The Wasteland” with these words: “April is the cruelest month … “  I think he may be wrong, for this October may be the cruelest month of all, followed by November.  Unprecedented.  You can hear the clicking and grating of spades if your antennae are attuned.

We are on the brink of ominous events created by the U.S. war against Russia.  Yet so many people prefer to turn away and swallow the lies that the U.S. wants peace and not war and is the aggrieved party in the crisis.

A friend of mine, who is constantly charging me with having turned right-wing because of my writing that accuses many traditional liberal/leftists of buying the national security state’s propaganda on the JFK assassination, “9/11,” Syria, Ukraine, Covid-19, censorship, the “New” Cold War, etc., and whose go-to news sources are The Guardian, CNN, The New York Times, NPR, ABC, seems oblivious to the fact that right and left have become useless terms and that these media are all mouthpieces for the CIA and their intelligence allies in the new Cold War; that the so-called right and left are joined at the hip with their obsession with Pax Americana.

There are no right and left anymore; there are only free and independent voices or those of the caged parrots repeating what they have been taught to say:

“Polly wants a war!”  “Polly wants a war.”

I am afraid that I will never convince this dear friend otherwise and I find that depressing.  Yet I know such views are shared by millions of others and that even if nuclear war breaks out their minds will not change.  Propaganda runs very, very deep into their psyches, and they desperately want to believe.  Hitler said it clearly in Mein Kampf:

The masses … are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

Hitler learned so much about “manufacturing consent” from his American teachers Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, et al., who accomplished so much brainwashing of the American people.  They were all masters of the lie and millions continue to believe their followers.

If nuclear weapons are again used (and everyone knows the only country to have used them), these believers will blame their use on Russia, even though Russia has made it very clear that it would only resort to such weapons if the country’s existence were threatened, while the U.S. continues affirming its right to preemptively use nuclear weapons when it so chooses.

And even if nuclear weapons are not used, the recent sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and the bombing of the Crimean Bridge, both clearly the work of U.S./NATO/Ukrainian forces, have raised the ante considerably.  The door to hell has just been opened wider, and I suspect not by accident, as the U.S. elections approach.

In his recent television talk, Vladimir Putin made Russia’s nuclear position very clear, mentioning nuclear weapons only in the context of Western threats of using them, as Moon of Alabama reported.

Putin said:

They [the U.S./NATO/Ukraine] have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.

I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.

The citizens of Russia can rest assured that the territorial integrity of our Motherland, our independence and freedom will be defended – I repeat – by all the systems available to us. Those who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that the wind rose can turn around.

When the long-planned U.S. war against Russia, so obvious to anyone who sees past the propagandist headlines and studies the matter, soon explodes into full-scale open war for all to see in horror, as it will, these true believers will dig in their heels even more.  They will find new reasons to justify their faith, and it is akin to religious faith.  The infamous Rand Corporation’s 2019 report cited above, “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia,” cites the following as part of the war process, as summarized in the Strategic Culture article, but it will have no impact on the faithful believers:

• Providing lethal military aid to Ukraine
• Mobilizing European NATO members
• Imposing deeper trade and economic sanctions
• Increasing U.S. energy production for export to Europe
• Expanding Europe’s import infrastructure to receive U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies

I keep thinking of the U.S. false flag Gulf of Tonkin “incident” in 1964 and how effective that was in convincing the gullible population and the complicit U.S. Congress – by a vote of 88 to 2 in the Senate and 414 to 0 in the House of Representatives (try to imagine such criminals) – that U.S. destroyers were innocently attacked by the North Vietnamese and that Lyndon Johnson should be given the authority to respond to repel “communist aggression,” which, of course, he did by bombing North Vietnam and sending 500,000 troops to savagely destroy Vietnam and Vietnamese nearly 9,000 miles from the United States.  Johnson simply lied to wage war and Biden is doing the same today.  But far too many people love their leaders’ lies because it allows them to secretly feel justified in the lies they themselves tell in personal matters.  And what may be true of the distant past, can’t be true today.

In 1965, the folk singer Tom Paxton put Johnson’s lies to music with “Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation.”  In those days, art was used as a weapon against U.S. propaganda.

Today we can ask: Where have all the artists gone?

We know that the U.S. has, for the time being, abandoned sending hundreds of thousands of troops into another country; now it is drones, air warfare, special forces, the CIA, mercenaries, terrorists, and intermediaries such as the Ukrainian conscripts, Azov Nazis, and NATO surrogates.  Such was the lesson of Vietnam when the draft led to massive protests and resistance.  Now war is waged less obviously and the propaganda is more extensive and constant as a result of digital media.

There are many such examples of U.S. treachery, most notably the attacks of September 11, 2001, but such history is only open to those who take it upon themselves to investigate.

Now there is the corrupt Ukrainian U.S. puppet government, which is nearly 6,000 miles from the United States, and must be defended from Russian “aggression,” just like the corrupt South Vietnamese U.S. puppet government was.

To those who buy the mass media propaganda, I ask: Why is the U.S.A. always fighting to kill people so far from its shores?

Doesn’t it sound a bit odd that our wonderful leaders destroyed Libya, Vietnam, Serbia, the Philippines, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., countries so far away, and now that Russia defends itself from U.S./NATO encroachment a few miles from its borders, it is accused of being the evil aggressors and Vladimir Putin called another Hitler like all the leaders of the countries we attacked?

Have you completely lost your ability to think?  Or do you, like little children, actually believe the disembodied newsreaders who deliver your prepackaged television propaganda?

If I ask such an obvious question, does that make me a “right-winger”?

If I state two facts: that Donald Trump – whom I consider despicable and part of the divide and conquer game as Biden’s flip side, and have said so – did not start a war against Russia and that Russia-gate was a Democratic propaganda stunt and is false, does that make me a right-winger?  My friend would say so. Do telling facts define your political allegiances, whether they be facts about Republicans or Democrats?

No.  I will tell you what it makes me: A disgusted human being sickened by all the lies and people’s gullibility after decades of evidence that should have awakened them to the truth about all these politicians and the war against Russia underway.  I have lost patience with it.  For decades I have been writing about such propaganda to no avail.  Yes, those who tended to agree with me might have moved a little closer to my arguments, but the vast majority have not budged an iota.

I wish it were different. It is my desire. Eduardo Galeano, the Uruguayan sage of the Americas, who knew what was up and what was down when he wrote Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World in 1998, said this about Desire:

A man found Aladdin’s lamp lying around. Since he was a big reader, the man recognized it and rubbed it right away. The genie appeared, bowed deeply, and said, ‘At your service master. Your wish is my command. But there will be only one wish.

Since he was a good boy, the man said, ‘I wish for my dead mother to be brought back.’

The genie made a face. ‘I’m sorry, master, but that wish is impossible. Make another.’

Since he was a nice guy, the man said, ‘I wish the world would stop spending money to kill people.’

The genie swallowed. ‘Uhh … What did you say your mother’s name was?’

The desire for peace and security is a universal dream.  Sometimes it is hidden in people’s hearts because they have swallowed the lies of the evil ones who wish to wage war against those who insist on security for their country, as Russians are demanding today.

It is very frustrating to try to wake people out of their manufactured consent and the insouciance that follows as we are being led into the abyss.

