Whither Musk’s Twitter

November 8th, 2022 by Kim Petersen

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.

***

It must be excruciatingly difficult having to decide whether to put some of one’s hundreds-of-billions of dollars, along with potential future profit, at risk to affirm one’s previous public declaration of support for the freedom of speech principle. That is the dilemma that Musk has before him.

Musk finds Twitter threatened with an advertiser boycott. As I previously alluded to, the boycotters of free speech on Twitter could well find themselves boycotted by free-speech supporters. Two can play the boycott game. Musk seems to realize that now. He warned of a “thermonuclear name & shame” reprisal against boycotting advertisers.

Musk has expressed willingness to fight the “activist groups pressuring advertisers” and their compliant advertisers who are “trying to destroy free speech in America.”

But has Musk provided a free speech forum for all Twitter users? Yours truly, a small-fry free-speech, anti-racism, anti-war, anti-disinformation sporadic user of Twitter have been banished without notice or reason for several months now. I assume it is for my progressivist principles that are not shared by Democrats working in the Twitter space (e.g., support for Palestinian rights, support for Indigenous rights, support for all human rights, etc).

But changes are afoot at Twitter. Musk has cut the Twitter workforce in half. This is unfortunate for the ordinary workers just trying to earn an honest living; but, as far as cleaning out the anti-free-speech riff raff at Twitter, it might signal an opening for free-speech advocates.

Alas, Musk seems to think free speech shouldn’t be “free.” Twitter Blue will only be available to those who can afford the monthly $8 fee.

Donald Trump (a personality equally reprehensible to Joe Biden) has, as far as I know, not been invited for reinstatement to Twitter. I dislike most of Trump’s ideological views, but I support his right to express them honestly.

Then there is the case of Scott Ritter, an American patriot who comes across as a fierce critic of US imperialism. For his anti-imperialist views, he found himself banned from Twitter. After the takeover of Twitter by Musk, Ritter set up a new Twitter account and sent out a tweet, stating that Ukraine was behind the massacre at Bucha, as a challenge to Musk. Ritter, a former marine intelligence officer, found himself promptly banned from Twitter again.

Ritter quoted The Who: “Won’t get fooled again. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

It is the early days of Twitter under Musk. Nonetheless, if Musk truly is a free speech devotee, truly is a man of principle, then he will use his Twitter ownership for the promotion of respectful free speech.

I submit that Musk might best demonstrate this by setting in motion a twitter storm pushing for the release of Julian Assange, a heroic free-speech advocate and a principled supporter of the public’s right to know.

Assange has suffered at the hands of corrupt American power abetted by its minions for which he should never have been targeted or persecuted. Conversely, he should be celebrated for his actions which include exposing US war crimes in Iraq. If there is any justice in empire, then Assange must be released, exonerated of all wrongdoing, fairly recompensed, and regarded with all due respect for his sacrifice to humanity — as should all those brave souls who spoke out about the crimes of empire and find themselves languishing under unjust circumstances.

*

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

Kim Petersen is an independent writer and former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from YugaTech

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.

***

 

According to the New York Times those naughty Russians are at it again. Today’s online lead story entitled “Russia Reactivates Its Trolls and Bots Ahead of Tuesday’s Midterms” with the subtitle “Researchers have identified a series of Russian information operations to influence American elections and, perhaps, erode support for Ukraine” marks a new low in what the Gray Lady, self-designated as one of America’s “newspapers of record,” prefers to call “journalism.”

The author of the piece, clearly somewhat biased over Russia and Putin, is one “Steven Lee Myers [who] covers misinformation for The Times. He is also the author of “The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.”

Here is what it is all about:

“The user on Gab who identifies as Nora Berka resurfaced in August after a yearlong silence on the social media platform, reposting a handful of messages with sharply conservative political themes before writing a stream of original vitriol. The posts mostly denigrated President Biden and other prominent Democrats, sometimes obscenely. They also lamented the use of taxpayer dollars to support Ukraine in its war against invading Russian forces, depicting Ukraine’s president as a caricature straight out of Russian propaganda.”

Per the Times,

“The goal, as before, is to stoke anger among conservative voters and to undermine trust in the American electoral system. This time, it also appears intended to undermine the Biden administration’s extensive military assistance to Ukraine.”

Well, one might object that Ukraine’s president is indeed a figure tailor-made for ridicule as he used to play a piano with his penis, but that is perhaps a secondary issue.

The more significant theme is that people who oppose the Ukraine war, for any number of reasons, and, particularly if they are conservatives, are becoming trolls for Russia in part due to the disinformation efforts and are being influenced by way of discussion fora like Gab.

The targets “are generally US conservatives who are maybe more accepting of conspiratorial claims” according to one of the cybersecurity experts consulted by the author. The Times links Berka, who might indeed be a made-up identity “posing as an outraged American,” to the secretive Russian Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg which it claims was involved in interfering in both the 2016 and 2020 US elections.

The Times also cites another site that it links to Russia, electiontruth.net

“For its contact information, electiontruth.net lists a cafe inside a converted gas station in Cotter, Ark., a town of 900 people on a bend in the White River. The cafe has closed, however… No one at Election Truth responded to a request for comment submitted through the site.”

One might object that neither Berka nor election.truth would appear to be a major disinformation effort sponsored by a foreign government intended to bring down the Republic. Nevertheless, the article clearly adheres to the view that anyone objecting to the continuing war in Ukraine is a Russian dupe.

It cites Liz Cheney, who has called the few Republicans who want to cut funding for the war as “the Putin wing of the Republican Party,” and Myers observes that the disinformation unfortunately echoes “a theme that has gained some traction among Republican lawmakers and voters who have questioned the delivery of weapons and other military assistance.”

Another “expert” cited in the article, one Edward P. Perez, a board member with the OSET Institute, a self-described “nonpartisan election security organization,” called the Russian efforts “manufactured chaos” in the country’s body politic – in part because the divisions in American society are already such fertile soil for disinformation. “Since 2016, it appears that foreign states can afford to take some of the foot off the gas because they have already created such sufficient division that there are many domestic actors to carry the water of disinformation for them.”

So, there is the main point of the piece. Americans who oppose the involvement of the United States in the war against Russia are little more than “domestic actors” who are peddling disinformation provided by the Kremlin. Given that this article appeared two days before national elections, the intent is clear. The Russians are, per the Times, generating disinformation about Ukraine and Americans who go along with the lies are being manipulated. Moscow is again interfering in a US national election! Vote for the Democratic candidates as they will be the ones that can be relied upon to keep the war going! Three cheers for Joe Biden!

*

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.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Elections: The New York Times Says “Russians Are at It Again”

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 Front Lines Are Still Inflamed By Heavy Battles. The Ukrainian military clearly does not refuse plans to attack the towns of Svatovo and Kremennaya in the Luhansk People’s Republic. Russian forces continue to push them back far from the strategically important road between the two towns.

Ukrainian units continue daily attempts to attack Chervonopopovka but fail. At the same time, the Russian military went on the offensive a few kilometers to the north, near Makeevka. Ukrainians attempted to advance north of Svatovo in the area of Novoselovskoe while Russians launched a counteroffensive on Ukrainian positions south of Kremennaya near Belogorovka. Neither of the warring sides has claimed success so far.

The Russian offensive in the area of Soledar continues. Fighting is ongoing near Verkhnekamenskoye and Spornoe.

In the area of Bakhmut, Russians continue the mop up operation in the industrial area on the eastern outskirts, while approaching the city from the southern direction. Fighting for control of Opytnoe is ongoing. The tactical task of the Wagner group which is storming the city is to push the Ukrainian troops to the right bank of the Bakhmutka River. They are yet to achieve this goal.

The Somalia battalion of the DPR has claimed some successes on the outskirts of Avdeevka. They managed to take control of some Ukrainian positions, destroying about 20 servicemen of the Ukrainian Army.

In the Ugledar region, the Ukrainian military attempted to stop the Russian offensive and attacked Russian positions near Nikolskoe and Ravnopolye. They did not manage to take control of new territories but distracted the Russian military from the ongoing battle for control of the village of Pavlovka located on the southern outskirts of Ugledar. The Russian goal is to secure the control of the road and push the Ukrainian Army to the northern bank of the Kashlygach River.

In the Kherson region, the front lines remained unchanged. Ukrainian forces continue their attempts to break through Russian defenses but fail and suffer heavy losses. The evacuation of civilians on the left bank of the Dnieper River continues. On November 3, the Russian flag was taken out of the of the city administration building in Kherson. The local authorities suppose that the Russian forces may leave their positions and cross the river to reinforce their defensive lines along the Dnieper. In turn, the Ukrainian military remains cautious, afraid that Russian claims are only an information campaign aimed at luring the Ukrainian army into trap.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from SF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Ukrainian Front Lines Are Still Inflamed by Heavy Battles

Video: Who Blew Up Nord Stream Pipelines? “The Russians Did It”

By Matt Orfalea and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 08, 2022

Carefully documented video below on “Who Blew Up Nord Stream Pipeline”. And who was that foreign state actor? EU politicians and the Western media in chorus place the blame on Russia. “The Russians Did It…”

A Lost Small Town. Running Errands in the Wake of Emotional Violence, USA

By Dr. Naomi Wolf, November 08, 2022

I forgive this employee for having to follow a script that must have been set out by the town, for all the small businesses to follow, in some bizarre, coercive methodology, as this out-of-the-blue, un-American and inappropriate question was posed all at once somehow, in store after store, in my little town, in the nearby towns, even in New York City, during a certain moment in the bad year of 2021.

‘Too Many Unknown Factors’: California Lawmakers Object to Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes

By Julia Conley, November 08, 2022

As environmental advocates call on regulators to “lead with sound science” regarding the proposed release of thousands of genetically engineered mosquitoes on a weekly basis in central California, eight Democratic lawmakers on Thursday demanded that officials reject the proposal without an in-depth review of its potential impacts.

Global Alarm as Netanyahu to Form Israel’s Most Right-Wing Government Ever

By Jessica Corbett, November 08, 2022

People around the world have expressed concerns about Israelis empowering indicted former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form the nation’s most far-right government in history since Israel held its fifth election in less than four years on Tuesday.

Europe May See Forced De-Industrialization as Result of Energy Crisis

By Irina Slav, November 07, 2022

The European Union has been quietly celebrating a consistent decline in gas and electricity consumption this year amid record-breaking prices, a cutoff of much of the Russian gas supply, and a liquidity crisis in the energy market.

Tyranny Looms as Digital IDs and Currencies Roll Out Around the World

By Andreas Wailzer, November 07, 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.

Twitter Censorship: EU Warns Elon Musk Not to Restore Free Speech Protections After Calls from Clinton and Other Democratic Leaders

By Jonathan Turley, November 07, 2022

The EU has responded aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech or face crippling fines and even potential criminal enforcement. After years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.

The Government Is Still Waging War on America’s Military Veterans

By John Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, November 07, 2022

Consider: we raise our young people on a steady diet of militarism and war, sell them on the idea that defending freedom abroad by serving in the military is their patriotic duty, then when they return home, bruised and battle-scarred and committed to defending their freedoms at home, we often treat them like criminals merely for exercising those rights they risked their lives to defend.

US Nuclear Forces Chief Says ‘the Big One Is Coming’

By Dave DeCamp, November 07, 2022

The commander that oversees US nuclear forces delivered an ominous warning at a naval conference last week by calling the war in Ukraine a “warmup” for the “big one” that is to come.

Know Your Child’s Seizure Risk from the MMR Vaccine

By Physicians for Informed Consent, November 07, 2022

There is a five-fold higher risk of seizures from the MMR vaccine than seizures from measles infection, and a significant portion of MMR-vaccine seizures may cause permanent harm. For example, a Danish study of 1.54 million people, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2007, examined the association between febrile seizures and epilepsy, a chronic brain disorder that leads to recurring seizures.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: Who Blew Up Nord Stream Pipelines? “The Russians Did It”

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 live in a picture-perfect region — the Hudson Valley, memorialized by painters and poets; a patchwork of autumn reds and yellows, majestic hillsides, storied waterfalls, and little homesteads dotted picturesquely on the slopes of sleepy hamlets.

Towns in our area look like Norman Rockwell paintings: there is Main Street, Millerton, with its white 19th century church steeple, its famous Irving Farm cafe with the excellent curated coffee beans, its charming antiques mall, its popular pizzeria.

When you drive to Millerton, it looks like you are driving into the heart of archetypal America; everything that Woody Guthrie songs memorialize, everything of which American soldiers dreamt when they were far away — everything decent and pure, is to be found in Hudson Valley towns.

It sure looks that way, anyway.

But these days, I am obliged to maintain a fervent inner monologue, just so I can pleasantly go about my business in the local hardware store, in the local florist, in the post office.

Because an emotional massacre has taken place in these little towns. And now we are expected to act as if — this never happened at all.

But psychically, emotionally, there is blood flowing in the streets; and bodies are stacked up, invisible, in front of the candy stores, the high end wine stores, the pretty memorials to the World War Two dead; outside the farmers’ market on Saturdays, outside the tapas bars.

So my quiet internal mantra, is: I forgive you.

I forgive you, Millerton movie theatre. Your owner, who was interviewed just before the pandemic, saying lovely things in a local paper about how the revamped theatre would enhance the local community, posted a sign in 2021 saying that only vaccinated people could enter. You needed to really look for the fine print to see that you could walk through those doors, if unvaccinated, but only with a PCR test.

I forgive the young ladies who worked behind the popcorn counter, for telling me that I could not enter further. That I could not sit down, with other human beings in my community, to watch a film alongside of them.

I forgive the young ticket taker for telling me that I had to go back outside, onto the sidewalk. I could not even stand in the lobby.

I forgive these young people who just wanted jobs, and who had to discriminate in the most heinous and scarring way — scarring to me, and to them too no doubt — just to keep their jobs. I forgive them. I forgive them for the mortifying scene they had to cause.

I forgive the movie theatre owner for shouting at me defensively when I questioned this policy.

I forgive the elderly couple nearby in the lobby; the woman who started shrieking at me alarmingly that she was glad of the policy and did not want me anywhere near her. I forgive her. I forgive her silent, embarrassed husband for his silence.

I forgive the employee of the Millerton flower shop who demanded, “Are you vaccinated?” when I walked in – when I just wanted some nice-looking flowers, some artificial olive branches, perhaps, like those I had seen in a decorating magazine, to arrange in a vase in my study.

I forgive this employee for having to follow a script that must have been set out by the town, for all the small businesses to follow, in some bizarre, coercive methodology, as this out-of-the-blue, un-American and inappropriate question was posed all at once somehow, in store after store, in my little town, in the nearby towns, even in New York City, during a certain moment in the bad year of 2021.

I forgive these store owners for stripping me of a great benefit of a free society — the great gift of liberty, of America — that right to be dreamy, to have some privacy, and to be preoccupied with one’s own thoughts.

I forgive this employee for intruding on my privacy in a way that was startling, ill-mannered, and entirely beside the point, given the fact that she was simply selling flowers and I was simply trying to buy them.

I forgive her for the way this demand made my adrenaline levels jump, as they do when things are unstable around you; in 2021, you could not tell which stores would confront you, or when, with that urgent, bullying question — when you happened to wander in, just wanting some toothpaste, or a slice of pizza, or to look at some antiques.

Not — expecting an inquisition.

I forgive this flower shop employee for presenting me with this startling question that each time made me, with my clinically diagnosed PTSD from a very old trauma, feel ambushed, violated and humiliated. Surely this sense of ambush was felt by trauma survivors everywhere.

Are you vaccinated?

Are you? Vaccinated?

Are you vaccinated?

Are you naked? Are you helpless?

Are you mine? My possession?

The viral clip of the Pfizer marketing rep, admitting to the European Parliament that the mRNA vaccines never stopped transmission, should make every single one of these moments, into a source of deep embarrassment and self-criticism for all those people — all of them —- who inflicted these violations of privacy on others, or who excluded in any way, their neighbors and fellow countrymen and women. They did so, it is clear now to all, on the basis of arrant nonsense.