But I will not stop trying.  Galeano did not.  He left us these words of universal resistance:

We shall be compatriots and contemporaries of all who have a yearning for justice and beauty, no matter where they were born or when they lived, because the borders of geography and time shall cease to exist.

We must save the world before it is too late.

*

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, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book, click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published on September 6, 2021

***

For most people, 2020 will be remembered as the year of the ‘virus’ and 2021 will be remembered as the year of the ‘vaccine’.

What most people will probably never know is that 2021 is shaping to be the year in which humanity and freedom are both destroyed.

Not because a virus will kill us, because the virus does not exist. For just two of the myriad demonstrations of this point, see ‘COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed!’ and ‘Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)’. And for an account of one researcher’s fruitless search over the course of a year to find evidence of an isolated virus, via Freedom of Information requests to 90 health/science institutions all over the world, watch

‘Does the Virus Exist? Has SARS-CoV-2 Been Isolated? Interview with Christine Massey’.

Rather, the injectable being marketed as a ‘vaccine’ will kill a substantial proportion of the human population – for one of the most straightforward explanations of this fact by three highly qualified experts (Professor Dolores Cahill, Dr Judy Mikovits & Dr Sherri Tenpenny) watch ‘The Truth about the Covid-19 Vaccine’ – and turn most others into a human relic, known technically as a ‘transhuman’ or, if you like, ‘cyborg’. See

‘Beware the Transhumanists: How “Being Human” is being Re-engineered by the Elite’s Covid-19 Coup’.

But while the injectable will have devastating consequences on the human population and must be strenuously resisted, it is the hidden and complementary measures being introduced by the criminal global elite under the guise of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ that will ensure the fundamental transformation of life for those humans and transhumans left alive.

If you doubt this, I can only invite you to read what ‘The Great Reset’ portends for humanity. If you want to read a summary, see:

‘Killing Democracy Once and for All: The Global Elite’s Coup d’état That Is Destroying Life as We Know It’.

In essence, the net outcome of the many measures that are being implemented, most of them ‘hidden’ behind the worldwide focus on the non-existent virus, will be a substantial human depopulation and enslavement of the rest. For more detail explaining what is already in train and how things will unfold, see the explanation, analysis and many references cited on

‘We Are Human, We Are Free’.

Options for Resistance

There are many options for resisting what is happening but most that are familiar are doomed to fail. Here, in brief, is why.

If you believe that mass protests will compel governments to respond to movement demands to cease implementing their heinous agenda, it would be useful for you to think a little more deeply about what is taking place. For a start, governments are not driving ‘The Great Reset’; it is an initiative of the global elite and governments are simply elite puppets. Moreover, movements that rely on mass protests only and which are focused too narrowly – such as on resisting lockdown measures, mandatory injection or ‘injection passports’ – cannot impact the elite program overall.

To do that, we need a combination of strategically-focused actions that undermine elite power to promote and implement its ‘Great Reset’ agenda which has very many components. And to achieve that outcome, protests are simply the wrong tactic (unless they are specifically used to raise awareness of strategic means of resisting ‘The Great Reset’ and its associated measures in relation to the fourth industrial revolution, eugenics and transhumanism).

If you believe that ‘democratic’ processes will save us, you might be interested to know that these have long been under the control of the global elite and simply provide a convenient mechanism for dissipating the dissent of those who are unaware. For a full explanation of this point, see

‘Killing Democracy Once and for All: The Global Elite’s Coup d’état That Is Destroying Life as We Know It’.

And if you believe that challenges through the legal system will deliver us justice, be aware that these too were long ago captured by the global elite and are used to thwart fundamentally progressive initiatives, whatever occasional victories (invariably on issues that do not concern the global elite) in limited jurisdictions appear to suggest otherwise. In any case, there is no court in the world that has jurisdiction to require the global elite to appear before it to answer for its many outstanding crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, nor those crimes it is inflicting now. As discussed by a diverse range of scholars and activists in the 18^th , 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the rule of law is the rule of elite violence. See

‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

Finally, if you believe that violence, in any form, will get us out of this mess, you are giving inadequate consideration to the preeminent geopolitical reality of our time: the military forces at the command of the global elite, starting with the national military forces, including nuclear arsenals, committed to the NATO Alliance. Not to mention the police forces of each jurisdiction. And given the elite agenda includes substantial depopulation, from their viewpoint how this occurs, militarily or otherwise, is really immaterial. So a key strategic consideration is devising the appropriate ways to mobilize military and police forces in support of us.

Given that military and police personnel have far more in common with the communities in which they live than they have in common with the global elite, history offers many examples in which thoughtful nonviolent activists were able to achieve this very effectively. Moreover, while it might be counterintuitive, strategic nonviolent struggle is superior to military violence, as strategic theory explains and history has demonstrated. See

The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach.

Conclusion

In essence then, effective resistance to this elite coup depends on mobilizing enough ‘ordinary’ people to take the strategically-focused nonviolent action – essentially acts of noncooperation to thwart key elite initiatives – that will shift power from the global elite to us. No other option is genuinely realistic or has the sheer power to be as effective.

Hence, as part of the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ strategy, earlier this year Anita McKone and I launched ‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’, carefully explaining why each of the actions nominated was important in undermining elite power. And recently, Henna Maria in Spain created the beautiful flyers, outlining essential elements of the campaign, displayed with this article.

If you wish to play a vital role in the defence of humanity and human freedom, you are invited to undertake the actions indicated on these flyers, and share them with those who you think might be interested. Provided enough people take these actions on an ongoing basis, the global elite’s capacity to kill or enslave each one of us can be defeated.

What you choose to do, one way or the other, will help shape the fate of humanity.

See Robert J Burrowes proposals for Grassroots Campaign directed Worldwide against the financial elites and national governments

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to ‘Global Research’.

Featured image is from The Last American Vagabond

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 August 16, 2022

***

Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family doctor. He lives and works in Lytton, in Canada. He is a graduate of the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and moved to Canada. He has worked as a rural family physician and emergency room physician for 31 years.

In the video below, Dr. Hoffe gives a riveting speech on the COVID pandemic and the vaccination campaign in Canada.

“Never before in medical history has any medical treatment maimed and killed so many people…”

*

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.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published on November 28, 2021.

It is worth noting that in the US the CDC as of December 31, 2021, the PCR was “cancelled”.

***

The mystification and inappropriate use of the PCR test, denounced since October 2020 by lawyer Reiner Fuellmich prevails despite the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal (October 2020) in Portugal[1][2].

Everywhere in the rich countries, the rulers impose its deadly use thanks to the corruption of many scientists and doctors, media to whom we let the word, the many others being defamed threatened and muzzled.

Currently, a simple PCR positive test

• makes you qualify as a “case”,[3][4][5]
• declares you dangerous for others,
• bans you from work, school or sport.

It also exposes you to interrogations worthy of the inquisition (minus the physical torture) so that you denounce those you have met, who will immediately be declared contact cases and subjected in turn to the madness of exclusion and repeated tests.

To break the chain of transmission, you have to isolate the really sick people, those who show clinical signs (fever, cough, fatigue, anosmia…) in whom the test can be useful to confirm the diagnosis of viral infection (and not much more) and let the asymptomatic ones (who are only very exceptionally contaminators) live normally.