But meanwhile, I forgive them. I have to. Because otherwise the rage and sorrow would exhaust me to death.

I forgive my neighbor who froze when I hugged her.

I forgive my other neighbor, who told me that she was making homemade soup and fresh bread, and that I could join her to have some, if I was vaccinated. If I was unvaccinated, however, she explained, someday she might consent to walk outside with me.

I forgive the monitor — what else could one call him — surely appointed by the local Board of Health, who told me that I could not go inside a church at an adorable outdoor town festival at the tiny mountain hamlet of Mt Washington, to see an exhibit, because I was unmasked. I forgive him for the steely look in his eyes as he remained unmoved when I explained that had a serious neurological condition, and thus could not wear a mask. I forgive the nervous lady at the table full of trinkets, who had apparently ratted us out to the Board of Health representative, when we were simply browsing outdoors, surrounded by fresh air, on a peaceful June day, our faces uncovered, at her table.

I forgive them for making a miserable scene about all of this in front of my then-ten-year-old stepson. The unmasked and unvaccinated are eternally accused of having made scenes, but the scenes were made, really, by the actions of those who were coercing and conforming.

I forgive them for driving us to leave the festival. I forgive their manifesting a pathetic and indefensible lesson in servility, and in submission to things that made no sense, to an impressionable American child.

I forgive the teller at my local bank for throwing a paper napkin at me to cover my face, when I explained respectfully and gently, from twenty feet away from her, why I did not wear a mask.

I forgive the staff at the Walker Hotel, in lower Manhattan, for warning me that they would call the manager, who no doubt would then call law enforcement, if I sat at the Blue Bottle Coffee lunch counter with my unvaccinated self.

I forgive my loved ones for keeping us from the Thanksgiving table.

I forgive one of my best friends for her having left the country without having said goodbye to me; the reason was that she was “disappointed” in me for my stance on masks and vaccines. No matter that this was entirely my risk, my body, my decision, my life. Her “disappointment” led her to assume the burden of censuring me for something that had nothing to do with her. I forgive her, though my heart broke.

I forgive the friend whose daughter had a baby, and who would not let me indoors to see the child.

I forgive the friend who said he did not sit indoors with unvaccinated people.

I forgive the family members who pressed my loved one to get one more booster – thus leading directly to her sustaining heart damage.

I forgive them, because my soul instructs me that I must.

But I cannot forget.

Are we supposed to just pick up again, as if emotional limbs were not crushed, as if emotional hearts and guts were not pierced, as if with sharp objects? And that, again and again?

As if there has been no savagery, no massacre here?

All those people — now that athletes are dropping dead, now that their own loved ones are sickening and hospitalized, now that the “transmission” is known to be a lie and the vaccines’ “efficacy” itself is known to be a lie – are they — sorry? Are they reflecting upon themselves, on their actions, on their consciences; on their immortal souls; on what they have done to others; on their part in this shameful melodrama in American and world history – a time that now can never be erased?

I don’t hear it. I don’t hear any apologies.

I don’t see signs on the Millerton movie theatre saying, “Dear Customers. We are so sorry we treated many of you as if we were all living under Jim Crow laws. We did so for no reason at all.

There is no excuse, of course, for such discrimination, then or now. Please forgive us.”

Nothing. Have you seen anything like this? I haven’t. Not one conversation. Not one sign. Not one article. “My friend, I was a beast. How can you forgive me? I behaved so badly.” Have you heard that? No, nothing.

Instead people are reacting to the fact of their awfulness, of their profound wrongness, of their foolishness, of their ignorance and credulity, like sneaky, guilty dogs. They are sidling up.

In the city, they are quietly adding one to the guest list. In the country, they are stopping their cars in the sunny autumn air to have a little chat.

They are calling up just to say hi — after two and a half years.

Two and a half years of brutal, ignorant ostracism.

I can and must forgive all those I enumerated. But it is harder to forgive – others.

That personal, internal forgiveness of deluded individuals, or of coerced small business owners, which is my own internal labor – work I do daily between myself and my God, just so that I won’t turn to stone with my burden of rage and fury – has nothing to do, of course, with the wrongdoers’ need on their side of the relationship, truly to self-examine and truly to repent; and it certainly does not forestall or avert the grave and terrible accounting of crimes, and the enactment of true justice, for the leaders and spokespeople and institutions who committed evil, that is now utterly necessary.

Without accountability, and truth and reconciliation commissions, and terrible, commensurate levels of justice served to suit the crimes committed, as South Africa, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Germany have all learned to their cost, there is nothing at all to ensure that the exact same crimes won’t be committed again. And that process of investigation, accountability, trials and sentencing, when one half of a nation abused the other systematically, is painful and severe and takes years to reach its conclusion.

(And yes, I added this clarifying paragraph in response to Dr Emily Oster’s ignorant, self-deluding and dangerous plea in The Atlantic for “amnesty”, an essay written after this one was published. Let there be no misunderstanding. “Amnesty” for crimes of this severity and scale is not an option. There was no group hug after the liberation of Auschwitz).

It is hard to forgive the high school in Chatham, that forced a teenager to be mRNA vaccinated against her wishes, in order to play basketball, and thus hope for a college scholarship. The officials must be held accountable.

It is hard to forgive the doctors, the hospitals, the pediatricians, who knew and knew and knew. And bowed their heads, and plunged the needles into the arms of innocents, and committed evil. The doctors who today say, of the horrific side effects brought about by their own hands, their own collusion — “We are baffled. We have no idea.”

When did Western doctors, before 2020, ever have no idea?

The doctors and hospitals and medical organizations must be held accountable.

It is hard to forgive the Mayor of New York City, who drove the brave First Responders who did not wish to submit to a dangerous experiment, to have no income with which to feed their families. He and other political leaders must be held accountable.

It is hard to forgive the Ivy League universities, who took the money and forced all the members of their communities to submit to a deadly or dangerous experimental injection — one that will damage the fertility of who knows how many young men and women; one that will kill who knows how many community members.

They took the money and there is blood on their hands. Have you, parents of college age children, received a letter of apology? “We are so sorry we forced your son/your daughter to submit to an experimental injection that can harm him or her, that may cripple your daughter with bleeding every single month of her childbearing years, and that may lead your son to drop dead on the track field. And one that, it turns out, has nothing to do with transmission. We can’t apologize enough. (But the money — it was just such a lot.) Really sorry. Won’t do it again, rest assured.”

Did you get that letter, America’s parents?

The deans and trustees who took the money and ‘mandated’ our kids, must be held accountable.

It is almost impossible to forgive the churches, the synagogues, who took the money and stayed closed. Or who took the money, and then locked their doors at High Holy Day Services against the unvaccinated. To this day. (Hi there, Hevreh Synagogue of the Southern Berkshires. Shalom. Shabbat Shalom. Good Yom Tov.)

“Please note that we require proof of vaccination upon entry for all  High Holy Day Services. Please bring a copy with you. Masks are optional and encouraged for all who are comfortable wearing them.”

The rabbis and priests and ministers who took the money and practiced unlawful discrimination, and abandoned their spiritual calling, must be held accountable.

These are great, great sins.

But meanwhile, you have errands to run. You have books to return to the library and flowers to pick up from the florist perhaps – you have to go to the kids’ soccer game, you have to go to the movie theatre; the hardware store. Back to church. Back to synagogue.

You have to pick up your life again.

You have to step around the bodies decomposing invisibly in the charming streets of our nation. You have to pick up again as if we were not annihilated in spirit. Or, you have to pick up again if you were the abuser.

Will you apologize, if you did wrong?

Will you forgive, if you were wronged?

Can this nation, which fell so far short of its true identity and its founders’ intention, ever, ever heal?

Can we heal — we ourselves?

Forgiveness on an internal level — of coerced or deluded individuals — may help us or heal us as private individuals.

But only the gravest of reckonings, the truth pursued to its limit in every single case, investigations and trials launched according to the beautiful rule of our law, and somber justice then served to leaders, spokespeople (hey, Dr Oster) — and institutions — will ever allow us to heal, or even move safely forward together— as a nation.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Lost Small Town. Running Errands in the Wake of Emotional Violence, USA

New Vaccine Lawsuit

November 8th, 2022 by Judicial Watch

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.

***

Judicial Watch Sues for Records on COVID Vaccine Safety Studies

Why is the Biden administration hiding information about the safety of the vaccine it is so aggressively pushing on everyone?

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for records on COVID-19 vaccine safety studies (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:22-cv-03153)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (a component of HHS) inadequately responded to a June 1, 2022, FOIA request for:

  • All safety studies, data, reports, and analyses produced by the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (DMID) relating to the safety of ‘vaccines’ and/or gene therapies to treat and/or prevent SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 made by Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen.
  • All emails sent to and from the following DMID officials relating to the safety of ‘vaccines’ and/or gene therapies to treat and/or prevent SARSCoV-2 and/or COVID-19 made by Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen:
    1. The Director of DMID
    2. The head of the Office of Genomics & Advanced Technologies
    3. The head of the Office of International Research in Infectious Diseases
    4. The head of the Office of Regulatory Affairs
    5. The head of the Office of Clinical Research Affairs
    6. The head of the Clinical Trials Management Section
    7. The head of the Virology Branch
    8. The head of the Respiratory Diseases Branch
    9. The head of the Influenza, SARS, and Other Viral Respiratory Diseases Section

On May 3, 2022, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a paper titled “Safety and Immunogenicity of a Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine – An Interim Analysis” that “evaluated early safety and immunogenicity after a third mRNA vaccination in adults who received the mRNA-1273 primary series in the Phase 1 trial approximately 9 to 10 months earlier.”

Contributors to that study include three affiliates of the DMID: Mamodikoe Makhene (DMID medical officer), Wendy Buchanan (DMID Clinical Project Manager) and Paul Roberts (DMID Chief Respiratory Pathogens Clinical Research).

The Biden administration is playing shell games with documents on the COVID vaccine. The arrogant cover-up of COVID vaccine safety information further undermines public confidence in these already controversial drugs.

Through previous FOIA activity, we uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:

  • In October, we uncovered FDA records regarding the COVID booster vaccines through a FOIA lawsuit for records of communication from the former director and deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause. On September 13, 2021, Gruber and Krause were among a group of resigning doctors who agreed that, “Available evidence doesn’t yet indicate a need for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots among the general population …”
  • In July 2022, NIH records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
  • FDA records showed top officials being pressured by companies and the Biden administration to impose timelines on approval for the booster shots “that make no sense”
  • HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
  • NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
  • HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high-level commitment from China.”
  • HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
  • HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
  • University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records show the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), James W. Le Ducwarned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.
  • HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
  • Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) reveal safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins.
  • HHS records include emails between National Institutes of Health (NIH) then-Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
  • HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
  • Fauci emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

Despite all of this work, Judicial Watch is just getting started! I’ll keep you updated as more lawsuits are filed and more information comes in!

Dozens on Terrorist Watchlist Among Record 2.4 million Migrants Caught in 2022

Among the millions pouring across our southern border are some of the worst of the worst: violent gang members and potential terrorists. Our Corruption Chronicles blog paints the disturbing picture.

Besides shattering a U.S. record for apprehending nearly 2.4 million illegal immigrants along the Mexican border in fiscal year 2022, Border Patrol agents arrested hundreds of gang members—mostly from the famously violent Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13)—and dozens of people on the national terrorist watchlist. Federal agents also confiscated thousands of pounds of drugs, mainly methamphetamine, according to government figures released by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) just days ago. The startling year-end (fiscal years run from October to September) stats depict a chaotic Mexican border region rife with lawlessness that is inevitably seeping north.

It is serious enough that the number of migrants arrested in 2022 increased significantly over 2021, which at the time seemed like a crisis at 1.73 million. The Biden administration’s open border policies inspired a last-minute surge of 227,547 illegal aliens in September alone, the figures show. The overwhelming majority of those caught were single adults with the rest of the family units and unaccompanied minors. The Del Rio Border Patrol sector in Texas saw the most traffic with 480,930 illegal alien encounters, an increase of 85% over 2021. The Rio Grande Valley sector, also in Texas, came in second with 468,124 encounters. Other busy stations include Yuma in Arizona (310,094), El Paso (307,884) and Tucson (251,984).

As if the record-breaking figures were not disturbing enough, violent gangbangers, terrorists and drugs also crossed the border. The feds arrested 751 gang members compared to 348 in 2021. Nearly half—312—of those apprehended in 2022 belong to the MS-13, a feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants that has spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes. The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like the MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs. More than 145 members of Paisas, a prison gang of inmates from Mexico, were also apprehended crossing the border in 2022 and 146 from the 18th Street gang, a Los Angeles-based tribe known for recruiting youths.

In addition to all this, nearly 100 people on the U.S. government’s terrorist watchlist were apprehended at the Mexican border, the year-end figures reveal. That is a huge increase over 2021, when only 16 suspected terrorists were caught. The 98 people busted this year appear on a government database called Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) that contains sensitive information on known or suspected terrorists as well as individuals who represent a potential threat to the U.S., including known affiliates of individuals on the watchlist, according to CBP. The agency claims in the year-end stats that encounters with individuals on the terrorist watchlist at U.S. borders is very “uncommon.” Judicial Watch has long reported on the increasing number of Muslim migrants—including from terrorist nations—entering the U.S. through the Mexican border. This includes a growing population from Bangladesh, a recruiting ground for terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), getting caught by federal agents along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Last year a Bangladeshi man based in Mexico was sentenced to 46 months in prison for operating an “international human smuggling conspiracy” during a period in which the U.S. saw a spike in migrants from terrorist nations entering the country through the famously porous southern border. The smuggler, 41-year-old Mohamad Milon Hossain, lived in Tapachula in the southeast Mexican state of Chiapas bordering Guatemala. The smuggling operation run by Hossain is part of a broader crisis involving a growing demographic of illegal aliens from terrorist nations entering the U.S. through the Mexican border. The government classifies them as Special Interest Aliens (SIA) and they are flowing north via Latin America in huge numbers, thanks to established Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCO) that facilitate travel along drug and migrant smuggling routes. Tens of thousands of SIAs—from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa—entered Panama and Colombia in recent years. Nearly all the SIA migrants were headed to the United States and most came from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, and India.

DHS Slammed for Failing to Counter Terrorism, Manage Explosive Devices

It should come as no surprise that the massive federal agency created to protect the homeland (including our border) is a bureaucratic disaster. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the details.

Two decades after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created to protect the U.S. from another 9/11, the agency faces serious management and performance challenges that prevent it from fulfilling its critical mission, according to a federal audit that says DHS must improve how it identifies domestic terrorism threats and better manage its efforts to counter homemade explosive devices. DHS also got slammed for one of its biggest lapses, failing to secure the southern border. “Migrant surges require a whole-of-government approach,” according to the report issued days ago by the DHS Inspector General. However, a coordinated response did not occur because DHS failed to conduct multi-component planning between Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Furthermore, the surges in immigration exposed technology challenges which impede CBP and ICE personnel from tracking migrants from apprehension to release or transfer, the probe found. “Technology deficiencies also meant that data was not consistently documented in DHS’ systems of record, which can delay DHS from uniting children with families and sponsors, or cause migrants to remain in DHS custody longer than legally allowed,” the watchdog writes in its report. Investigators also trash the way DHS managed the sudden influx of Ukrainian and Afghan citizens. Specifically, screening, vetting, and inspecting all evacuees after the Biden administration withdrew American troops from Afghanistan was a “challenge,” the report reveals, adding that the watchdog continues to evaluate CBP’s access to critical data necessary to fully vet individuals trying to enter the U.S.

The report delves into other areas such as DHS’ cybersecurity weaknesses and the famously corrupt Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the 20,000-employee conglomerate created by former President Jimmy Carter’s executive order in 1979. FEMA operates under DHS and lists helping people before, during and after disasters as its mission. The agency has been involved in a multitude of scandals surrounding pervasive fraud in its COVID-19 relief programs. DHS and FEMA need to analyze systemic weaknesses across the spectrum of disaster-related funding and services, the IG writes, adding that the agencies must make overarching improvements in risk assessment, controls, policies, systems and applications, resources, training, and data. “As of July 31, 2022, OIG had received more than 7,500 complaints and initiated more than 300 investigations related to COVID-19, including allegations that fraud networks have secured pandemic-related benefits,” the new report states. Fraud and corruption is so rampant in the government’s massive COVID-19 cash giveaway that the Department of Justice (DOJ) created a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to “enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.”

This probe did not dig deeply into the pandemic fraud cases but offered enough information to convey the problem. Attached to the 17-page audit is a document issued by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and the “leadership team across all DHS components” listing the agency’s 12 priorities for 2022. They include advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in the workforce and to protect the privacy, civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights of the communities served as well to ensure DHS reflects the diversity of the communities it serves. Another priority is securing the nation’s borders by giving the agency’s workforce the tools to interdict irregular migration and illicit flows of drugs, weapons, and other contraband. Record-breaking illegal immigration in fiscal year 2022 proves that it never materialized. DHS also made it a priority to build a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system and to implement lawful pathways as alternatives to irregular migration and enhanced policies to administer the nation’s laws and uphold our values as a nation of immigrants expeditiously and fairly. The rest of the priorities include preparing the nation to respond and recover from disasters and combat the climate crisis, increasing cybersecurity and combatting all forms of terrorism.

After getting blasted by auditors, DHS struck back claiming in a lengthy letter that the report is “misleading” and accusing its watchdog of being “inaccurate, contextually incomplete and confusing.”

Until next week…

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page(NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

***

In the wake of fresh revelations that The Department of Homeland Security has been working relentlessly to shut down speech it deems to be ‘dangerous’ or ‘disinformation,’ Senator Rand Paul has promised to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for government agencies and private big tech to secretly collude on such enterprises.

Appearing on Fox News, Paul said of the Democratic Party,

“You know, for all the talk of democracy, it seems to be that they’re undermining the very basic principles of our constitutional republic.”

“Freedom of speech was listed in the first amendment because it was one of the most important rights that our Founders thought should be protected. But having the government collude with Big Tech to censor speech is something that goes against every grain of everything that anyone has ever spoken about as far as freedom of speech,” Paul urged.

The Senator continued,

“So when we get back in session, I’m going to introduce legislation that will forbid the government from colluding with private companies to censor speech.”

Paul further explained that

“this is a tricky situation because many people believe that the First Amendment doesn’t allow us to regulate the speech of private companies. But without question, we can regulate the government, and we can prevent and forbid the government from colluding with private tech on speech.”

“I think we should also preclude them and prohibit them from gathering up our data,” Paul further asserted, adding “we can’t really tell people on the Internet they can’t collect our data, you know, for sales and for marketing. But we can tell the government they can’t collect that data, because I don’t want the government profiling every citizen.”

“That goes against everything that we all believe in as far as the foundation of our constitutional republic,” The Senator proclaimed.

Paul further charged that Democrats “actually want to emulate China,” noting that

“They would weld your doors shut if they could.”

“This is the party of authoritarianism. The impulse to authoritarianism came with COVID. But the impulse to gather our information actually probably started with the Patriot act, all the way back to 2001. There was this impulse — we must be safe, we must be protected from terrorists,” Paul explained.

Referring to his father former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, The Senator noted “my dad warned — he warned early on that this kind of going after terrorists would ultimately be used on us.”

“When they finally came and used the Patriot Act on Donald Trump, that was when we knew this wasn’t about terrorism, it was about suppressing dissent from people they disagree with,” Paul stated.

As we highlighted yesterday, ‘fact checking’ isn’t the real principle driving the Biden regime’s drive to censor, as they continue to pump out their own disinformation on social media.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

The New US Nuclear Posture Review Is a Major Step Backward

November 8th, 2022 by Lisbeth Gronlund

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 Defense Department finally released the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) last Thursday (October 27). It reveals a shocking naïveté about how the real world works by ignoring two basic defense principles: the “security dilemma” and the “fallacy of the last move.” For example, the NPR describes US nuclear modernization plans as a necessary response to Russia’s and China’s activities and ignores the logical and inevitable response of both countries to US plans. By building new military capabilities to try to increase US security, Russia and China will likely feel threatened and respond by taking steps that will undermine US security. No one can have the last move. And on it goes.

A wise defense planner would consider the likely response of its adversaries—and seek to not undermine their nuclear security as well—for the hard-nosed reason that doing so is in the security interest of the United States.

Moreover, the NPR’s statement that there is an “urgent need to sustain and strengthen deterrence” is absurd, as if deterrence was some type of delicate flower that needed constant care and feeding to stay alive. The notion that the willingness of any country to launch nuclear weapons at the United States or its allies would depend on any specific aspect of the US arsenal is equally absurd.

In addition to these broader issues, the NPR includes several important revelations.

Using nuclear weapons. First, the good news. Obama’s 2010 NPR declared “the US will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and are in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations.” (This declaration holds in the face of conventional, chemical, or biological attacks.)

For the remaining four nations—China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia—the United States reserved the option to use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks, but only “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners in a narrow range of contingencies.”

Both the Trump and Biden NPRs repeat these declarations word-for-word. It appears that Obama’s policy has become firmly embedded in US nuclear policy.

Reducing the hedge. Second, some other (maybe) good news. The new NPR states: “Hedging against an uncertain future is no longer a stated role for nuclear weapons.”

The United States has long maintained a stockpile of stored weapons roughly equal in size to the deployed arsenal for two reasons: to replace one type of weapon with another type should an unexpected technical problem arise, and to allow a rapid increase in deployed weapons by adding more warheads to US missiles, which can accommodate far more weapons than are deployed. No US administration has taken either of these steps.

This statement seems to make good on the pledge in Obama’s NPR which stated that “By modernizing our aging nuclear weapons-supporting facilities and investing in human capital, we can substantially reduce the number of stockpiled nuclear weapons we retain as a hedge against technical or geopolitical surprise.” Over the past decade, the United States has made those investments and should now be able to essentially eliminate the roughly 2,000 weapons in its hedge stockpile.

Yet, the statement has odd and unclear wording. Does it mean the Pentagon will continue to hedge, but not state it publicly? Is this indicative of Pentagon foot-dragging—in which case it won’t happen without the insistence of Biden and future presidents and a Congressional requirement with corresponding budget constraints? Biden did not insist on a sole authority policy, so it is unlikely he will insist on reducing the hedge.

Now for the bad news.

Reliance on nuclear weapons and a “sole purpose” policy. The NPR takes a substantial step back from Obama’s objective of “reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US security strategy.”

In contrast, Biden’s NPR states that the United States is “taking steps to advance the goal of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.” Moreover, moving in this direction will require that several (quite substantial) “security, political and technology conditions evolve in ways that allow [the United States] to do so.” Clearly, reducing reliance is no longer on the Pentagon’s agenda. (Ironically, the NPR states that Russia and China “have demonstrated little interest in reducing their reliance on nuclear weapons.”)

An essential element of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons is a “sole purpose” policy in which the only purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter the use of such weapons against itself and its allies and partners and, if necessary, respond.

Obama’s NPR stated the US goal was to adopt a sole-purpose policy and, during the 2021 presidential campaign, Biden pledged he would adopt do so if elected. However, his NPR does not include this policy and, far worse, it rejects a sole-purpose policy now and far into the future, stating that it “would result in an unacceptable level of risk” and that “for the foreseeable future US nuclear weapons will continue to provide unique deterrence effects.” These “unique deterrence effects” refer to the belief that nuclear weapons are uniquely capable of deterring and responding to some non-nuclear threats.

Arms control with Russia and China. Biden’s NPR states that the United States is committed to putting “diplomacy first” and is placing renewed emphasis on arms control. At the top of the list is a follow-on to the New START agreement, which expires in 2026. However, when the agreement was extended in 2021, Russia made clear that it would not make further cuts in its strategic arsenal unless the United States accepted constraints on its missile defenses. China certainly has similar concerns. Until the United States is willing to limit its defenses against long-range missiles, nuclear arms control will be at a dead end.

This was the logic underlying the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that strictly limited US and Soviet defenses against long-range missiles: Without such limits, both countries would simply build more weapons to overwhelm these defenses. The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2002 and now the chickens have come home to roost. The increased capacity of the Aegis sea-based missile defense system could result in a significant expansion of US defenses against long-range missiles—a clear concern to Russia and China.

New nuclear weapon types. The new NPR has completely abandoned Obama’s nominal pledge “to not develop new nuclear weapons.” Unfortunately, Obama’s NPR left a large loophole—that the weapons labs exploited. Nuclear weapon designers began working on new designs, arguing their new supercomputers allow them to do so without the need for explosive testing.

The original purpose of these supercomputers was to allow US weapons laboratories to better maintain the warheads in the current arsenal after the United States stopped nuclear explosive testing in 1992 in preparation for negotiations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). (The United States signed the CTBT in 1996 although it has yet to ratify it.) US plans to design and build new nuclear weapons completely undermine the explicit purpose of the CTBT to prevent such “vertical proliferation.” Moreover, even if the weapons laboratories are confident in these new designs, it opens the door to future calls for renewed explosive testing which would be an international disaster, and almost certainly lead to the resumption of testing by other nations.

Yet, Biden has doubled down on new weapons.

The NPR calls for reestablishing the capabilities and infrastructure to return to full-scope nuclear weapons production, which will allow “regular and timely incorporation of advanced technologies to improve safety, security and reliability.” In other words, new warheads will be designed, produced, and dismantled on a regular cycle. This is a return to the Cold War practice of continuously building new types of warheads.

This NPR is a repudiation of Obama’s pledge to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” It is shocking that President Biden signed off on this document.

*

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

Lisbeth Gronlund is a research affiliate with the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT.

Featured image: President Joe Biden delivers remarks to Department of Defense personnel at the Pentagon on February 10, 2021. (DoD/Lisa Ferdinando)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New US Nuclear Posture Review Is a Major Step Backward
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

As environmental advocates call on regulators to “lead with sound science” regarding the proposed release of thousands of genetically engineered mosquitoes on a weekly basis in central California, eight Democratic lawmakers on Thursday demanded that officials reject the proposal without an in-depth review of its potential impacts.

Biotech company Oxitec aims to make California the second state—after Florida—to have an experimental release of its genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes, and has applied for a permit to conduct research with its product at 48 test sites in Tulare County. The experimental release would target the mosquito species Aedes aegypti and aim to reduce its population in Tulare County.

According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), which can approve or deny the research authorization, between 5,000 and 30,000 GE mosquitoes would be released on a weekly basis at each site and the permit would be effective through April 30, 2024.

While Oxitec has previously highlighted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that such releases don’t adversely affect humans or the environment, the California lawmakers said in a letter to the DPR that a review of the proposal by the EPA is not sufficient.

“Significant scientific research is still needed to understand the potential public health and environmental concerns associated with the release of this novel insect prior to any approval,” wrote the legislators. “It is our understanding that while the U.S. EPA did approve the GE mosquitoes to be released in California, the agency did not conduct a thorough scientific review of the impacts of this insect on public health or the environment. California must require more and better information prior to any approval.”

The lawmakers suggested the DPR conduct a public review of data from Florida regarding the state’s experimental release of GE mosquitoes, hold public meetings where community members can express concerns and hear from independent experts, and establish an independent scientific advisory panel to review Oxitec’s proposal.

“Before we permit the use of genetically engineered mosquitoes, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation should provide for clear rules and a review of public health and environmental risks of releasing the insects in a public process,” said Assemblymember Laura Friedman, who represents Glendale. “There are too many unknown factors when it comes to how it could affect our biodiversity in the long run, including how this might influence populations of birds, bats, fish species, and other insects.”

Rebecca Spector, West Coast director at the Center for Food Safety, applauded the legislators for “taking action to protect public health and the environment from the unknown impacts of GE mosquitoes.”

“They rightfully are asking DPR to conduct a more comprehensive review and public meetings for residents that will be impacted, before approving this permit,” said Spector.

Angel Garcia, a Tulare County resident who is co-director of Californians for Pesticide Reform, called the push to conduct the experiment “an environmental justice issue.”

“Tulare County residents are already impacted by some of the worst pollution problems, and climate change has already exacerbated environmental destruction, economic and social inequity,” said Garcia. “People have not consented to being part of this open-air biopesticide experiment.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image is from RAIR

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.

***

People around the world have expressed concerns about Israelis empowering indicted former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form the nation’s most far-right government in history since Israel held its fifth election in less than four years on Tuesday.

“If you are shocked and horrified by this growing, emboldened Israeli fascist movement, ask yourself how you’ll commit to opposing Jewish supremacist ideology, policies, and institutions in days and years ahead,” Simone Zimmerman, co-founder of the American Jewish group IfNotNow, tweeted late Wednesday. “Fighting fascism, authoritarianism, and racism everywhere is our only hope.”

The results were confirmed Thursday. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, secured 32 seats in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, followed by outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid with 24 seats. The bloc breakdown, as Haaretz reported, is 64 seats for the Netanyahu camp and 51 for the current coalition.

“The election’s biggest surprise is the resounding success of the radical right-wing Religious Zionism coalition,” Mitchell Plitnick, president of ReThinking Foreign Policy, wrote Wednesday for Responsible Statecraft, stressing that party leaders Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir will have “enormous influence in the coalition politics of the next Israeli government.”

The far-right alliance, which won 14 seats, “was put together from several smaller lists, including Otzma Yehudit (‘Jewish Power’), Noam, which fights for conservative ‘family values,’ the National Union-Tekuma and Jewish Home,” Middle East Eye explained.

The other parties that won some of the 120 seats were: National Unity Party (12), Shas (11), United Torah Judaism (7), Yisrael Beitenu (6), Hadash-Ta’al (5), the United Arab List (5), and Labor (4). Haaretz noted that “left-wing party Meretz was just a few thousand votes short of making it into the next Knesset, ending a three-decade-long era of political representation.”

Netanyahu—who has been charged with accepting bribes, breach of trust, and fraud but denied any wrongdoing—will soon have four weeks to form a government.

The Associated Press highlighted that Netanyahu will have to work with Smotrich, “a West Bank settler who has made anti-Arab remarks” and aspires to lead Israel’s Defense Ministry, and Ben-Gvir, “a disciple of a racist anti-Arab rabbi,” Meir Kahane.

As the AP detailed:

Ben-Gvir says he wants to end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the West Bank and until recently hung a photo in his home of Baruch Goldstein, an American-Israeli who killed 29 Palestinians in a West Bank shooting attack in 1994. Ben-Gvir, who seeks to deport Arab legislators, says he wants to be put in charge of the national police force.

Religious Zionism has promised to enact changes to Israeli law that could make Netanyahu’s legal woes disappear and, along with other nationalist allies, they want to weaken the independence of the judiciary and concentrate more power in the hands of lawmakers.

“Netanyahu has never led a coalition with such ideological cohesion,” Yousef Munayyer, a senior fellow at the Arab Center Washington D.C., tweeted of Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, warning of a “stable, unified, right-wing religious nationalist government” that will pursue an “extra racist agenda.”

Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Knesset member for Hadash, told The New York Times: “These are difficult days… This isn’t the ordinary, classic right that we know. This is a change—in which a racist, violent right-wing threatens to turn into fascism.”

IfNotNow said in a series of tweets Wednesday that “as Jews, we’re repulsed by the results of the Israeli election. But we’re not surprised. We need to recognize how we got here. The victory for Kahanists is the product of an apartheid regime that suppresses the rights of Palestinians on both sides of the green line.”