In a person with no clinical signs, a positive PCR test does not indicate that he or she is ill, will become ill, is a carrier of the virus, or can transmit it.

These findings were initially made on 3790 positive cases[6].

Their definitive confirmation was made during the colossal screening (10 million people tested) around Wuhan[7] where none of the 300 PCR-positive asymptomatic people turned out to be virus carriers, contaminants or affected by the disease after one month of surveillance.

We know, they know, and we know they know[8].

A recent FDA document finally admits that the “Covid” PCR test was developed without specific viral samples isolated for test calibration, admitting that it tests for something else,[9] some insufficiently virus-specific RNA sequences

The infamous PCR test for coronavirus (Covid-19) was not developed with real samples, but rather with what appears to be genetic material from a common cold virus.

In the FDA document, it is clearly stated that ordinary seasonal flu genetic material was used as a test marker in the PCR test kits.

Yet the authorities knew that many people would test “positive,” allowing them to use those results to create the “Covid” narrative.

There is no legitimate test that can accurately identify the presence of SARS-CoV-2.

Another revelation in the recent document is the FDA’s admission that the test results are “aggregated” and therefore produce inaccurate numbers. The FDA is literally fabricating data to support a false narrative.

And So: 

“We are now at a crossroads around the world. The time is ours to decide whether we will allow this type of medical fascism to continue and impact our children’s future. Or if we will finally say no to tyrannical government policy.”[10]

Selected excerpts from the FDA document from January 2020 and revised regularly (last in July 2021)

“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2)

“Because no quantified 2019-nCoV virus isolates were available for use by CDC at the time the assay was developed and this study was conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full-length RNA (N gene; GenBank Accession: MN908947. 2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) enriched in a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic the clinical sample.[11]

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel[12]

“The results relate to the identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA is usually detectable in upper and lower respiratory tract specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with SARS-CoV-2, but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definitive cause of the disease. Laboratories in the United States and its territories are required to report all results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results should be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiologic information.”

Other excerpt:

“DO NOT DISCARD: Important product-specific information

LIMITATIONS This test has not been approved by the FDA. This test has been cleared by the FDA under an EUA for use by licensed laboratories. This test has only been cleared for the detection of nucleic acid from 2019-nCoV, not for other viruses or pathogens.

This test is authorized only for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist to justify authorization of the emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for the detection and/or diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 under section 564(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(1), unless the authorization is terminated or revoked earlier.”

” The WHO’s Mea Culpa”

The WHO in January 2021 had called attention to the invalidity of many PCR tests especially when laboratories spuriously use high signal amplifications [CT Threshholds]. No account has been taken of this warning, at least in most French labs.[13]  Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

According to Michel Chossudovsky’s Analysis of the WHO Retraction:

“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept 

This is not an issue of  “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.

What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting:  “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.

The WHO calls for “Retesting”, which is tantamount to “We Screwed Up”.

That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Millions of people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless, we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.  

This is not an issue of “low positives” or “risk of false positives.” The issue is about the starting point in January 2020 of WHO’s implementation of a misleading and flawed methodology that leads to estimates that have no scientific basis.

What this contradictory statement from the WHO confirms is that the estimate of Covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or more) is simply invalid. In this case, WHO recommends repeating the PCR test:

“a new sample should be collected and the test repeated…”.

From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of  the last 12-14 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.

And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect fragments of the virus. Therefore,  the official “covid numbers” are meaningless.

It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic.

Which in turn means that the lockdown / economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever.[16]

In addition, other scandals have arisen in relation to the PCR test[17]

The US Food and Drug Administration has issued “the most serious type of recall” for popular home test kits that indicate whether a person is infected with the coronavirus. At least 2.2 million products may have yielded false positives.

Some 2,212,335 kits produced by Australia-based biotech company Ellume and distributed in the U.S. potentially show false-positive results for the SARS-CoV-2 test, the public health agency said in a recent release in Nov. 2021.

The FDA warned that use of the defective kits “may result in serious adverse health consequences or death,” calling the case a “Class I recall.”

In conclusion, confirmation that PCR tests are unreliable and should not be used by governments as evidence of the “pandemic” comes from the FDA itself.

It is high time that our leaders return to the traditional means of assessing epidemics: counting the sick and counting the dead from the disease.

Notes :

[1] Vers le faire-part de décès des tests PCR (francesoir.fr)

[2] La grande supercherie des tests PCR, 90 % des cas positifs ne sont pas malades ni contagieux (francesoir.fr)

[3] *Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy, Francis Drobniewsk
False-positive Covid-19 results: hidden problems and costswww.thelancet.com/respiratory Vol 8 December 2020

[4] https://latribunedissidente.over-blog.com/2020/10/la-pertinence-des-tests-pcr-dr-pascal-sacre.html

[5] Covid : La PCR nasale peut-elle mentir ? Dr Pascal Sacré, AIMSIB, 30 août 2020

[6] Rita Jaafar Correlation between 3790 positive quantitative polymerase chain reaction samples and positive cell cultures, including 1941 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolates Clinical Infectious Diseases, 9/28/2020 ciaa1491 coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère Maladies infectieuses cliniques, 28/9/2020 ciaa1491,
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491

[7] France info with AFP: After mobilizing more than 28,000 caregivers at more than 2,800 sites, authorities in Wuhan, China, carried out the largest Covid-19 screening operation among eleven million residents at a cost of $127 million Monday, August 9, 2020…

[8] L’archipel du goulag, Soljenitsyne

[9] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/downloadwww.fda.gov

[10] https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/10/27/fda-document-admits-Covid-pcr-test-was-developed-without-isolated-samples-for-test-calibration-e

[11] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/downloadwww.fda.gov

[12] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Viral Diseases 1600 Clifton Rd NE Atlanta GA 30329 CDC-006-00019, Revision: 07 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases Effective: 07/21/2021

[13] L’OMS confirme que le test Covid-19 PCR est invalide, les estimations des « cas positifs » sont sans fondement. Le confinement n’a aucune base scientifique. | Mondialisation — Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation

[14] WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05

[15] Diagnostic in vitro

[16] Prof. Michel Chossudovsky mentions that there are several other flaws with the PCR test that are not discussed in this article. (See Michel Chossudovsky’s e-book): The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the Great Reset(Chapitre II).

[17] FDA recalls millions of Covid test kit over false results – Asume Tech 11 Nov 21

***

Translation from the French original by Global Research

Link to the original article:

La mystification par le test PCR pour créer le mythe de la pandémie et entretenir la peur

Par Dre Nicole Delépine, November 18 2021

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.

***

After a careful research to find the meaning and implications of the term “multipolar world” often used these days, the freedictionary and englopedia offer insights as a system of world order in which the majority of global leading powers coordinate and commonly agree on economic, political and cultural influence and mutually acceptable directions.

Both dictionaries further explain that countries have multipolar approaches to foreign policy. Participating countries necessarily conceive multiple centers of power or influence in the world, have a multipolar approach to foreign policy. Multipolar world could mean the various differences in thoughts, views and ideas regarding anything in particular which different people desire to do across the world.