“Itamar Ben-Gvir and other Kahanists only became the third largest party in Israel with the support of Jewish-Israeli leaders across the political spectrum who prefer empowering Jewish ultranationalists and fascists to partnering with Palestinians,” the group continued. “Those right-wing leaders confirmed what we already know: For them, Jewish power means trampling on freedom and equality to uphold a system of supremacy and exclusion.”

The U.S. group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) declared that “Israeli elections make clear the truth that Palestinians have always known: The Israeli state isn’t just founded on Jewish supremacy, it depends on it.”

Hagai El-Ad, executive director of the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, said that “with today’s rise of the racist ‘Jewish Power’ party, the quiet part of Israel’s regime of Jewish supremacy over Palestinians has never been louder. To date, the world was mostly silent in the face of this 21st century reality of apartheid.”

“No one should be allowed to continue pretending that the ugly reverberations of Israel’s decadeslong subjugation, disenfranchisement, and oppression of Palestinians hasn’t reached their ears,” he argued. “Global silence was, and remains, complicity. It underwrote today’s political outcome. That silence must now—ever so belatedly—be replaced with action, effective consequences, and accountability.”

Some observers specifically focused on the United States, a key ally that provides Israel with billions of dollars in military aid each year.

“The inclusion of far-right Jewish supremacists in Israel’s governing coalition will add to the ongoing narrative shift that is making it increasingly difficult for folks to continue to make excuses for Israel’s war crimes and human rights violations,” Tariq Kenney-Shawa, U.S. policy fellow at the Palestinian think tank Al-Shabaka, told Al Jazeera.

Beth Miller, political director at JVP Action, told Al Jazeera that the election results serve as a “moment of exposure” for Israel’s “Jewish supremacist” policy as well as an “escalation” in an already unjust system of “apartheid,” a term increasingly used by human rights advocates.

“Israel shouldn’t be separated from the rise of far-right authoritarianism and fascism across the globe,” Miller said. “At the same time, the U.S. has a long-standing history of always turning its head the other way whenever the Israeli government is carrying out systemic human rights violations.”

“Now, what that means is that we’re in a moment of reckoning here in the U.S.,” she added.

In his piece for Responsible Statecraft, Mitchell made the case that “the power and influence Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and other far-right figures will inevitably wield” in the new government “should provoke a reassessment in Washington’s approach to diplomacy with Israel, particularly regarding the Palestinians.”

However, Mitchell also expressed skepticism that President Joe Biden—who on Wednesday night delivered an impassioned speech about rising authoritarianism in the United States, just days before the midterm elections—will make any major changes to the U.S. relationship with Israel:

Indeed, U.S. inaction has only made conditions for progress worse. It has effectively allowed the issue of Palestinian rights, let alone prospects for a resolution of the conflict, to be swept from view. Even Palestinian citizens of Israel, who hoped for progress last year when, for the first time in Israeli history, a party that represented some of their community was part of the governing coalition, now find themselves in a very dangerous position with openly racist parties in control of their government. Millions more Palestinians under occupation were, of course, denied the vote and must now prepare themselves for more assaults by settlers and Israeli soldiers.

This is not a time to hope things get better. The Biden administration must make it clear to Israel that all Palestinians are entitled to basic human rights. The Israeli right has long made a point of “standing up” to its patron in Washington. This new government is certain to lean heavily on that idea. It will be crucial for Biden to stand up against that, though his track record offers little hope that he will.

In an early signal of the Biden administration’s position, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, Ned Price, told reporters Wednesday that “we hope that all Israeli government officials will continue to share the values of an open, democratic society including tolerance and respect for all in civil society, particularly for minority groups.”

After the election results were confirmed Thursday, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, tweeted that during a “good call” with Netanyahu, “I congratulated him on his victory and told him I look forward to working together to maintain the unbreakable bond.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

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

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

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

First published by GR on October 16, 2022

***

 

 

 

Sometimes top military warriors tell US war presidents the painful truth.

That happened yesterday when retired admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, urged President Biden to begin negotiations to end America’s newest endless war.

And a peculiar endless war it is….America squandering its desperately needed treasure so Ukraine can squander its economy, infrastructure and precious blood on a war it can’t win short of America nuking Russia.

President Biden is doing precisely the opposite: funneling endless billions to keep the war going while dismissing negotiations out of hand.

Mullen didn’t mince words, telling Biden to “back off” scaremongering words of nuclear Armageddon and quickly bring Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table. He called Biden’s remarks as being “at the top of the language scale” and he wasn’t being complementary.

Mullen was channeling those of us in the peace community when he said “As is typical in any war, it’s gotta end and usually there are negotiations associated with that. The sooner the better, as far as I’m concerned.”

Biden’s war conduct has been worse than simply poo-pooing negotiations. He directly undermined a potential 15 point peace agreement in March brokered by Turkey that could have ended the war in its first month.

Turkey, bless em, will try again tomorrow when their President Erdogan will meet with Russian President Putin to discuss Turkey brokering a new round of peace talks.

That should be encouraging. But it’s likely to go nowhere when America, in its lust to degrade, weaken, Russia, keeps Ukraine President Zelensky’s hopeless dreams of victory alive.

Biden and the US war party still view perpetual war as the wealth of the state. More likely it’s the death of the state. This time it may include all of 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.

Featured image: United States Navy Admiral Michael G. Mullen, 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Photo by United States Department of Defense, 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.

***

On Sunday 30 November 2022, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – or Lula for short, of the left-wing Workers Party – was elected with a razor thin margin as the new President of Brazil. He “won” the election with 50.83% of the votes against his opponent’s 49.17% (NYT 31 October 2022), the incumbent, Jair Bolsonaro, of Brazil’s right-wing Liberal Party. He is Brazil’s 38th President, in office since 1 January 2019.

Lula has previously served two terms as President, from 2003-2010. The President Elect is to be inaugurated on 1 January 2023 as the 39th President. Lula is slated to be the first Brazilian President to serve three terms.

The winning-margin could hardly be slimmer. One could dare say, it’s within the regular margin of error of such elections. Under normal circumstances, a recount might be of the order. Most likely Washington would not allow it, because the US needs a “left-wing” President, as they have “allowed”, or manipulated, in the latest wave of elections, throughout Latin America.

What most people may not have realized yet, is that left and right in the traditional sense, do no longer exist. They have been overruled by “Globalism and Anti-Globalism”. The left, throughout the world has been hijacked by the neoliberal globalist complex, making us believe that the Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030 are kind of a socialist concept in which eventually all will be “equal”. As equal as in “you will own nothing but be happy”.

Therefore Washington is inclined to favor a “left” / globalist candidate over a right-wing or conservative nationalist.

Mr. Bolsonaro may be right-wing, having adopted many unpopular policies, like “privatizing” junks of the Amazon area, as well as some of the precious water resources, under- and above ground, treasured by the Amazon Region. But he is a nationalist, not a globalist at all.

What made President Bolsonaro popular among large segments of the population are his poverty alleviation efforts. For one, he continued supporting the Bolsa Familia Program (BFP), created under Lula in 2003, to help poor families out of poverty.

The BFP family allowance program provides monthly subsidies to qualifying low-income people. The BFP is largely responsible for nearly 60 percent of poverty reduction over the past two decades. Under Bolsonaro, BFP was also expanding access of the poor to education and health services.

Realizing how covid – which Bolsonaro always looked at with skepticism – increased destitution among the Brazilian poor and transferred basic resources of low-income people through bankruptcies and joblessness from the poor upwards, putting even more people into poverty, Bolsonaro hastily designed a new social agenda, Auxílio Brasil, eventually to replace BFP.

Auxílio Brasil, initially designed as a modest pandemic bonus for the poor, was beefed-up by Bolsonaro to make more of a difference. While focusing particularly at people hit hard by covid’s economic disaster, it also continues as a BFP-like poverty alleviation program. This clear- and foresight of better economic equilibrium in the Brazilian population, has earned Bolsonaro considerable support from especially the young and destitute, and from countless favela-dwellers.

According to a World Bank report, out of the 22 million people lifted out of poverty across Latin America by pandemic-related government transfers in 2020, 77 percent of them were in Brazil. See this.

Compare that to less generous pandemic assistance offered under leftist President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico, where 3.8 million more people fell into poverty during the pandemic.

Bolsonaro’s popularity, in fact, shot through the roof, as the poor backed him in record numbers.

When Brazil’s election results emerged, the incumbent Bolsonaro kept quiet. He did not concede, not congratulate Lula. He simply didn’t respond. In a later public announcement, on 31 October, Bolsonaro briefly said that he intends to honor the Constitution and the process of transfer of power may begin. As of this day, however, Bolsonaro has not conceded – or congratulated Lula for his victory. In other words, he has not really accepted defeat (yet?).

By publicly accepting the transfer of power, but not openly accepting defeat, Bolsonaro may quietly be nudging his many followers, many of them young people; poor people, whom the poverty alleviation programs he supported helped; victims of the international covid narrative – to protest his narrow defeat. It is well known that Bolsonaro has often questioned the Brazilian election system and may believe foul play was involved.

What will happen during the next two months in terms of social unrest – or not – until presidential power is transferred on 1 January 2023 to Lula – and maybe beyond – is anybody’s guess.

*

Lula’s History

As Lula is poised to take over his third term Presidency, also a first in Brazilian history, a look into Lula’s history may be of the order.

In the run-up to the 2002 Brazil elections, with Lula a favored candidate, his leftist stance led especially western media to compare him to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, whose reputation as a consequential and convinced socialist was meant to discredit Lula before the elections. To no avail.

Later as President, Lula nominated Henrique Meirelles of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, a prominent market-oriented economist, as head of the Brazilian Central Bank. Mr. Meirelles was a former CEO of the Bank FleetBoston.

Through BankBoston, other than Bank of America, the foremost bank in New England, headquartered in Boston, Lula gained almost unlimited access to Wall Street banking. He entered into agreements with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), following all the Fund’s mostly restrictive conditionalities.

The IMF hailed Lula as a perfect leader, whom other Latin American governments could take as an example for good financial management. In his first term, Brazil’s Central Bank, budget, and debt management was basically run by the IMF and Wall Street. By 2008, after decades with the largest foreign debt among emerging economies, Brazil became a net creditor for the first time. Banks made record profits under Lula’s government.

In his second term, Lula became the undisputed master of popular affection, as the first president to bring a modest well-being to many people. Wall Street, the World Bank and IMF loved him. They would do anything to help him succeed, because Lula’s success, meant increasing access to Brazil’s enormous treasures of natural resources, minerals, water and the richest biodiversity on earth.

The 2008 crash of Wall Street, was an economic blow for the US and Europe, but Brazil continued to enjoy financial good health. The Lula administration’s economic policies helped to significantly raise living standards. According to the Washington Post, the percentage of Brazilians belonging to the middle class rose from 50% to 73% of the population. More than 20 million people rose out of extreme poverty. Under Lula, Brazil became the world’s eighth-largest economy.

In 2016, Lula was investigated for alleged involvement in two cases in the infamous corruption case, “Operation Car Wash”. The criminal investigation uncovered corruption between the State-owned oil and petrol company, Petrobrás, several construction companies, and various Brazilian politicians, to obtain secret campaign funds. The investigation was conducted under former Federal Criminal Court Judge Sergio Moro.

In 2017, Lula was found guilty and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment. Another three years were added in 2018 by the Federal Court. Lula started serving his sentence in April 2018, while his appeals were pending.

It was never clear whether Lula was really involved in the corruption scandal, judge Moro accused him of. The judge had at one point his own ambitions for the presidency, but eventually joined Bolsonaro’s cabinet in 2019.

In 2021, the Federal Supreme Court crushed Lula’s sentence, ruling that former judge Moro had no jurisdiction to investigate and try the cases. Lula was liberated and ready to become a prime candidate for the 2022 Presidential elections.

It is not clear yet, how Lula will rule Brazil in his third Presidential Term. How he will deal with the Amazon Region – a huge area of biodiversity that impacts on way more than just Brazil. In a recent CNN interview question on whether he would agree that the patrimony of the Amazon was a world patrimony and should therefore be managed by the UN, Lula replied without hesitation that he agrees transferring the Amazon area to a UN protectorate organization (the reference has since been removed from internet.)

That is clearly an admission to globalism, especially knowing – or he should know – that the UN has long ceased to be the independent world body that it was created to be, working for peace, equality and the protection of Mother Earth and Human Rights.

Hélas, the UN in the past 20 to 30 years, has gently drifted under the control of the West, with Washington’s leadership, towards doing the bidding of the G7, of the Corporate Digital, Financial and Military Complex.

Brazilians who voted for Bolsonaro – about half the population – definitely want a sovereign, autonomous Brazil. They reject the western imposed globalism. The vast majority of those who voted for Lula, think likewise: A sovereign Brazil, master of her own resources. They haven’t realized yet, that under pressure from Washington and its western allies, the left has turned into a clan of neoliberal globalists.

It’s never too late to resist that Big Capital-driven trend.

Time will tell, whether Lula will keep his promise to be the President of ALL Brazil – and the once-upon-a-time during his first presidential-term commitment, to protect the Amazon Region as a sovereign Brazilian patrimony – for the long-term survival of Mother Earth.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from teleSUR

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

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

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

First published on November 1, 2022

***

Carefully documented video below on Who Blew Up Nord Stream Pipeline

And who was that foreign state actor? EU politicians and the Western media in chorus place the blame on Russia.

The Russians Did It

***

*

Context

Nord Stream which originates in Russia passes through the territorial waters of four EU member states including Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. Permission was provided and approved by the parliaments of those countries prior to construction.

Moreover, the Nord Stream pipelines also required the approval of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, which were part of the consultative process prior to construction.

Bombshell: From a legal standpoint (International Law: UN Charter, Law of the Sea) this was not a terrorist attack against Russia, it was a:

U.S. Act of War against the European Union

The deliberate destruction of said “properties” within a country’s territorial waters by or on behalf of a foreign state actor constitutes an act of war

La Classe Politique“: High Treason

America is no longer “An Ally” of the EU. Quite the opposite. The insidious role of the US in carrying out acts of sabotage against the EU is amply documented. Beyond doubt.

Meanwhile corrupt EU politicians are not only blaming Russia, they  are setting the stage for the destruction of the European Union on behalf of Washington. 

They are “Sleeping with the Enemy” to the Detriment of  the People of Europe.

Treason constitutes an act of betrayal by European politicians in high office on behalf of a foreign power, which through various means is actively and deliberately triggering economic and social chaos in both Western and Eastern Europe.

The U.S. is not an ally of the EU. Quite the opposite. Washington is waging war against Europe, with the support of  corrupt government officials in high office. It’s an act of treason.

The media is also complicit i.e. in sustaining a flow of lies. The unspoken objective is to provide a human face to these acts of treason.

Treason at the highest levels of government. 

What is required is “Regime Change” throughout the European Union as well criminal prosecutions directed against corrupt politicians.

Michel Chossudovsky, November 1, 2022

See the following:

U.S. Act of War against the European Union: President Biden Ordered the Terror Attack against Nord Stream. High Treason against the People of EuropeBy Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 21, 2022

 

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.

Since posting, it would appear that the video is no longer available

***

Transcript of Video

There are many hot-button topics in the midterm elections that are in some way linked to the Covid response. The economy. Education. Government censorship and control.

Today, we confront one of the thorniest issues to arise from the pandemic: the massive loss of credibility in our top public health agencies.

President Joe Biden (July 30):

Hey folks, Joe Biden here. Tested positive this morning

When President Biden caught Covid for the second time

President Biden: I am feeling fine, everything is good.

He won a place in an unlucky trifecta.

Biden, top Covid adviser Anthony Fauci, and the head of vaccine-maker Pfizer had all insisted the vaccines would prevent Covid. Among them, they now count at least 14 shots — and 6 bouts with Coronavirus. Living symbols of the lapses, confusion, and government misinformation that mark America’s long Covid nightmare.

President Biden (January 4):

So, there’s no excuse — no excuse for anyone being unvaccinated. This continues to be a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

In the beginning, Americans put their full faith in public health officials.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (March 2020, CNN):

That’s no time to pull back. That’s when you need to hunker down, nail down, mitigate, mitigate, mitigate. Get the people taken care of. That’s what you’ve got to concentrate on.

But “15 days to slow the spread” turned into an ordeal with unthinkable costs still being paid. Economic fallout, destroyed education, shuttered businesses, lost jobs, and Covid ravaged the country all the same.

Too often, the public watched as their top experts seem to be the last to admit the obvious. Multiple cringeworthy moments and false claims were provided by Dr. Rochelle Walensky, head of the Centers for Disease Control.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky (March 29, 2021, MSNBC):

Our data from the CDC today suggests you know that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick.

Just this past week, after a reported five Covid vaccinations, CDC announced Walensky’s second bout with Covid in a 9-day period.

In one of public health’s most urgent moments — after trillions of tax dollars and decades spent preparing — CDC became a punchline.

Sharyl: The idea that the premier health agency in the world didn’t know what to do when a pandemic broke out and put out wrong information so often, that’s really been harmful.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: I completely agree.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine. He helped lead thousands of scientists early on in endorsing a different approach: instead of shutdowns, isolate those at most risk, and let others lead normal lives.

Emails later revealed top public health officials conspired to smear Bhattacharya and his colleagues for veering from the narrative. The head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, wrote Fauci of the need for “a quick and devastating published take down” of Bhattacharya’s ideas.

Bhattacharya: It just reeks of scientific incompetence or the manipulation of science in order to get their desired policy ends. Probably the most egregious is this denial of natural immunity. Places like the CDC have argued that there is no proof or evidence of essentially protection against future Covid exposure after you’re Covid-recovered. No natural immunity. And so, by denying this fact about the immunity, people in the real world are not dumb. And they say, “Well, why are they saying this false thing to me? What else are they saying to me that’s false?”

Congressman Tom Massie exposed another shocking example of false information coming from CDC, as we reported last year. Massie caught top CDC leaders and scientists claiming that original studies showed people who’d had Covid would still benefit from getting vaccinated. That wasn’t true.

In phone calls Massie recorded, CDC officials promised they’d fix their disinformation. Instead, they continued to spread the false claims here, in a seminar aimed at medical professionals.

Dr. Sara Oliver (CDC video): “…Data from both clinical trials suggests that people with prior infection are still likely to benefit from vaccination.”

Over the summer, keenly aware of the widening credibility gap, Walensky conducted her own review of CDC’s Covid response. She concluded her agency had failed miserably in its biggest moment.

Walensky (August 10, CBS News): We made some pretty public mistakes, and we need to own them.

Walensky found that to move forward, CDC must align incentives with public health action and impact, improve internal coordination, implement new governance with an emphasis on the core capabilities and accountability at all levels, and upskill and train toward a response-capable agency.

Still, the inside review fell far short of the top-to-bottom makeover envisioned by critics and even by one of CDC’s longtime supporters.

Lawrence Gostin: I’m really worried about CDC’s credibility.

Lawrence Gostin heads up the World Health Organization’s Center on Global Health Law.

Gostin: CDC does need an overhaul.

Sharyl: I’m a little surprised to hear you agree with some of CDC’s harshest critics in that an overhaul is needed.

Gostin: Yeah. I mean, it’s always better to have suggestions for reform from a close and dear friend. And I am as close and as dear a friend to CDC as anybody could be. Everybody knows things have to change, and they do.

Sharyl: What could they have done to not end up in a place where they lack so much public trust today?

Gostin: Yeah. I mean, it’s hard. I mean, I know so many of the public health leaders at CDC, and I’m very good friends with Tony Fauci. But nobody escaped unscathed. And there were times when the agency just literally misstepped. It misfired.

Sharyl: When you say CDC could use an overhaul, what would you envision, something realistic?

Gostin: What I want to see is, you know, the best public health minds in the country doing an independent, open report — a retrospective on CDC’s performance during COVID, and what it needs to do now.

Right now, with no CDC overhaul or outside review underway, politicians are threatening to step in.

House Republican leader Steve Scalise says the public’s loss of confidence extends well beyond the CDC to the FDA and other government agencies that had a role in the problematic Covid response.

Sharyl: How can this credibility gap that’s developed be fixed? And is there anything that members of Congress — particularly if Republicans regain control in November — is there anything that can be done about it?

Rep. Steve Scalise: Well, we’re going to be ready to go day one. And if we’re in the majority, we will have hearings to get those facts out, but then go and restore the credibility of those agencies by taking away that power to just unilaterally control people’s lives and get back to the science — what used to be their main focus, that got thrown out the window when people politicized it because they wanted to use government to control people.

Sharyl: Looking ahead, let’s say there’s another pandemic or big public health emergency with the federal agencies in the same state as they’re in today. Where do you think that leaves us?

Bhattacharya: I think we’re in a very, very bad state. We have to reform each of these agencies pretty fundamentally. We’re going to need to have a very honest look at the problems in this pandemic, almost like a 9/11 style commission.

Gostin says President Biden is in the driver’s seat.

Gostin: In terms of having an independent, scientific public health inquiry on lessons learned from Covid and overhauling the CDC, he can do that. He’s the head of federal agencies in the United States. He could do it, and he should do it. And he should do all he can to make the CDC a really robust and shining agency, just like that shining agency on a hill that CDC used to be. We need to get back there.

Sharyl (on-camera): CDC declined our interview requests. The agency’s record budget request for next year includes $25 billion for a new adult vaccination program, $28 billion more for pandemic preparedness, which had already been funded by the trillions prior to Covid.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The CDC Credibility Crisis. “Loss of credibility in our top public health agencies”

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.

***

See second feature (with video) and videos beneath that.

In 2011 then Secretary of State Clinton was simultaneously engineering violent, mainly military, coups in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen as well as Ivory Coast. (Against the governments of Nouri al-Maliki, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Ali Abdullah Saleh and Laurent Gbagbo, respectively.) By 2011 only five African nations had not been pulled into U.S. Africa Command’s orbit: Ivory Coast, Libya, Eritrea, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In that year Clinton secured 40% of those for the Pentagon.

U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, Africa
October 21, 2022

Army.mil

Planning underway for ALFS 23 in Cote d’Ivoire

ABIDJAN, Côte d’Ivoire – Military planners for U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, Africa (SETAF-AF), visited several sites in Cote d’Ivoire Sep 26-30, 2022 for the African Land Forces Summit (ALFS) initial planning event. The planning event is part of ongoing preparation for ALFS 23 scheduled for May, 2023.

ALFS is a weeklong event that hosts leaders from more than forty African countries for training and partnership building with U.S. Army leaders. Last year ALFS took place at Ft. Benning, Georgia. ALFS 23 marks the return of ALFS to Africa for first time since 2020.

***

International military engagements branch chief for SETAF-AF, Lt. Col. Robert Miller, is serving as the lead planner for ALFS 23. Miller said that the event is the second of four planning meetings in Cote d’Ivoire that will take place in preparation for the summit. The first visit, the Pre-deployment Site Survey, took place in May.

“Planning engagement events is challenging and rewarding,” said Miller. “From my past experience, I know that all the hard work and the times spent organizing a well-run event allows our senior leaders the time and space to have the strategic discussions necessary to build and maintain our partnerships in Africa.”

ALFS is hosted annually by SETAF-AF in order to bring together military leaders from the U.S. and Africa to discuss capabilities, build partnerships through face-to-face interaction, and discuss issues the partner forces are facing on the African continent.

=====

BBC
April 11, 2011

Hillary Clinton welcomes detention of Laurent Gbagbo

Features video

Ivory Coast politician Laurent Gbagbo has surrendered after a military assault on his residence in Abidjan and has been put under UN guard.

In Washington US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed his detention saying the transition sent “a strong signal to dictators and tyrants throughout the region and around the world.”

====

At the same time as the coup in Ivory Coast Clinton was engineering “regime change” in Libya with the assistance of NATO’s air war against the nation and its people, culminating in:

“We came, we saw, he died.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s military coup and Pentagon/NATO subjugation of Ivory Coast, Africa

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.

****

  • European industries including ferroalloys, fertilizer plants and specialty chemicals are shutting down as a result of the ongoing energy crisis.
  • Certain industries may not come back, even if the energy crisis eases.
  • An increasingly tight regulatory environment is another reason for de-industrialization in Europe.

The European Union has been quietly celebrating a consistent decline in gas and electricity consumption this year amid record-breaking prices, a cutoff of much of the Russian gas supply, and a liquidity crisis in the energy market.

Yet the cause for celebration is dubious: businesses are not just curbing their energy use and continuing on a business-as-usual basis. They are shutting down factories, downsizing, or relocating. Europe may well be on the way to deindustrialization.

That the European Union is heading for a recession is now quite clear to anyone watching the indicators. The latest there—eurozone manufacturing activity—fell to the lowest since May 2020.

The October reading for S&P Global’s PMI also signaled a looming recession, falling on the month and being the fourth monthly reading below 50—an indication of an economic contraction.

In perhaps worse news, however, German conglomerate BASF said last month it would permanently downside in its home country and expand in China. The announcement served as a blow to a government trying to juggle energy shortages with climate goals without extending the lives of nuclear power plants.

“The European chemical market has been growing only weakly for about a decade [and] the significant increase in natural gas and power prices over the course of this year is putting pressure on chemical value chains,” said BASF’s chief executive, Martin Brudermueller, as quoted by the FT, in late October.

Yet it is worth noting that the energy crisis was not the only reason for BASF’s plans to shrink its presence at home and grow abroad. Increasingly tighter EU regulation was also a factor behind this decision, Brudermueller said.

Other industries also seem to have problems with new EU regulations. The trade body for the steel and aluminum industries, which have also suffered significantly from the energy cost inflation, recently proposed that the EU takes a gradual approach with its new Cross-Border Adjustment Mechanism, also known as the import carbon tax.

The CBAM was conceived as a way of leveling the playing field for European industrial businesses subjected to strict emission regulation that makes its production costlier compared to the production of countries with laxer emission standards.

Yet it would also make important feedstock for the European steel and aluminum industries costlier, too, adding to the pain these industries are already feeling because they are also among the most energy-intensive ones.

A tenth of Europe’s crude steel production capacity has already been idled, according to estimates from Jefferies. All zinc smelters have curbed production, and some have shut down. Half of the primary aluminum production has shut down as well. And in fertilizers, 70 percent of factories have been idled because of the energy shortage.

Chemical plants are also curbing their activities, ferroalloy furnaces are going cold, and plastics and ceramics manufacturing is shrinking as well.

Some of these businesses might choose to eventually relocate to a place with cheaper and more widely available sources of energy, contributing to the deindustrialization process in Europe. As for the best candidate for this relocation, according to some observers, it is the United States, with its abundant gas reserves, rising production, and friendly investment climate.

Meanwhile, one thing has become crystal clear: reduced energy consumption in Europe’s industrial sectors is really no cause for celebration. If anything, it is a cause for concern and urgent action on the part of decision makers.

The gas price cap the EU agreed on recently might help a little, but since it is tied to lower consumption, it is not really a solution for businesses looking to stay in business. It is a life support system.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe May See Forced De-Industrialization As Result Of Energy Crisis

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.

***

We have been discussing how Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton called on foreign companies to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter.

The EU has responded aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech or face crippling fines and even potential criminal enforcement. After years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) declared Musk’s pledge to restore free speech values on social media as threatening Democracy itself. She has promised that “there are going to be rules” to block such changes. She is not alone. Former President Obama has declared “regulation has to be part of the answer” to disinformation.

For her part, Hillary Clinton is looking to Europe to fill the vacuum and called upon her European counterparts to pass a massive censorship law to “bolster global democracy before it’s too late.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike.

EU censors have assured Democratic leaders that they will not allow free speech to break out on Twitter regardless of the wishes of its owner and customers.

One of the most anti-free speech figures in the West, EU’s Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has been raising the alarm that Twitter users might be able to read uncensored material or hear unauthorized views.

Breton himself threatened that Twitter must “fly by [the European Union’s] rules” in censoring views deemed misleading or harmful by EU bureaucrats. Breton has been moving publicly to warn Musk not to try to reintroduce protections that go beyond the tolerance of the EU for free speech. Musk is planning to meet with the EU censors and has conceded that he may not be able resist such mandatory censorship rules.

The hope of leaders like Clinton is the anti-free speech measure recently passed by EU countries, the Digital Services Act. The DSA contains mandatory “disinformation” rules for censoring “harmful” thoughts or views.

Breton has made no secret that he views free speech as a danger coming from the United States that needs to be walled off from the Internet. He previously declared that, with the DSA, the EU is now able to prevent the Internet from again becoming a place for largely unregulated free speech, which he referred to as the “Wild West” period of the Internet.

It is a telling reference because the EU views free speech itself as an existential danger. They reject the notion of free speech as its own protection where good speech can overcome bad speech. That is viewed as the “Wild West.”

Many of us are far more fearful of global censors than some whack job spewing hateful thoughts from his basement. That is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlords monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

The danger of the rising levels of censorship is far greater than the dangers of such absurd claims of the law or science — or in this case both. What we can do is to maximize the free discourse and expression on the Internet to allow free speech itself to be the ultimate disinfectant of disinformation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Twitter Censorship: EU Warns Elon Musk Not to Restore Free Speech Protections After Calls from Clinton and Other Democratic Leaders

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.

***

For soldiers … coming home is more lethal than being in combat.” ― Brené Brown, research professor at the University of Houston

The U.S. government is still waging war on America’s military veterans.

Especially veterans who exercise their First Amendment right to speak out against government wrongdoing.

Consider: we raise our young people on a steady diet of militarism and war, sell them on the idea that defending freedom abroad by serving in the military is their patriotic duty, then when they return home, bruised and battle-scarred and committed to defending their freedoms at home, we often treat them like criminals merely for exercising those rights they risked their lives to defend.

As first reported by the Wall Street Journal, the government even has a name for its war on America’s veterans: Operation Vigilant Eagle.

This Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program tracks military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and characterizes them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

Coupled with the DHS’ dual reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism,” which broadly define extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics bode ill for anyone seen as opposing the government.

Yet the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is taking aim at individuals trained in military warfare.

Don’t be fooled by the fact that the DHS has gone extremely quiet about Operation Vigilant Eagle.

Where there’s smoke, there’s bound to be fire.

And the government’s efforts to target military veterans whose views may be perceived as “anti-government” make clear that something is afoot.

In recent years, military servicemen and women have found themselves increasingly targeted for surveillance, censorship, threatened with incarceration or involuntary commitment, labeled as extremists and/or mentally ill, and stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

In light of the government’s efforts to lay the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data and predict who might pose a threat to public safety based on mental health sensor data (a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors), encounters with the police could get even more deadly, especially if those involved have a mental illness or disability coupled with a military background.

Incredibly, as part of a proposal introduced under the Trump Administration, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

These tactics are not really new.

Many times throughout history in totalitarian regimes, such governments have declared dissidents mentally ill and unfit for society as a means of rendering them disempowering them.

For example, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union often used psychiatric hospitals as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally through the use of electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures.

This age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by declaring them mentally ill and locking them up in psychiatric wards for extended periods of time is a common practice in present-day China.

What is particularly unnerving, however, is how this practice of eliminating or undermining potential critics, including military veterans, is happening with increasing frequency in the United States.

Remember, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) opened the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists—technically, anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government qualifies.

It doesn’t take much anymore to be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the government’s dictates.

In fact, as the Washington Post reports, communities are being mapped and residents assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about a person’s potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether they’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

The case of Brandon Raub is a prime example of Operation Vigilant Eagle in action.