It appears from several reports that China and Russia intend to lead the new world order. Speeches from both sides are extremely critical on “based rules and regulations” given by the United States and Europe. The United States global dictatorship might end, so that the unipolar would then become a multi-polar world in which democracy could actually thrive.

In practical terms and in order to lead multipolar system requires outward, broad and integrative approach. While China, to a large extent, has portrayed this practical approach which is readily seen around the world, Russia’s method is full of slogans, highly limited. With the emerging new global order, China appears more open and integrative than Russia. Despite the fact that it madly advocates for creating and ultimate establishment of this multipolar world, Russia exits significantly from a number of international organizations and the global stage, thus weakening and isolating itself and further contributing towards its own “cancel culture” instead of the opposite.

Whether people like it or not, the United States will conveniently operate within the emerging multipolar system. It has the necessary established [institutionalized] instruments to operate within the framework of multilateralism and integrative multicultural environment. The United States is and remains as an “indispensable” power. Russia and a few of its allies in this evolutionary process, without adopting cautious steps and strategic approach, will definitely remain “dispensable” in the end.

In order to deepen our understanding of the emerging multipolar world, it is useful to make comparisons. The United States new strategy acknowledges the fact that Africa will shape the future – not just the future of the African people, but of the world. And as such deals with the civil society, women’s groups and the youth which it refers to as the megaphone of governance. Building admirable public perception is part of the geopolitical game. These have influence on policies and processes engaging policy-makers in Africa.

It further works in various directions closely with the African Union, and one more new direction is the African diaspora. The United States has the largest African diaspora which has strong socio-cultural inroads and business inter-linkages and a huge significant impact of developments inside Africa. These compared, Russia has grossly ignored African diaspora and even those African professional cum specialists it has indeed trained from Soviet times and currently. In the emerging new multipolar world, to consistently overlook these could be an irreversible mistake from policy perspectives.

Nevertheless, not everything is perfect. There is some high optimism that efforts after the first summit gain grounds. The comprehensive summit declaration offers the clear roadmap for building relations. But Russians seriously brush aside the relevance and the role of culture, for that matter aspects on soft power in foreign policy while advocating for this emerging new order. Examining, in broad terms, all aspects of culture that basically includes continuing the struggle for self-determination, for creating the grounded opportunity to live in peace and preserving one’s valuable traditions. Language, of course, plays its unifying role.

Some contradictions and different interpretations might exist. On the other hand, there are divergent views and different perceptions relating to the current geopolitical changes, but frankly speaking the study of foreign languages, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and the emerging interest in the Chinese and Russian languages, has been a long part of people’s lives, especially those who hope to move across borders and dream to have smooth interactions with other nationals from different countries around the world.

For the past three decades since the collapse of the Soviet era, Russian language studies has been low, for example among the African population primarily due to lack of overwhelming interest and adequate motivation, and lack of consistent interactive cultural activities by Russian authorities, experts frequently say, and warmheartedly complain that things are slow with Russia’s return to Africa.

Most Africans prefer to study foreign languages to ensure smooth participation in interstate activities such as trade and in order to maintain relationship with people abroad. Foreign countries, for example Britain, the United States, European countries and now China are their traditional favorites. There are always interactive programmes and cultural activities throughout the year operated by foreign missions and NGOs.

Interpreted from different perspectives, Russia has not been a major economic giant in Africa compared to Western and European countries and China. Due to this historical truth, Africans have little interest in studying Russian language and its culture. The Russian language itself does not sound attractive in terms of its economic opportunity and therefore Africans prefer to study languages that readily offer opportunities. China is making huge contributions in the continent and this has made Africans see the need to understand the language in order to have better interaction with them.

The obvious worse-case scenario is that the Russian government has not created necessary conditions and reasons to study the language simply because it has little influence in the continent. Besides that, the trade and commercial links between Russia and Africa are quite negligible so there is no desperate demand for the Russian language for businessmen. New York, Washington, London and Paris are their second homes. Admittedly, Russia is not even a welcoming holiday destination for African elites and the middle-class which is twice the total population of Russia, and constitutes 40% of 1.3 billion population of Africa. Travel and tourism is an increasingly huge business, the unique geographical landscapes and changing attractiveness of Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi – these are unknown to the African elite and the growing middle-class.

Russia’s frequent confrontation and anti-Western posture is dangerous as itself has, so far, done little within parameters of socio-cultural diplomacy in Africa. With the current evolving political and cultural processes, the West and Europe will still have a strong classical grip on Africa, influencing everything first from culture and tourism, and moving onward to politics and economics. Perhaps, Russia has to play correct strategic openness and welcome African travellers, tourists and visitors. Closing doors, especially in these critical times, might negatively distract Africa’s support for Russia.

The worrying tendency is that Rossotrudnichestvo, an agency under Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, pays little attention to educational and cultural questions in Africa, compared to its assertive counterparts – USAID, Alliance Française de France, The Goethe Institute, British Council, Instituto Cervantes that operate throughout the world. Another Russian organization – Russkiy Mir Foundation, which is directly responsible for promoting Russian language and culture abroad, does extremely little in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, cultural officers work in all the 38 Russian embassies in Africa.

Russia appears quite removed from Africa’s development issues, it is only mentioned in limited areas like weapons and military equipment supplies to French-speaking West Africa. Nowadays, China is being viewed as a strong strategic partner in Africa given its (China’s) strong footprints in diverse economic sectors. China has more than 20 Confucius Centers, and a party school in Africa. Western and European, and China support civil society, youth programmes and women’s issues, – these are completely not on the Russia’s radar.

Russia allegedly allows its own ‘cancel culture’ and significantly not by the United States and its European allies. In practical terms, creating a multipolar system deals largely with cultural and social orientation, it deals with public perceptions through openness and friendliness. At this new historical reawakening stage, Russia has to review itself and try to focus on building relations, both with substance, trustful and refined approach, and strive to strategically engage with civil society, youth organizations and non-state institutions in Africa.

By and large, Russia has to intensify its people-to-people connections, the soft power and cultural diplomacy with Africa. There is a huge cultural gap of new thinking, working with young professionals and associations to promote people-to-people diplomacy through business links, cultural exchanges and competitions. As Russia charts loudly for multipolar system, this has to reflect in its current foreign policy and approach especially towards the developing world, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

Late October, during the final plenary session of the 19th meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, the focus was on matters related to the changing geopolitics and civilisation diversity, the new world order and its future developments. Under the theme – “A Post-Hegemonic World: Justice and Security for Everyone” – the four day-long interactive meeting brought academic experts and researchers, politicians, diplomats and economists from Russia and 40 foreign countries.

President Vladimir Putin discussed, at considerable length, so many controversial questions. According to him, classic liberal ideology itself today has changed beyond recognition. Predicted the end of United States global dominance, but fell short in proposing an appropriate Russia’s template – the principles and mechanisms – for realizing the lofty idea and approach to establishing multipolar world.

Putin did not say anything about Russia becoming a global power, but awarded that position to China. Giants like China, India and Indonesia with large population are showing economic growth; in Africa large countries – some of them with a population of 200 million – are emerging and making progress, as well as countries in Latin America.