Raub, a 26-year-old decorated Marine, actually found himself interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys. Within days of Raub being seized and forcibly held in a VA psych ward, news reports started surfacing of other veterans having similar experiences.

“Oppositional defiance disorder” (ODD) is another diagnosis being used against veterans who challenge the status quo. As journalist Anthony Martin explains, an ODD diagnosis:

“denotes that the person exhibits ‘symptoms’ such as the questioning of authority, the refusal to follow directions, stubbornness, the unwillingness to go along with the crowd, and the practice of disobeying or ignoring orders. Persons may also receive such a label if they are considered free thinkers, nonconformists, or individuals who are suspicious of large, centralized government… At one time the accepted protocol among mental health professionals was to reserve the diagnosis of oppositional defiance disorder for children or adolescents who exhibited uncontrollable defiance toward their parents and teachers.”

That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) these veterans is diabolical. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these veterans are being declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights.

If it were just being classified as “anti-government,” that would be one thing.

Unfortunately, anyone with a military background and training is also now being viewed as a heightened security threat by police who are trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

Feeding this perception of veterans as ticking time bombs in need of intervention, the Justice Department launched a pilot program in 2012 aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

The result?

Police encounters with military veterans often escalate very quickly into an explosive and deadly situation, especially when SWAT teams are involved.

For example, Jose Guerena, a Marine who served in two tours in Iraq, was killed after an Arizona SWAT team kicked open the door of his home during a mistaken drug raid and opened fire. Thinking his home was being invaded by criminals, Guerena told his wife and child to hide in a closet, grabbed a gun and waited in the hallway to confront the intruders. He never fired his weapon. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. The SWAT officers, however, not as restrained, fired 70 rounds of ammunition at Guerena—23 of those bullets made contact. Apart from his military background, Guerena had had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.

John Edward Chesney, a 62-year-old Vietnam veteran, was killed by a SWAT team allegedly responding to a call that the Army veteran was standing in his San Diego apartment window waving what looked like a semi-automatic rifle. SWAT officers locked down Chesney’s street, took up positions around his home, and fired 12 rounds into Chesney’s apartment window. It turned out that the gun Chesney reportedly pointed at police from three stories up was a “realistic-looking mock assault rifle.”

Ramon Hooks’ encounter with a Houston SWAT team did not end as tragically, but it very easily could have. Hooks, a 25-year-old Iraq war veteran, was using an air rifle gun for target practice outside when a Homeland Security Agent, allegedly house shopping in the area, reported him as an active shooter. It wasn’t long before the quiet neighborhood was transformed into a war zone, with dozens of cop cars, an armored vehicle and heavily armed police. Hooks was arrested, his air rifle pellets and toy gun confiscated, and charges filed against him for “criminal mischief.”

Given the government’s increasing view of veterans as potential domestic terrorists, it makes one think twice about government programs encouraging veterans to include a veterans designation on their drivers’ licenses and ID cards.

Hailed by politicians as a way to “make it easier for military veterans to access discounts from retailers, restaurants, hotels and vendors across the state,” it will also make it that much easier for the government to identify and target veterans who dare to challenge the status quo.

Remember: no one is spared in a police state.

Eventually, as I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we all suffer the same fate.

It stands to reason that if the government can’t be bothered to abide by its constitutional mandate to respect the citizenry’s rights—whether it’s the right to be free from government surveillance and censorship, the right to due process and fair hearings, the right to be free from roadside strip searches and militarized police, or the right to peacefully assemble and protest and exercise our right to free speech—then why should anyone expect the government to treat our nation’s veterans with respect and dignity?

Certainly, veterans have enough physical and psychological war wounds to overcome without adding the government to the mix. Although the U.S. boasts more than 20 million veterans who have served in World War II through the present day, large numbers of veterans are impoverished, unemployed, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, suicide, and marital stress, homeless, subjected to sub-par treatment at clinics and hospitals, and left to molder while their paperwork piles up within Veterans Administration offices.

At least 60,000 veterans died by suicide between 2008 and 2017.

On average, 6,000 veterans kill themselves every year. However, a recent study suggests that the rate of suicide among veterans may be more than double what federal officials report annually.

The plight of veterans today—and their treatment at the hands of the U.S. government—remains America’s badge of shame.

***

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Government Is Still Waging War on America’s Military Veterans

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.

***

The commander that oversees US nuclear forces delivered an ominous warning at a naval conference last week by calling the war in Ukraine a “warmup” for the “big one” that is to come.

“This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup,” said Navy Adm. Charles Richard, the commander of US Strategic command. “The big one is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested [in] a long time.”

Richard’s warning came after the US released its new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which reaffirms that the US doctrine allows for the first use of nuclear weapons. The review says that the purpose of the US nuclear arsenal is to “deter strategic attacks, assure allies and partners, and achieve US objectives if deterrence fails.”

The NPR says the US “would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its Allies or partners.”

The NPR was released with the 2022 National Defense Strategy that names China as the “most comprehensive and serious challenge” to the US and describes Russia as an “acute threat.” The document, as with the previous 2018 National Defense Strategy, makes clear that the US military is preparing for future conflicts with both China and Russia.

As the head of STRATCOM, Richard had previously warned that the risk of nuclear war with Russia and China is a “real possibility.” He said last year that the US military must “shift its principal assumption from ‘nuclear employment is not possible’ to ‘nuclear employment is a very real possibility,’ and act to meet and deter that reality.”

The Nuclear Posture Review calls for the modernization of the nuclear triad, which could cost up to $1.5 trillion, and keeping tensions high with Russia and China helps justify the massive price tag. Richard said last week that the US needs to put more resources into competing with China’s military.

Congress is looking to spend big on arming Taiwan, with a plan to give the island $10 billion in military aid included in the Senate’s version of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. While done in the name of deterrence, China’s actions and rhetoric make it clear that more US support for Taiwan will make war in the region more likely.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Nuclear Forces Chief Says ‘the Big One Is Coming’

Know Your Child’s Seizure Risk from the MMR Vaccine

November 7th, 2022 by Physicians for Informed Consent

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.

***

Every year, about 5,700 U.S. children suffer seizures from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.1 This finding is derived from results of the most statistically powered safety study ever to measure the association between MMR vaccination and febrile seizures. Published in JAMA in 2004, the study2 evaluated more than half a million children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, from a Danish population that is relied upon globally to examine vaccine safety.

The results show that seizures from the MMR vaccine occur in about 1 in 640 children up to two weeks following MMR-vaccine administration. Applying this risk of seizures to the 3.64 million U.S. children vaccinated with a first dose of MMR every year3 results in about 5,700 annual MMR-vaccine seizures.

Febrile Seizures and Epilepsy

There is a five-fold higher risk of seizures from the MMR vaccine than seizures from measles infection,4 and a significant portion of MMR-vaccine seizures may cause permanent harm. For example, a Danish study of 1.54 million people, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2007,5 examined the association between febrile seizures and epilepsy, a chronic brain disorder that leads to recurring seizures. The study found that 5% of febrile seizures may result in epilepsy. Consequently, about 300 MMR-vaccine seizures (5% of 5,700) may lead to epilepsy annually.1

The risk of seizure increases in siblings of children with a history of febrile seizures and in children with a personal history of febrile seizures, to 1 in 250 and 1 in 50, respectively.2

Risk of Seizure Resulting from the First Dose of the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine2
Children receiving first dose of MMR vaccine Risk of seizure
Children overall 1 in 640
Siblings of children with a history of febrile seizures 1 in 250
Children with a personal history of febrile seizures 1 in 50

In the U.S., measles is generally a benign, short-term viral infection; 99.99% of measles cases experience full recovery.6 Thus far, the MMR vaccine has not been proven to be safer than measles.4 It’s important for physicians and parents to objectively weigh the risks of measles vs. the risks and limitations of the MMR vaccine, so families can make informed, evidence-based vaccination decisions.

Summary of Key Facts and Figures

 

Purple Hospital Icon

Seizures from the MMR vaccine occur 5 times more often than measles-related seizures.

 

Purple Calendar Icon

Seizures can occur up to 2 weeks following the first dose of the MMR vaccine.

 

Purple Children Icon

5,700 U.S. children experience MMR-vaccine seizures each year.

 

Purple Brain Icon

5% of febrile-seizure cases may develop epilepsy, a chronic brain disorder.

 

Purple Ribbon Icon

Of the U.S. children who experience MMR-vaccine seizures, 300 cases may result in epilepsy annually.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Know Your Child’s Seizure Risk from the MMR Vaccine

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

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

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

First published on October 18, 2022

***

 

What if we were really at the point where the arrow indicates on the bar-code cartoon below? Or, it could be much worse, we could already be just a tiny little speck on the all-encroaching and dominating QR code.

The QR code is everywhere. In some places you can’t even open a toilet door without using a QR code, first downloaded on your smart phone.

There is hardly a restaurant – anywhere in the western world – where its menus are not loaded onto a QR code. Screw those who do not have a smart phone, or do not want to use their smart phone to be invaded by QR codes.

See this for a more ample description of the dangers of the QR code.

*

In some cases, when you are lucky, a restaurant may offer you as a “temporary feature”, a printed menu, or the waiter is kind enough to use his own smartphone to show you the choices of meals.

It’s the “smartphonization” of humanity. It is also the stultification, or dumbing-down of our minds, and eventually our intelligence. It is likely the smartphone was invented to eventually deaden the brains of society. Because human beings tend to go for comfort, for the ways of least resistance. The smartphone offers all that. Once we have it, we get hooked.

About 20-30 years ago, we still lived happy with the fix phone at home, with the phone booth at the street corner. We were not missing anything. What would eventually become a smartphone, was gradually introduced as a portable telephone. First, they were the size of a brick, then they became smaller and smaller, so, they would fit in our breast pocket, or in a lady’s purse; no problem. A real convenience.

In the course of the last two decades, smartphones became slimmer and slimmer; their screens became larger and larger, progressively resembling a small computer. They started having the features of a computer, were connectable to internet – internet became universally available, not only in restaurants and shops, but in the streets and even in the forests. Everywhere, or almost.

The cell phone could be synchronized with your computer at home. Bingo! You were connected walking and crossing the streets, taking a nap – or kissing your partner. Pretty invasive. Don’t you think?

But never mind – it’s fantastic! You have access to your internet account anytime, everywhere, you are “connected” even in your sleep.

You are walking across the street, not watching out for traffic dangers, but deeply lost in the profoundness of the screen of your little smart phone – succumbing to a drug-like habit that has caused already myriads of accidents, some deadly.

Not too long ago, when we were traveling to foreign or new places, we had a map to orient ourselves. No longer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) tells you just about everywhere your geographic position on earth. And it’s now on your smartphone. Younger generations have totally lost – or never knew – the skills of reading a map.

And older people, loving the comfort of being told where to go will increasingly lose their intellectual capacity of map-reading, becoming further dependent and enslaved to the digital world.

An exaggeration? Just think about it, next time you need to orient yourself in a foreign city – and you have the choice between a map and asking your smartphone.

You will see, the choice is easy. Why? No need to use our brain cells. There is the smartphone and GPS.

Our brains are being primed for robotization – or more adequately said, “transhumanism”, a term already used by Klaus Schwab in an interview with Swiss French TV in 2016. According to Mr. Schwab, by 2025 we should all have reached that level of “transhumanism” – that is, if we survive that long.

Under normal circumstances, I would have referred to this two-minute video clip of the interview.

But it has been “suspended”, or better – censured away. See for yourself, what world we have become (unfortunately, the video has already been deleted).

Like with everything, connect the dots. What most people do not realize is that the convenience of letting an electronic, digital “brain” do our work, dumbs us down. It routes our brain into a digital world. Our capacity to think independently will increasingly disappear, as we hand our brain-power over to digitization, algorithms – and eventually to robots which gradually have full reign over our brain capacity. Its convenient.

The connected dots show you, it’s a strategy.

Communicating by letter writing is gone. Even e-mails are no longer IN. Too banal.

There is now an entire complex of IT-digital corporations controlling your personal data. They work hand in hand with the gigantic financial complex which, controlled by BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet, boast some US$ 25 – 30 trillion worth of assets. They have majority shareholdings in every means of production and every service industry in the western world. May this serve as an example:

The IT-complex offers you “Facebook”, connecting you with the entire world, or with any number of admirers you choose. It’s a means to show them WHO you are, often with the most intimate details – if you so desire. With photos and personal stories. It’s all about Me-Me-Me.

The IT complex loves it. Their algorithms build your profile from which you won’t be able to escape. Ever. Even if one day you decide to quit Facebook. You are registered for good. You are their property.

Your data will be stored, and if they so wish, used against you, until death will part you from this digital tyranny – and probably beyond.

Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Snapchat, LinkedIn and whatever they are called — follow the same principle. Once you are with them, you are owned by them.

Your personal communications are gone, the touch of warmth, talking to a friend, a loved one is gone. If s/he wants to know about you, there are the social media. It’s like the mass-media. Only much more intimate, personal and revealing to the IT-monsters that control the social media and through them control you. They know you better than you know yourself.

You are “profiled”, so to speak.

By being profiled, your mind can be guided into a certain direction – for example with fashion clothing, or fashion-behavior, eating habits.

If Bill Gates has his ways, algorithmic designed propaganda may soon get a hold of you, and indoctrinate your brain, maybe while you sleep as a “transhuman”, that you LOVE the taste of grilled insects.

I’m not kidding. In Europe, there are already entire broadcasts dedicated at how to prepare insects as a culinary delight. After all, the Japanese, Chinese and other peoples of this globe eat insects and enjoy them.

*

For mind manipulation, diversity is complex. Black-and-white thinkers are welcome, as they are easier to control.

Take car colors. For the last twenty some years you could find on western roads almost exclusively cars of black and white – and shades in between. Real colors, like red, blue and yellow, are rare.

Coincidence? Remember there ain’t no coincidences in today’s world. It’s all planned. A car dealer once told me, “I can get you a red car, but I have to order it, and it may take several months to deliver.” Then he went on explaining the reason. The globalist matrix loves black-and-white thinkers.

It’s the Great Reset – and the build-up to it – directing the human mind towards a one-way thinking, or a One World Order – OWO. In case an OWO will not happen – which is likely and hoped for – you still got a multi-polar world, trained in uniform thinking.

We are not far from it – right or fake, but you’ll have an answer. Anything we don’t know right away, just ask Google… and you will get a response – right or fake – that spares you from thinking and form looking further.

Google is your counterpart of the “directed” answers… all uniform, a black-and-white picture, like fashion, like car colors. You may not know it, but you – or we – are already primed.

So, no problem. Soon, we are all going to be lined up – to think in lockstep.

Next stage is a simultaneous gentle phasing in of 5G-led and oriented mind-control.

You may not even notice. As you have been gradually and quietly, but steadily prepared for it.

You are about to transit from a human to a “transhuman” – compliments Klaus Schwab’s (WEF), 4th Industrial Revolution, and of KS’s top adviser, the Israeli Yuval Noah Hariri (books: “Homo Sapiens” and “Homo Deus”).

Yes, him, the one who has already decided that most of us will be useless eaters. If we don’t stop it NOW, he may be right. Because, with the onset of the 4th Industrial Revolution, we enter the realm of Full Digitization of Everything. Our daily chores can be done by algorithms, or robots.

The vaxxes you got, especially the highly electromagnetic graphene oxide-type, has you prepared for quick reactions from 5G irradiated algorithmic signals – telling you how to think, what to do, how to react to “adverse interference” from your fellow citizens, those who have not yet gone through the transhumanization process.

Those who survive, the next ten years – the UN Agenda 2030 or the Great Reset – may become willing, joyful slaves – owning nothing but with an eternal smile of utter happiness.