According to him, Russia still have friends around the world. He mentioned that in Central America and Africa, the Russian flags are flying everywhere. “There are flags in European countries and in the United States too, we have many supporters there. By the way, a large proportion of the US population adhere to traditional values, and they are with us, we know this,” he added in his assertive conversation at the Valdai gathering.

Putin, along the line argued that the support for multipolar order largely exists in the global south. Russia is not the enemy and has never had any evil intentions as regards the European countries and the United States. He appreciated Africa’s struggle for independence and against colonialism. These absolutely unique relations were forged during the years when the Soviet Union and Russia supported African countries in their fight for freedom.

In this context and in relation to Africa, Natalia Zaiser, Founder of the African Business Initiative Union, apparently talked about the new historical stage, need to establish new or different institutions of international partnership.

Her series of questions to Putin: “Mr President, what is your vision of a new international partnership institution? Which basis of parities is Russia ready to offer at the international level? Which mechanisms, tools and personalities are needed to acquire new allies, partners and friends, not at a declarative level but at the level of unquestionable responsibility in terms of agreements? Do you think we should also change or build up other approaches within the future international partnership?”

Putin’s answer was: “We must and we can focus on cooperation, primarily, with countries which have sovereignty in taking fundamental decisions. This is my first point. My second point is that we need to reach a consensus on each of these decisions. Third, we need to secure a balance of interests. As part of which institutions can we do this? Of course, these are primarily universal international organizations, and number one is with the United Nations.”

*

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.

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

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

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

***

In response to Jeff J. Brown’s article “The Myth of Chinese Capitalism,” Ron Leighton wrote an article published at Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, and elsewhere.

Dr. T. P. Wilkinson has interviewed Jeff J. Brown about his article and much more.

*

The debate about what system actually governs the People’s Republic of China has continued since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. The significance of this controversy increased after 1989 when the Soviet Union was destroyed along with the governments that had prevailed in the Comecon¹ region.

After the NATO-led demolition of Yugoslavia, the prevailing opinion in the West was that communism or even socialism had failed. This left the Republic of Cuba, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China as the only states ruled by and through communist parties. The claim that China—at least since Deng—is capitalist and not communist or socialist is not so much an issue in China as one for those adamant on proving that the system attributed to the US or the “West”, generally called “capitalism” is not merely the superior system but the only system on the planet no matter who governs.

This interview is not only a response to an article by Ron Leighton criticizing Jeff J Brown. It is the first in a series of articles on the Transformation of Political Language. Since 1989 there has been an obvious crisis in popular-based politics following the global purging of radical popular movements from the 1950 to the 1980. While the thirty years following the end of World War II were dominated by violent counter-insurgency and assassinations, the period following the end of the Soviet Union has been an era where the very language of popular political action has collapsed. This series aims to explain this and perhaps point toward possibilities for a reconstituted political speech capable of collating the subjective and objective conditions of political struggle.

T.P. Wilkinson: As someone whose life in China went through different phases, in fact, changed through personal experience, it might be useful to start by describing when and how you came to China and briefly describe those transformations.

Jeff J. Brown: I really need to go back in time to fully answer your question. My travel lust began over a decade before starting my career in China, 1990-1997. With my agricultural upbringing, in 1978, I learned fluent Portuguese at graduate school, with the express goal of going to Brazil to become a corn and soybean baron. Luckily, I could not get the financing. Otherwise, I would have probably become a greedy landowner, shooting at locals and Natives, to protect my property.

Instead, I joined the Peace Corps, 1980-1982 in Tunisia, learning Arabic fluently, to help local farmers with their imported Holstein dairy cows. This launched me into eight more years across Africa and the Middle East, first in marketing frozen bull semen for artificial insemination and then in grain trade, also learning French fluently.

Having gotten married in 1988 and becoming a naturalized French citizen, I was ready for a change of culture. We got transferred to China in 1990, with four more years in grain trade and then for three years, overseeing the installation and management of McDonald’s first bun bakery on the Mainland.

I mention all this, because I am ashamed of my attitude and behavior during my first seven years in China. In spite of all my previous cosmopolitan, globetrotting, linguistic experiences in tens of countries on four continents, I was thoroughly brainwashed with the hubris and cultural superiority of all things USA. Yes, I learned to read, write and speak Mandarin fluently, soaked up the culture, traveling all over China and in the region, yet sadly, I swaggered around like the proverbial ugly American.²

Looking back, I cringe at myself.

It wasn’t until we returned 2010-2019, that my arc of awareness became meaningful and personally transformative. First was the metamorphosis of the country, after only 13 years. I was stunned by the breathtaking development and improvement in quality-of-life factors. Even more importantly was the amazing, positive revolution in the people, their attitudes, behavior and lifestyles. I was truly impressed with everything I saw. However, we were in Beijing and at first, we only did limited travel in the area. I had to prove to myself that what I was seeing was the real deal in other parts of the country. I thus spent 44 days traveling by foot, local trains and buses, in six of the poorest provinces/regions of the country, including the Tibetan Plateau.

What started out as a simple blog developed into my first book, 44 Days Backpacking in China. Nonetheless, having finished it, I knew something was very wrong about my lingering Western superiority attitude, which I fully shed in writing my second book, China Rising. I then really rounded out the Chinese people’s incredible story of their 5,000-year civilization in writing BIG Red Book on China. Through it all, I learned to talk and write about the Chinese people from their point of view, in their voice.

As a result of my long journey to truth and understanding, I am very patient with Westerners, who are just like I was in the 1990s. I can fully empathize.

TPW: Lots of slogans are used in the mass media to describe people and the governments they lead, as well as those countries. We hear a lot about democracies, dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. However, we rarely hear anyone using those terms give an intelligible definition or explain why the same terms are so inconsistently used. Could you explain based on your own experience in China what democracy means in China, and how that definition might be applied elsewhere to judge if a place or system is democratic?

JJB: It took me writing China Rising to fully purge my system of a lifetime of “The West is the Best” brainwashing. I was having tremendous cognitive dissonance after experiencing 44 Days, and suspected that some of the comments I wrote about the Mao Era and China’s governance were wrong. I intuitively understood that to extend my arc of awareness into a more accurate understanding, I had to learn the truth about the West. As it turns out, it was not a pretty picture, and still isn’t. Nonetheless, it gave me the path I needed to really analyze the Chinese people in their voice, not from Uncle Sam’s condescending, from-above perspective.

This allowed me to realize that “Western liberal democracy” has always been a propagandized myth, going back to Ancient Greece and Rome, 3,000 years ago. Both prospered on what I call the Six E’s of Western Racism, Expansionism, Expropriation, Extraction, Extermination, Enslavement, Evangelism (since New World colonialism, we can add a seventh, epidemics).

With few, isolated exceptions (Louis IX, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Charles De Gaulle, John F. Kennedy), Western leaders and governments have always been autocratic, elitist, aristocratic, dictatorial, totalitarian, as well as corrupt, criminal and cruel.

After the fall of Rome, we suffered a thousand years of the tyrannical Catholic Church, then for the last 500, tyrannical monarchy’s imperialism and colonialism. Through it all, humanity has suffered the extermination of many billions of innocent souls, with the rape and plundering of the survivors’ human and natural resources. For a brief time under Napoleon Bonaparte’s leadership, 1799-1815 (he was a democratic socialist), the French and much of the rest of the European 99% on the continent being served before the aristocratic, monarchial 1%. After he was deposed, putting lipstick on what devolved into “Western Liberal Democracy” and its god-awful imperialist-capitalist pig, no longer works for me. (See Ramin Mazaheri discusses Part 1 of his fabulous book, France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values).

Instead in China, I know that for thousands of years, even during its limited, elite-class use of slavery (as opposed to Greece/Rome’s economies only able to function with massive, continual importations of slaves) and its longer period of feudalism, citizens were free to seek redress with local authorities if they felt there was an injustice. If that decision was unacceptable to the complainant, they could take it up to the provincial level and even to the emperor. It is still used today, called Letters and Complaints (信访) or Higher Appeal (上访).

I’ve personally seen Chinese delivering letters to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, where the National People’s Congress convenes. We have seen increasingly that when Westerners do that they are likely to be punished, permanently injured, imprisoned or killed. Black lists, assassinations, and wrongful imprisonment have been common in the US at least since the infamous Palmer Raids. Just ask protesters being run over, mace-sprayed, beaten and shot in the West, especially in the USA and France. (See Ramin Mazaheri discusses Part 2 of his fabulous book, France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values).

At the same time, emperors and governors routinely sent out high level confidants incognito all over the country, disguised as traveling salesmen or tinkers, to chat up the locals, to understand their zeitgeist at the common level. What’s working? What are the people’s problems? What are their hopes and dreams?

This bottom-up style democracy continues today, with Mao Zedong’s mass line, which is simply massive polling and surveys of what the 99% want and need: to take the line of the masses. To this day, Baba Beijing³ is the world’s most active pollster and surveyor of public opinion. Living in Beijing and Shenzhen, there were notices every week on our apartment buildings’ main doors, asking people to come to the local government office to tell them about everything, from the availability of pap smears and breast exams, to garbage collection, possible sources of pollution, corruption, recycling, bus and metro services, public safety, the speed of the internet, and on and on.

Nowadays, citizens can do the same thing online, and do so vociferously. Artificial Intelligence and Big Data give Baba Beijing the power to zero in on potential problems and find fast solutions. Portals are available to confidentially report corruption, malfeasance, criminal business practices and other irregularities, which feeds into the Social Credit System (SCS-see below). I personally used it to report a couple of problems in my neighborhood and within a couple of three weeks, they were resolved.

Every three years, elections in 900,000 localities take place to vote for their village/neighborhood committees. More than half of those elected are not members of the CPC, just caring and concerned citizens. From there, these local reps vote for the bigger city government, and these in turn vote for provincial level leaders, and these latter vote for China’s 2,500-member National People’s Congress (NPC), which includes eight opposing political parties other than the CPC, something very few Western countries can claim. This body votes for the 300-member Central Committee (like a state council), which in turn elects the 25-member Standing Committee and top-level seven-member Politburo Standing Committee. All these representatives are highly experienced and well-educated. No movie actors and sports stars allowed (Democracy).

These foundations were laid millennia ago and since communist-socialist liberation in 1949, China has the world’s most consultative, consensual, bottom-up people’s democracy on Earth. Mao called it the mass line, President Xi Jinping calls it whole-process democracy. They both mean one thing: SERVE THE PEOPLE! (the 99%). Post-Napoleonic Western liberal democracy is a three-ring, barking dog circus performance to make the 1% super wealthy, keep them in power, while keeping the 99% down, poorer and in their lowly place.

There is simply no comparison.

TPW: Economist Michael Hudson, whose book Superimperialism was written for people in the US government to explain how the “dollar empire” works, has lectured a lot in China. Although he does not know the language, there is no one who can doubt his credentials as a serious political-economist. He also says that China is a socialist country from an economic point of view. He bases that observation on Chinese economic policy and his perception of who makes it. Since you do understand the language and have lived and worked in China many years, could you describe how Chinese talk about their system on a day-to-day basis?

JJB: It was Deng Xiaoping who came up with the moniker Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and it has stuck in the minds of the Chinese people, which they and the media use. Among those adhering to Mao Thought, (of which there are many magnitudes more than Western pundits want to admit) there is much criticism of Deng’s economic liberalization and opening up to the outside world, meaning global capitalism.⁴ This, while the same-said global capitalists loved what they perceived as a laissez-faire free-for-all, viz, a chance to plunder China’s resources.

What cannot be questioned is Deng’s belief that post-liberated China never had the chance to go through bourgeois capitalist industrialization, and according to Marxism, this is a prerequisite for transition to communism thereafter. Thus, this is what I lived through 1990-1997: Fast-Freddy, make-a-quick-buck, street level, jungle capitalism. The economy was mostly liberalized for high volume, low margin consumer/manufactured goods and retail services, such as restaurants, tourism, hotels, shopping malls, etc. Much less noticed by foreigners was that Baba Beijing kept, and is still keeping to this day, firm control of what they call the 100 Great Industries; i.e., directing and planning the country’s critical means of production.

Global capitalists only saw the prior and wore blinders for the latter, by hypnotizing themselves with their “Dengist” palliative, which avoided the don’t-go-there communism boogeyman. For the West’s mainstream media, this gave China a self-congratulating “capitalist road” sheen of inevitability. The Big Lie Propaganda Machine (BLPM)⁵ was gloating that China was rapidly joining the global capitalism’s “rules-based order”, meaning becoming a supine vassal, to be raped and plundered by the West trillionaire dictators. Self-conceited Western capitalists saw all that 1980s-1990s retail chaos as a sure sign they would soon be buying up banks, factories and public infrastructure for pennies on the dollar/euro, as they had across the postwar developing world. As it stands, Deng, who was a committed communist to his last dying breath (just read his works) and the Chinese people are having the last laugh to continual development and ever-increasing 99%-prosperity.

Fast forward to 2013. Xi Jinping added Chinese Dream to Deng’s hashtag, which is now used interchangeably by the people and in the media.

The Chinese people’s meteoric rise since 1949 is proof that they know what they are talking about: nonstop and broad-based economic opportunity, growing prosperity, sociopolitical harmony, public safety, and bottom-up, consensual people’s democracy. When the Chinese government announced it has raised some 300 million people out of absolute poverty, one needs to get a sense of proportion. The US population in 2022 is about 333 million. How many Americans are living in absolute poverty in what is supposedly the richest country in the world? Of course, Western anti-communists and Sinophobes refuse to see why, in top international polls, year after year (Gallup, Pew, etc.), the Chinese report great satisfaction with their government, media and the direction in which the country is heading, usually the world’s top-ranked country in each category.