*

This may indeed happen, if we stay impassive, imbibed by our oh-so wonderful comfort, the 24/7 media-streamed comfort. We know something is not quite right – but we choose not to see it. It’s called Cognitive Dissonance. It’s a psychological affliction that affects people wo are scared – and especially those who do not want to see reality – and who are afraid to act against this monstruous imposition.

We are exposed to an outright lawless tyranny that might be upon us, sooner than we think, even in our most nightmarish dreams.

It’s not too late.

We can wake up.

In fact we have to wake up. For the sake of our children. We owe it to our children, to the future generations. The evil cult must be muted, made useless – its strength, whatever it is, the power over everything exerted with money, lots and lots of money – trillions and trillions and more trillions of current dollars or their equivalent, appropriated with the laws made by a corrupt Cult-owned Matrix System.

So much so, that under the present societal structure of greed and mind-control, where God is Money – we are all going to be doomed.

But that shall not happen.

We have to and will resist the enslavement of digitization.

Even if we have to construct a parallel society.

Starting modestly, with means that make us free and with a mindset of Peace and Happiness.

The European Nordic countries in particular and the west in general, are drastically advanced in digitization of money. If not stopped, it is leading us towards a “Digital Central Bank Currency” (DCBC) that can be turned on and off – and expire at the rulers’ will.

Yet, there are ever more institutions and shops, not yet a majority, but a modest and positive beginning, that do not take any kind of digital or electronic money, no credit cards – only cash.

A new consciousness. It will evolve dynamically – dialectically – according to our societal will power and collective strength. We can and will do it.

It is in our common and shared interest – and power – to exit this tyrannical Digital Matrix and to create a NEW society.

And remember – if not for us, then for our children.

We – the present survivors – owe it to them.

*

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

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

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page(NOTE: User-friendly)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Digitization Is Humanity’s Demise. The “Smartphonization” of Humanity. The QR code is Everywhere
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Documents obtained by The Grayzone reveal plans by a cell of British military-intelligence figures to organize and train a covert Ukrainian “partisan” army with explicit instructions to attack Russian targets in Crimea.

On October 28th, a Ukrainian drone attack damaged the Russian Black Sea fleet’s flagship vessel in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Moscow immediately blamed Britain for assisting and orchestrating the strike, as well as blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines – the worst acts of industrial sabotage in recent memory.

The British Ministry of Defense issued a blustery denial in response, branding the accusations “false claims of an epic scale.” Whoever was behind those specific attacks, suspicions of a British hidden hand in the destruction are not unfounded. The Grayzone has obtained leaked documents detailing British military-intelligence operatives inking an agreement with the Security Service of Ukraine’s Odessa branch, to create and train a secret Ukrainian partisan terror army.

Their plans called for the secret army to conduct sabotage and reconnaissance operations targeting Crimea on behalf of the Ukrainian Security Service (SSU) – precisely the kind of attacks witnessed in past weeks.

As The Grazyone previously reported, the same coterie of military-intelligence operatives was responsible for drawing up plans to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge. That goal was fulfilled on October 8th in the form of a suicide truck bomb attack, temporarily disabling the sole connecting point between mainland Russia and Crimea, and triggering a major escalation in Moscow’s attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.

These blueprints were produced by a military veteran named Hugh Ward, at the request of Chris Donnelly, a British military-intelligence operative best known for hatching the covert, Foreign Office-funded Integrity Initiative information warfare program.

The plans were circulated throughout Donnelly’s private transnational network of military officials, lawmakers and intelligence officials. Such high-level connections underline that he is far from a passive observer in this conflict. He has used his position and contacts to secure the resources necessary to train up the secret saboteur battalion in order to attack Russian targets in Crimea. This wrecking strategy is certain to escalate the war, and undercut any momentum toward negotiation.

Branded “support for maritime raiding operations,” the planned assault on Crimea aims to “degrade” Russia’s ability to blockade Kiev, “erode” Moscow’s “warfighting capability”, and isolate Russian land and maritime forces in Crimea by “denying resupply by sea and overland via Kerch.”

The documents obtained by The Grayzone show that these plans are conducted in close coordination with the Odessa-SSU, while a politically influential Ukrainian oligarch was tapped to fund the malign endeavor.

Since a Western-backed coup toppled Ukraine’s elected government in 2014,Donnelly has worked tirelessly to foment proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Private memos authored by Donnelly and obtained by The Grayzone this October reveal his lust for escalation has only intensified since the Russian military invaded Ukraine in February.

In a September 21st letter to his inner circle, Donnelly fretted that the Biden administration was not wholly committed to total war with Russia. Citing public statements by officials in Washington hoping for a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, Donnelly declared (see below): “This US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.”

In a separate communique, Donnelly blasted Biden as “so unwise as to beggar belief” for warning the Ukraine conflict could lead to “armageddon.”

While The Grayzone cannot verify that the Ukrainian attacks on Crimea are the direct handiwork of Donnelly’s team, recent events closely mirror the strategies and tactics outlined in the documents this outlet has obtained. What’s more, the attacks have helped achieve the escalatory objectives pursued by both Donnelly and the British government, which successfully scuttled negotiations between Kiev and Moscow this April.

Ukrainian “partisans” trained to “shoot, move, communicate, survive”

According to the documents reviewed by The Grayzone, a private UK military company named Prevail Partners has been contracted to recruit and train the secret Ukrainian partisan fighters. Prevail was founded by special forces veterans, including former Royal Marine Brigadier and Special Boat Service commander Justin Hedges.

The company is headquartered not far from RM Hamworthy, an elite British military training centre, replete with grounds resembling city streets and an “improvised explosive device lane” to trial combat scenarios.

The program’s genesis was the product of covert lobbying conducted over the course of several months by Donnelly, an MI6 veteran named Guy Spindler, and Audrius Butkevičius, a former Lithuanian Defense Minister with longstanding ties to the Ukrainian security, military and intelligence apparatus.

Several obstacles appeared as the Prevail team launched its effort to form the secret army. First, Ukrainian officials expressed reluctance to rustle up the sizable sums demanded by Donnelly’s team, especially while Western states were pumping billions into the war effort. British officials were also skittish about farming out training services to private contractors, perhaps out of fear they would be caught in the act or even prosecuted for engaging in such provocative activity.

Within Donnelly’s clique, concerns were also raised about Prevail’s initial proposal. Alex Finnen, a member of the British Army’s Specialist Group Military Intelligence spy cell and the Foreign Office’s shadowy Russia Unit, commented in a late March email that Prevail’s offering was “very expensive for what it is,” with a forecast cost of $600,000 per partisan fighter per year – an indication the company was “in a sellers market.”

“I suspect that they have taken the first figure they thought of and then doubled it. So, there needs to be more discussion as to how and what these people are going to do,” Finnen cautioned. “Partisans live in and amongst the people. That suggests that you need people from across Ukraine, in small teams to take part as Prevail suggest  ‘oblast by oblast’.  How are they going to achieve this?”

After some maneuvering, a provisional agreement was drawn up on April 18th between Prevail and its implementing partner, a self-described “London-based crisis management company” named Thomas in Winslow. According to the contract, Prevail would conduct a “capacity assessment” of the Odessa-SSU’s operations, “then of other major regional SSUs and finally of the Security Services of all Ukraine,” free-of-charge.

Although this round was on the house, the assessment would ultimately be leveraged to justify a major investment in the partisan program.

This objective was clearly emphasized in a Prevail appraisal of a battalion of the Ukrainian Army’s 24th Brigade “being mobilised for deployment to the frontline.” The memo was authored by Justin Hedges after a visit he paid to a military training base in the western city of Yavoriv, near the Polish border, in late May. Hedges was accompanied to the base by British military intelligence veteran Darren Liddle and two Ukrainian special forces operatives.

The invitation to attend “did not emanate” from the Ukrainian General Staff, but “at a regional level” – a reference to the Odessa-SSU. Over the course of 36 hours at the Yavoriv base, Hedges and company observed a portion of what he described as an “inadequate” 12-day training session given to conscripts aged between 20 – 58, none of whom had prior military experience, and who would eventually be sent to Popasna, “where the Russians are currently breaking through [Ukrainian] lines.”

Hedges noted a “very low number of instructors; no set syllabus and doctrine; no in-unit experience; no planning training” on the course, with “unsound tactics being taught by inexperienced foreign trainers,” leaving the battalion “not prepared for what they face.”

He appraised that many of those present “know that when they deploy to the frontline…it will be carnage,” particularly given the previous battalion to receive the same 12-day training “suffered 60 killed within the first 3 days.”

“[This leads] to arguably unsustainable casualty rates. In my view, unsustainable from a human capital and therefore political perspective over the long-term,” Hedges complained. “This problem cannot be left unaddressed any longer; the training gap must be closed now otherwise unsustainable casualty rates, owing to inadequacy of training, may become politically decisive by forcing Zelensky to concede ground to Putin.”

By contrast, he described Prevail instructors as “all qualified and experienced” with “combat experience,” and posited Yavoriv as “suitable and secure with appropriate discipline and tradecraft.” In other words, we can help, and you need us urgently.

As an email earlier that May from Spindler to Donnelly revealed, plans were already in the works to use the base to school 40-strong groups of partisans every four weeks over six months on how to “shoot, move, communicate, survive,” along with living in the woods, and “surviving.” Trainees “with aptitude” were to be identified and tutored in “specialist modules.”

As the plan developed, the training ground at Yavoriv was transferred to undisclosed sites in Greece and Poland.

Until now, the secret British partisan program has never been mentioned by the mainstream media. And as this report makes clear, significant efforts were undertaken by all actors involved to keep the initiative concealed from public view.

Hedges, the special forces veteran, considered government funding “essential to place this programme on a very firm footing.” He imagined that sponsorship could come from Britain, the US, Ukraine, “or even from the Baltics/Nordic countries.” If “separation of government funding from the activity” was necessary, finance could be “provided by flowing ‘donations’ through Prevail’s established NGO, Rhizome Insights Ltd,” a front that serves as the company’s “current route for funding equipment and training,” and therefore allows it to remain hidden from public view.

“This is how Prevail is receiving donations from NGOs/private individuals to fund equipment and low levels of other support at this time,” Hedges explained, noting that Prevail was also discussing financing with the office of Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi, one of the wealthiest oligarchs in Ukraine and the owner of the country’s Channel 24 news network.

Donnelly takes aim at Biden for warning of nuclear “armageddon”

Chris Donnelly’s efforts at escalating the Russia-Ukraine conflict have not gone unnoticed by British officials. As recently as October 8th this year, he was enthusiastically invited by Brigadier Julian Buczacki of the British Army’s elite 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade to serve as key advisor to London’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Nick Carter, and David Williams, London’s principal civilian guide on defense matters.

In an email that afternoon, mere hours after the Kerch Bridge bombing, Buczacki noted he had recently been “deep in the maelstrom of crisis work” – and “on that subject,” he had recommended that Donnelly serve as “counsel of the wise” to Carter and Williams on the grounds that they would benefit from an expert in “deterrence/escalation and all that.”

“It would be pretty soon given context…I will shortly be stepping up to be ACDS [Assistant Chief of Defence Staff Military Strategy] (not yet public),” Buczacki concluded.

Donnelly promptly responded that he would be “delighted” to take up such a pivotal role in Britain’s prosecution of the proxy war. “Short notice” was “no problem,” he wrote, attaching his official British government security clearance, and two recent commentaries on the conflict in Ukraine he had circulated to his network.

The content of his commentaries makes clear Donnelly views the untold billions in weapons shipments flowing to Ukraine by Biden’s decree as insufficient, and that he worries that Biden might soon appease Putin by authorizing negotiations.

President Joseph Biden generated international headlines when he commented during a fundraiser at the home of James Murdoch, the son of right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch, that Putin is ​​“not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons,” and there was a very real prospect the conflict in Ukraine could “end up with Armageddon.”

In his October 8th email exchange with Brigadier Julian Buczacki, Donnelly complained that the US president’s “off-the-cuff remarks” were “so unwise as to beggar belief.”

“I’m not sure what the opposite word to ‘deterrence’ is, but Biden is actively doing that, alas,” Donnelly lamented. He argued that Putin’s threats of nuclear warfare should be considered a bluff aimed at weakening the West’s will to escalate until total victory is achieved.

Evidently, from his perspective, something had to be done to prevent Washington from authorizing a negotiated solution that would satisfy any of Russia’s terms.

A ‘human bomb’ strikes Kerch Bridge

On May 25th, Guy Spindler emailed Donnelly to report that he had spoken “a couple of times” to Butkevičius, the former Lithuanian Defense Minister. He commented that Butkevičius had “done an excellent job of unpicking Ukrainian hesitation over training support, and has now caused Prevail’s name to be fed” into the British government and its Embassy in Kiev – and therefore the Foreign Office and MI6 – “as a potential supplier.”

Spindler judged Hedges to “be feeling positive,” as British defense ministers were “reportedly no longer in principle against private sector training solutions.” The only things left to do were secure official approval for some kind of guerilla-style operations, and “ensure that our contributions” – including those of Butkevičius – were “properly compensated.”

The MI6 journeyman added that he had “very partial sight” of Hugh Ward’s “various plans” – a reference to “support for maritime raiding operations,” inviting Donnelly to “play me in as you will.” It seems the blueprint’s assorted sabotage plots are so secretive and sensitive, even senior British intelligence officials charged with overseeing the operations aren’t fully party to their details.

The Grayzone previously exposed Ward’s blueprint for attacking the Kerch Bridge connecting Crimea to the Russian mainland. According to those plans, cruise missiles, specially trained scuba teams, or underwater drones would destroy the bridge’s concrete pillars, as Ward saw them as the “weakest part” of the structure.

Though Ukraine’s SBU security services ultimately opted for a truck bomb attack, a commemorative postage stamp issued by Kiev within mere hours of the bombing depicted two explosions at precisely the points suggested by Ward. The speed with which the stamp became available strongly implies it was prepared well in advance of the attack.

Prevail fleshed out plans for alternative strategies as well. A presentation produced by the company – entitled “Kerch Bridge information pack” – proposed blowing up a vessel carrying ammonium nitrate under a portion of the bridge overlaying a shipping lane.

Prevail’s model for this attack was the August 2020 Beirut blast, in which a massive and mysteriously detonated explosion destroyed the Lebanese capital city’s port, exacting significant damage throughout surrounding neighborhoods. The private military firm approvingly noted the 552 tons of ammonium nitrate that exploded in Beirut “produced a 140m wide crater and an earthquake of a 3.3 magnitude on a Richter scale,” a quantity “much less than the 2,754 tonnes” that purportedly arrived in Crimea on a Russian-leased cargo ship in 2013.

It is unclear why the truck bombing scenario was ultimately chosen – perhaps because it provided a degree of plausible deniability to those behind the attack. Ukrainian officials, after initially celebrating the incident, are now claiming it was a Russian false flag operation.

Furthermore, in late August Russia beefed up protective measures in and around Crimea, such as moving an S-300 missile defense system to the peninsula, which may have necessitated an alternate course of action than the one originally chosen.

The bombing of the Kerch Bridge involved a vehicle packed with explosives and transported from Odessa, Ukraine to Crimea, via Bulgaria, Georgia, and Armenia, using different drivers at separate stages of the journey. The last driver was allegedly unaware of their suicide mission.

If British agents had indeed orchestrated the attack on the Kerch Bridge, they likely drew on past operations that bore eery similarities. In 2006, an NGO known as British Irish Rights Watch published testimony by anonymous former British intelligence informants revealing that MI6 had spearheaded a false flag terror strategy known as the “human bomb” in Northern Ireland.

Civilians were strapped into explosive-packed vehicles, then coerced to drive into military checkpoints, inflicting incendiary attacks on targets that killed soldiers and civilians alike. The wave of bombing strikes inflamed local tensions, and provided justification for draconian British state repression of the province’s Catholic population.

“It is known that at least two security force agents were involved in these bombings and allegations have been made that the human bomb strategy was the brainchild of British intelligence [emphasis added],” British Irish Rights Watch stated in an accompanying report.