At the same time, most Chinese are mortified by the West’s cruelty and criminality, both at home and abroad. Your average waitress or taxi driver knows much more about Eurangloland’s reality than vice-versa.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Walter Lipmann’s China Lobby could not bring themselves to admit it, using the euphemism “So-Called Communist China”, fully expecting one day for the country to be covered with big white churches, full of little yellow, Americanized Christians. Today, global capitalists continue to deny that China is communist, in spite of the fact that,

• The means of production in the 100 great industries are still controlled by Baba Beijing.
• Infrastructure, public transportation, telecommunications and the internet are people-owned.
• The financial sector is people-owned, with the world’s four biggest banks being wholly controlled by the State.
• The People’s Bank of China (central bank) issues the country’s currency, not like privately owned, Western central banks, which make trillions off performing the same function.
• The insurance sector is people-owned.
• The aforementioned is all owned and managed by very successful and profitable state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
• No dirt/green land can be bought in China. All land can only be leased for up to 70 years, this applies to locals and foreigners.
• China has a vanguard political party, the CPC, which oversees the military.
• The media is mostly government-owned and tightly state-managed, with an official censor explaining to the people why certain information is withheld (official censors in China have existed for thousands of years).
• Marxism-Leninism is official social, political and economic policy, employed at all levels of governance and business.
• Stalinist state planning is the order of the day, with benchmarked national five-year rolling plans laying out social, economic and political goals across the country. The private sector is expected to join forces with the state in achieving these targets.
• The above official policymaking is reinforced by Mao Thought and Xi Thought, and it all anchors both China’s national and CPC constitutions.
• The CPC, PLA and the Chinese people are considered to be one unifying, cohesive force for the betterment of all, to serve the people.
• Heavy redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom, with progressive taxation to make sure it happens.
• Heavy legislation, regulations and judicial oversight to keep China’s private sector technology, fintech, social media, education, medicine and other potential “usurpers” on a tight leash. No Chinese Mark Zuckerberg’s, Elon Musk’s, Jeff Bezos’s and Big Pharma allowed.
• Broad-based social services, such as generous maternity/nursing leave, universal health care, retirement income, old age homes and freebies for the elderly. Not to mention there are massive programs to eliminate rural poverty, ongoing.
• Bottom-up, consensual, consultative people’s democracy, with Mao’s mass line, never-ending polls and surveys among the people, which are essentially eternal public referenda, via direct voting.

These are not just policies on paper, but the big picture that drives daily practice. Yet – and yet – neoliberal, neocon and libertarian pundits still call it “So-Called Communist China”! There are only two other countries that can tick off most to all of these boxes: DPRK/North Korea and Cuba. So, for all these reality deniers, are these countries not communist either?

Ron Leighton, who wrote that dreadfully-argued article, “The Religiosity of ‘The Myth of Chinese Capitalism” appears⁶, like so many others, to be brainwashed. One might even doubt the article’s actual authorship since Mr Leighton’s website identifies him as a fiction writer, specializing in fantasy, but provides no biographical or other information to show his qualifications for writing about China. Philip Agee⁷ and more recently Udo Ulfkotte have explained how stories are planted using writers and journalists willing to publish CIA articles as their own. His article and the website he cites heavily take glib, elitist, tones even using Trotskyite “permanent revolution” jargon. Moreover that website provides no clear indication of who actually maintains or funds it.

TPW: It is no secret that while Western governments formally recognise national sovereignty, the corporations that own those governments have always seen national sovereignty as an obstacle to business — an obstacle to be overcome by whatever means necessary. Chinese people can be found almost anywhere in the world, but not the Chinese government. In fact, much of the overseas Chinese population is really the legacy of Western forced labour. Yet there is no doubt about strong historical and contemporary contact between overseas Chinese and New China (not just Taiwan). I imagine you have known people in China who are linked to this diaspora. How would you characterise the relationship between Chinese in China and those Chinese living outside China, whether or not they are Chinese citizens?

I ask this question for two reasons. One is the awareness that Chinese all around the world have been subjected to racialist policies in the countries they inhabit. The other is the question raised, in fact, by Putin, with respect to the Russian diaspora created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. New countries like the US or, in fact, most of the Western peninsula can only claim a nationality since the 1789 Revolution in France — before that there were monarchies, but no Westphalian nations. China in contrast has had a national identity for thousands years. Somehow, it seems to me that this ancient national identity must have special relevance for the Chinese view of their economic and political system.

JJB: Good question. In fact, we have to go back, way back. The Chinese people cum civilization have had a national identity going back 7,700 years. How? That is when the first remnants of the written language were preserved (on bone, tortoise shell and stone) and incredibly, its grammatical structure has changed very little since then. While today called Mandarin, for thousands of years and between thousands of spoken dialects, the lingua franca has always been the written language.

Even to this day, I have seen older Chinese, who only speak their local dialect, communicate using written messages, when meeting another person from elsewhere, in the same oral situation. They have been using the same characters for millennia, but pronounce them differently. The classic examples are Cantonese and Hakka, which have six tones and Mandarin, which has four (five, including the “non-tone”). We experienced this through all our travels across China. Even exploring small villages just outside Beijing, ground zero for all things Mandarin, we often had to use Chinese maps and writing with the villagers to find our way around, because for us, they were speaking dialectical gibberish; this long before GPS and mobile phones.

I bring this up to point out that postwar Mandarin has become political. The Mainland uses Mao-Era simplified characters, as does Singapore. However, it is associated with communism, Taiwan and most Western Chinese enclaves insist on using the traditional form. Nevertheless, Taiwanese and Singaporeans speak Mainland Mandarin. Thus, this national/linguistic identity applies to the 50 million Chinese living outside the Mainland and Taiwan. San Francisco, Hakka-dominated Penang Island and Paris’ 13th Arrondissement all consider themselves Chinese, many of them feeling this first and foremost, then they see themselves as American, Malaysian and French, respectfully.

To keep the civilizational umbilical cord connected, overseas Chinese are called Huaqiao (华侨), meaning Chinese Bridge. When they come back to the motherland, like after studying and working overseas, they are called Sea-Returnees (海归). The second character (gui = return) has the same pronunciation and tone for turtle. Thus, they are also called Sea Turtles (海龟), which always find their way home!

In sum, politics aside, for the diaspora and Mainlanders, there is only one Chinese Nation/Civilization on Planet Earth.

TPW: We hear and read that China — especially since 2020 — is the evil social system of the future for the rest of the world. I find it hard to believe that Chinese can either want or are able to impose their own social order on the rest of the planet. Americans talk and act as if everyone in the earth wanted nothing better than to become an American. Do Chinese think of the world becoming Chinese?

JJB: Absolutely not. Unlike 3,000 years of Western cultural, spiritual and economic evangelism, Mainland Chinese don’t have a proselytizing bone in their bodies. With the introduction of Buddhism in the first century AD, their spiritual palette has melded into a cosmic Confucism-Daoism-Buddhism (the prior two from sixth century BC), yet have no interest in “selling” it to others.  Nonetheless, because of the ancient Asian notion of saving and losing face, they do care what others think about them and are sensitive to outside criticism.

Yes, they are rightfully proud of humanity’s longest enduring civilization and love it when they see foreigners learn Mandarin, enjoy the culture and can express empathy with their communist-socialist way of life. Be that as it may, if an outsider criticizes their sociopolitical system, they are just as likely to ignore them and say sotto voce, tamade (他妈的), which means fuck off!

As far as Baba Beijing’s paternalistic, authoritarian governance is concerned, this is pure Confucism, which Mao Thought seamlessly integrated into his Serve the People, bottom-up, consultative mass line and consensual people’s democracy. What adherents of Western liberal democracy refuse to accept is that the Chinese people demanded that their Social Credit System be created. Why?  Because like me, they were sick and tired of the Fast-Freddy, Rip-Off-Eddy mentality and rampant corruption, from all that street-level, jungle capitalism. I have personally experienced and written much about the SCS and would encourage anyone who wants to understand it from the perspective of Chinese citizens, to read this very informative article.

Western libertarians are quick to point to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) global Covid Plandemic + Agenda 2030 as a Chinese conspiracy. One actually can hear and read people calling COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 the Chinese virus. In this scenario the CCP, like a hissing serpent, spitting and biting, seeks to diabolically impose its SCS and Zero-Covid policy on an unwitting planet. Again, this is laughable, since China has never tried to export its Confucism-Daoism-Buddhism-Communism-Socialism anywhere. It is the West’s trillionaire dictators, going back to their 19th century obsessions with eugenics, totalitarian control of all humanity and their natural and human resources, that is at the heart and soul of the WEF’s techno-fascist totalitarianism. Blaming the CCP for the Covid Plandemic + Agenda 2030 is simply the worst psychological deflection and exonerates the real psychopaths, who own and operate Western global capitalism. It is also deeply rooted in Sinophobia, going back centuries.

Concerning China being a big funder of the World Health Organization (WHO), they have the same idiom as many other cultures, Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer (让你的朋友亲密，让你的敌人更亲密). This is also true for China’s participation in October 2019’s WEF/Gates+Rockefeller+Fauci/Western Big Pharma/Military Event 201(read “Increasing oppression of the Covid-Great Reset Plandemic proves it is forever and ever in the West“). We can add the Wuhan Institute of Virology accepting payments (also through EcoHealth Alliance) from Anthony Fauci in 2015, to be taught by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill how to weaponize SARS-COV-2 (read “We made SARS. And we patented it on 19/4/2002, before there was any alleged outbreak in Asia”: David E. Martin testifies at the German Corona Inquiry Committee July 9th, 2021“). If you know that you are going to be attacked using biological agents, it just might make sense to learn all about the weapon that is being planned to destroy you? Just assume that this was, in fact, “defensive” weapons research. There is a long history of countries not (currently) at war participating officially as observers of each other’s military exercises.

Furthermore, until its collapse, no country can stand up to the West’s global, steamrolling BLPM. Case in point: a good friend of mine worked at the World Bank in New York, which is very near the WHO’s offices. He had a number of friends there and both sides socialized on the weekends. He said it was an open secret that Fauci’s HIV/AIDS was a complete hoax, to suck over two trillion dollars with-a-T into Big Pharma’s medical industrial coffers. Be that as it may, anyone who tried to speak out was assassinated, blackmailed, bribed or extorted into silence.

Want proof? Dr. Luc Montagnier discovered HIV and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Seeing how it was being exploited by Fauci & Co., he correctly publicly stated that HIV was no more dangerous than seasonal flu. What happened? He and his reputation were utterly destroyed by the corporate-state propaganda machine. One of the greatest microbiologists in history, a true national hero, yet his death this year in France was censored and ignored.

To understand China’s Zero-Covid policy requires knowing China’s history. No other country has been attacked as frequently with biological weapons, going back to 1935.⁸  In fact, special orders issued by General Douglas MacArthur’s command exempted Japanese army medical scientists from the kind of war crimes trials that were held against German Nazi doctors, instead settling them in Maryland to continue their work. These three [footnoted] articles give critical background to Baba Beijing considering every human and livestock/poultry epidemic as a potential act of war.  (“Is “Uriah Heep” speaking Wuhan coronavirus truth to power or just blowing Sino-sci-fi out his backside?” and “Harvard illegally collected DNA samples in China throughout the 90s, right up to SARS. Lies upon lies and many cover-ups have kept this criminal conduct hidden in plain sight. Looks like bio-engineered germ warfare to target ethnic Chinese,” and “Special explanation to address the many concerns global citizens have about China’s “Zero-Covid” policy, with Shanghai now in the headlines.”)

Chinese evangelism? Looking back across the millennia, the simple truth is that China’s Silk Roads reached Ancient Greece/Rome and Medieval/Renaissance Europe. Yet, it was Alexander the Great who was marching towards China, when he died in Afghanistan in 323 BC. It was Europe that globalized its imperial-colonial Six E’s of Racism, including its rape and plunder of Sinoland, 1839-1949. Chinese Admiral Zheng He sailed all over the Indian Ocean basin, two generations before pirate Columbus launched Europe’s New World genocide in 1492. Zheng’s massive flotillas, thousands of times bigger than the Santa Maria, Niña and Pinta conquered no lands, colonized no people. China was centuries ahead of Europe in navigational, military and productive, agricultural/manufacturing technology.⁹

If the Chinese had the same Six E’s of Racism DNA as the West, we would all be speaking Mandarin and singing songs of praise for Zhonguo (中国), the Middle Kingdom, while likely living much less bellicose and more prosperous and democratic lives.

Imagine that!

*

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 T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa.

Notes

1. Comecon, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, was formed in 1949 to coordinate the trade relationships among those countries that had been “acceded“ to the Soviet sphere as a result of the Yalta agreements (1945) and in response to the US-led economic isolation of the region. At Yalta, the US had persuaded the Soviet Union that in lieu of reparations it would be permitted exclusive economic control over the territory it had occupied defeating Nazi Germany. US President Harry Truman repudiated these agreements at the Potsdam Conference. 
2. This expression was popularised by the eponymous 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. It was adapted for the screen in 1963, with Marlon Brando.
3. Baba Beijing, literally “father Beijing” is Jeff Brown’s sobriquet for the central government of the People’s Republic of China. This can be contrasted with the historical expression used prior to the overthrow of the Qing dynasty, when the emperor was called the “Son of Heaven”. 
4. For example, William H. Hinton wrote The Great Reversal: The Privatization of China, 1978-1989in which he accused Deng of abandoning Mao’s communist programme for China. Hinton also saw the Tiananmen Square event as a protest against Deng’s policies. Hinton published his first book lauding Mao’s land reform, Fanshen, in 1966. He was also a supporter of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which was widely repudiated after Mao’s death. After Edgar Snow, Hinton is probably the American most well known for his sympathetic reporting of China’s communist revolution.
5. BLPM, “Big lie propaganda machine“ is a term Jeff Brown uses in most of his weblog posts and his books. The term refers to the notion that “big lies“ are very effective in shaping consciousness. The concentration of Western mass media in some five or six corporations domiciled in the Western hemisphere gives these media their machine quality.
6. Kim Petersen also responded to Mr Leighton’s article in DV: “China is Not Capitalist and it is Not Yet Communist” (3 October 2022). Here the author of the original piece responds to Mr Leighton and to other questions concerning contemporary China.
7. Philip Agee explained this in his book Inside the Company: CIA Diary (1975) and in the Allan Francovich film On Company Business (1980).
8. See inter alia the Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacterial Warfare in Korea and China (1952) also called the “Needham Report” after Dr Joseph Needham who presided over the commission’s work. 
9. See Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China (1954-2008) 27 vols.; also The Shorter Science and Civilisation: an abridgement of Joseph Needham’s original text, (1980-1995) by Colin Ronan, Cambridge University Press.