Given the contents of the leaked material reviewed by The Grayzone, it is striking that the explosives used to target the Kerch Bridge originated in Odessa. Located just across the Black Sea from Crimea, this city hosted the SSU unit that served as the basis for Donnelly and Prevail’s secret terror army.

Russian officials have long stated that they consider Crimea to be Russian territory, and that any attack on it would cross a bright red line and elicit an escalatory response. When Donnelly and his team outlined plans to establish a secret Ukrainian “partisan” army, it seems this was precisely what they set out 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.

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

All images in this article are from The Grayzone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Leaked Documents: British Spies Constructing Secret Terror Army in Ukraine
  • Tags: ,

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.ca

***

“This really is a fight where all of us must support Ukraine because Ukraine is fighting for our values!”

0000000000000000000000000Chrystia Freeland, Canadian Minister of Finance (October 28, 2022)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) held its twenty-seventh Triennial Congress in downtown Winnipeg from October 28-30. [1]

Two of the star speakers on hand were Canadian federal government ministers Chrystia Freeland and Anita Anand. These politicians were particularly active on the Russia-Ukraine war and in answering and addressing the question of how Canada can support Ukraine.

The Ministers in question, apparently in solidarity with just about every politician in the House of Commons, favoured more military aid.

Canada announced in February that it was providing $600 million in military assistance to the troubled country. There was also talk about Canadian Armed Forces supplying training and capacity building under Operation UNIFIER, which was launched in 2015 and was recently expanded until 2025. [2]

Continual bantering in major media coverage about the “illegal” and “unprovoked” attack by Russia has some individuals comparing Putin to Adolf Hitler!

Rarely if ever do they mention NATO moving closer to the Russian border – a direct breach of the contract between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1990.

They ignore the evidence of a coup orchestrated by the U.S. in February of 2014 and the previous talks between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt indicating they (not the people) would choose the next Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Also ignored is the rise in Neo-Nazis including inside the military under the changed government, the killings of as many as 14,000 people in the Donbass region over the previous eight years, and the announcement by President Zelenskiy that Ukraine may pursue nuclear weapons to counter Russia.

While this program and Global Research does not approve of the methods taken by Russia in Ukraine (just as we did not approve of the actions by the United States in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) the Global Research News Hour finds it necessary to present more of the facts and context of the fight before the bloody conflict escalates into the horrific.

In our first half hour, we hear from George Eliason, an American journalist resident in Luhansk, who relays to us his observations of what has happened there on the ground for the last eight years, the projections of the referenda on rejoining the Russian Federation being a sham, and the hidden history of the fascist like formations taking charge of power in Kyiv.

In our second half hour, we hear speaking clips from Ministers Freeland and Anand at the recent Ukrainian Canadian Congress. We also hear from Glenn Michalchuk, a peace activist in Winnipeg, who was protesting alongside others against the government’s championing war in Ukraine instead of aiding in the brokering of a peace agreement to end the war.

George Eliason is an American journalist based in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC, and Press-TV. His articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT, and Global Research among others.

Chrystia Freeland is the Minister of Finance of the Trudaeu government. Her ancestry stems from Ukraine.

Anita Anand is currently Minister of Defence.

Glenn Michalchuk is chair of Peace Alliance Winnipeg and the president of the Winnipeg branch of the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 367)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

Transcript of George Eliason. October 19, 2022

Global Research: Looking around your community, what kind of a reaction did you see towards the joining referendum to Russia recently?

George Eliason: Around the community, I actually went to the referendum for five towns. Everybody has been looking forward to this for a long time. And it’s, for them, it’s like coming home. And you have to understand that a hundred years ago, this was Russia. These were Russian people, most of Ukraine was Russia filled with Russian people. It was Lenin that created the Ukrainian state. And it took until the ‘30s and ‘40s for people to get used to being called “Ukrainian.” Right now is the first time in the last almost nine years, people have a reason to feel safer because they’ve been under attack that long. So, all the way around, people are really happy about it.

GR: What did you say to buttress the argument that people could speak freely, and weren’t voting as if they had Russian guns to their heads?

GE:(Laugh) Well, it’s just like the 2019 election for the President in both republics. People came out en masse to vote, even under shelling. And they did that this time. Back then, the – gosh, the turnout was like 97 percent. I was – I monitored the election back then. Right now, you couldn’t keep people from voting. They were taking the ballots to people’s homes, because Ukraine was trying to attack people in voting centres. They actually shot down over 100 missiles, 100 high bomb missiles, plus rockets, et cetera during the referendum. They needed the military at those places in case there was an attack from terrorists or otherwise. So, everybody looked at it as positive. Nobody here is scared of the military, and all these guys were local. They used – well, in LNR they used the LNR Army. In DNR they used the DNR Army to do that, and it was strictly protective. From what I saw this time again, they didn’t harass anybody, they didn’t actually talk to anybody. They were just protecting – standing guard, making sure no one did anything, you know, try to hurt anybody. That was it. There was nothing threatening about them.

GR: During the eight-year offensive is there an example of an incident that sticks out in people’s minds either undermining Russia or Ukraine in the Donbass?

GE: I went to three mass grave uncoverings and it was the saddest thing to see. You see the remains of people dug up that were killed eight years ago. And in some cases they were stacked on top of each other, and then one of the layers was a small child. I went to three of these. And this was all Ukraine’s doing, attacking and shelling civilians. It’s not one or two, it’s many. Ukraine, during this whole time, they haven’t attacked the army as much, they’ve been attacking apartment complexes; places where people gather; markets during busy days when people will be shopping. And these are open-air markets like a bazaar, think of it like a farmer’s market or a flea market: people walking around. That’s what Kyiv’s been attacking. If you want to look at an example of what Kyiv’s done that’s been in the news, look at Bucha. Now, you see pictures upon pictures of these people that were shot down. And right next to them is Russian humanitarian aid packages. Why would the Russian Army give people humanitarian aid packages, shoot them, and then leave the evidence that they were dealing with them? And these are people that had white arm bands on, you know, which means they’re neutral, they don’t want to be bothered. You know, you wave the white flag it means “I surrender,” or “I’m not fighting.” Kyiv, it was specifically Ukraine’s Azov Battalion that did that. In Donbas, the atrocities have just been mounting over the years. If you look at the Kramatorsk train station, Ukraine says, “Well, Russia did a missle attack there.” Well, they found a section of one of the missiles that had the serial numbers on it, and it came directly out of Ukraine stock piles. They have serial numbers from – missiles from different cities and they’re almost consecutive in numbers, they came out of Ukrainian stock piles. These are known inventories. And so, they’ve been doing this and blaming it on Russia, blaming it on Donetsk, blaming it on on Luhansk. And quite frankly, it’s a shame, it’s part of the information war that they’re getting away with it. It doesn’t get any more complicated than that.

GR: From your vantage point is there any evidence available to the crowds that the Ukraine forces are contributing to some if not all war crimes in the form of false flags?

GE:If you’re looking at shelling or rockets, the impact rate would show the direction they’re coming from. It’s very easy to figure it out. And where these groups are on a map, that’s known because that’s just military stuff, okay? They need to know. You know, let’s say at Kramatorsk, they fire the missile from 20 miles. Well, they have the direction because of impact. All right? So, they know the specific direction the rocket came from. And you take that line out, it’s just geometry to the next firing position. Whoever is there is the person or group that did it. Mariupol, they did this during the rocket attack there. Everybody was saying that Donetsk attacked Mariupol. It was a Russian section of the city that got attacked. It was people that supported Donetsk and wanted to get Azov Battalion to leave. Well, the actual attack was filmed on security cameras and apartment buildings. It showed the definite direction, you could see them coming in. And the angle of the dangle, the firing line, actually came from the Ukrainian position. It was, what, probably close to well, I’d say 120 degrees away from the nearest DNR position if I remember correctly. This is just what they do.

GR: You spoke of how, for Kyiv, this would not be a short-term endeavor, but one that is intended to play out over a long period of time. Could you explain that?

GE: Kyiv doesn’t plan on winning the war. Now, imagine going into a war knowing you’re going to lose it, and you’re okay with that, you’re good with that. The reason why is they want this to be a generational war. Kyiv is using this as a way to cleanse all ethnic Russians out of Ukraine. The way they look at it, now as I said, 100 years ago all of Ukraine all the way over to West Ukraine – what was called Galicia – were Russians. So, they’re looking at 1) ethnicity, 2) the big one is: Do you honour your grandparents that the Germans killed in World War II, or fought against the Germans? They want those people people gone. Kyiv is following Galician lines and Galician politics. They want to be free to honour the Waffen-SS Galician – what is it, the First Grenadier or Fourteenth Grenadier SS-Galician. They don’t want Soviet soliders or Soviet battalions or anything that glorifies the Soviet Union to exist. And so, all these people have to be rooted out. Right now, they’re conscripting them and throwing them against the wall on the front lines, no training: ‘Here’s a gun, 10 bullets’ — you know — ‘go get killed.’ They’re actually calling out the population this way. It’s just sick. But it’s happening, and it’s happening now. This consequence, over time, now they lose the war, then begin a guerilla war. You have three year olds right now that are being brought up to hate anything Russian. So, they grow up. It is in the best political interest of the country if they want to stay nationalist, to go into the next generation fighting because there wont’ be any people with Russian heritage or claim a Russian heritage left in the country. It will be totally free to be nationalist. They’re actually cosmopolitan fascists politically. And they want every mind, they don’t care if there’s 50 people left in Ukraine, at least they’re all Ukrainian fascists. And that’s the goal, make it – the whole country like-minded. No diversity. So, for them, it’s worthwhile.

GR: When it comes to the attacks on your region, Luhansk and the other – Donbass, what is the indication to the fascists or the Nazis that are the driving force behind that ideology?

GE: Okay, if I —

GR: (inaudible) —

GE: — understood the question right, you’re asking: ‘What’s the indication that there are fascists running this?’ That was the question?

GR: Yeah. Yes.

GE: Okay, if we go back to pre-1991, the government of Ukraine was in the diaspora, it was a government of Ukrainian in exile. Now, when the Soviet Union fell apart, Ukraine pulled out of it. They had to recognize Ukraine. They really didn’t want to, but the United States did. This government was the second generation from World War II. They were OUN Melnyk, that was what the government was. They called Kravchuk, they said, ‘Look, we’ll give you the symbols of state, the power of state. We’ll back you. We’ll be your lobby in the US and around the world. But you’re going to sign a contract that this will be a nationalist state based on the government of Symon Petliura, 1917, 1918.’ Kravchuk agreed, he’s from Galician stock. So, they signed a contract that the government would be a nationalist government. Every leader in Kyiv signs on to this nationalism. Now, the first – going up to the Orange Revolution – the diaspora really wasn’t happy because all these people were doing was grabbing money. They privatized everything and they were taking over everything and becoming very rich, but not developing a nationalist country. Well, they started building up: the diaspora leaders took over the kid’s groups. And this goes into what I mean about a 20-year war: from the Orange Revolution-forward to Maidan, they took over the kid’s groups and they raised up these groups to be nationalist, real nationalists. Like, 1930s nationalists. When they were ready for Maidan, they unleashed them on the world. That was that diaspora. One of them, her name is Slava Stetsko, she was – her husband was actually the guy that declared Ukraine a sovereign country in 1941 in Lviv, right after he had two pogroms, killed a bunch of Jews. And Adolf Hitler said, “No.” His wife became one of the leaders of the brand new Ukraine in 1991. Her bodyguard is a guy you might be familiar with. He was the leader of Pravyi Sektor, Dmytro Yarosh. He learned his politics directly from a World War II monster. And you have to bear in mind that this woman and the leaders around her were responsible for over 11 million murders during World War II. And in an interview, she had said she never lost a night of sleep over anything. Maidan happened. It was those people that took over. If you look at the UCCA, the Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America, and the UWC, Ukrainian World Congress in Canada, they have over 20 million people in a diaspora, and they support it very healthily. Just one business that was geared toward freeing Ukraine is worth over $110,000,000.00. That was in 2014. So, they set all this up to pump money in to do just this, and set up 1930s nationalism in 2014 going forward. Ukrainians never had the option to be asked about this, because they wouldn’t have chosen it. Native Ukrainians rejected this outright, but these guys had the guns; they had the tanks; they had the military. Donbass was the only group of people that really stood up to it on their own all this time.

GR: Thanks George, I’ve appreciated talking to you. Thanks for discussing these issues with us!

GE: It’s great talking to you, too.


The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://congress.ucc.ca/
  2. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/campaigns/canadian-military-support-to-ukraine.html
  3. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/17/war-in-europe-the-rise-of-raw-propaganda/

Today November 7, 2022 marks the 105th anniversary of the October Revolution, November 7, 1917. Below the incisive article by Max Parry

***

There is a deceitful and ahistorical myth that frequently resurfaces in right-wing circles seeking to discredit socialism with lies about the Russian Revolution. No matter how many times it has been invalidated as fabrication, the reactionary mythos endures.

As might be expected, the author is referring to the preposterous claim that American capitalists — or “Wall Street bankers” — secretly financed one of the most epochal political revolutions in world history which overthrew the Romanov dynasty and ended the Russian Empire, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Union.

One would be hard pressed to find anyone on the political left who has not encountered this mendacious propaganda which has a few variations depending on how far to the right its adherent lands on the political spectrum, but it usually shares the same core set of evidence-free claims.

Leaving aside whether or not the absurd premise makes any sense politically, what can be acknowledged is that at the heart of these false assertions are tiny elements of truth that have been distorted and overstated to the point of deception. Any research into this allegation inevitably leads one to its most popularly cited source, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by British-American conservative academic, Antony C. Sutton.

The primary argument deduced by Sutton is that “Wall Street” indirectly funded the Bolsheviks via the Swedish financier Olof Aschberg, a prominent banker and communist sympathizer who supported a variety of left-wing causes throughout his life, including later the Popular Front in the Spanish Civil War. During WWI, Aschberg was a banker in neutral Sweden before expanding his business into Germany where he then transferred sums to aid the Bolsheviks in Russia. However, the links that Sutton makes between Aschberg and “Wall Street” are contradictory and tenuous at best.

While it is evident that Aschberg visited New York in 1916 to convince a group of private American businessmen that the wartime financial opportunities in Russia would continue to flourish after its conclusion, by Sutton’s own admission he was in the United States on behalf of the Tsarist government to negotiate a $50 million loan for the imperial Russian Ministry of Finance. Sutton then debunks his own claim by alleging that Aschberg simultaneously siphoned money “from the German government” to the Russian revolutionaries just as he was acting as an agent in place of Nicholas II’s finance minister, Pyotr Bark.

If that is the case, then the socialist Aschberg likely defrauded a partnership of American private bankers into inadvertently lending financial support to the Bolsheviks, at the very time he was employed as a representative for the Russian monarchy. It should be noted that this deal occurred during America’s neutrality in the war at the time, as the U.S. would not enter the conflict until the following year and Aschberg is known to have gotten into trouble with the Allies. Apparently, Sutton could not discern that these Yankee capitalists were being duped by the “Bolshevik Banker” and instead assigned conscious intent to their money passing through the Swede financier to the communist revolution.

Even if true, the conduit of funds from Aschberg’s Nya Banken would have constituted a minuscule portion compared with the primary subsidies for the Bolsheviks which came via the fortunes they seized from wealthy merchants, landed nobility, and senior members of the Russian Orthodox Church, not to mention the ruling class of the Tsar and his family who amassed incalculable riches going back hundreds of years. After the Russian Civil War, Aschberg founded the USSR’s first foreign trade bank, Roskombank, as one of the inaugural decrees of the Soviet government was the nationalization of the financial industry where the assets of private bankers were confiscated by the state. Thereafter, banking in the USSR functioned solely for the purpose of sponsoring foreign trade and the rapid industrialization of the agrarian country into a modern global superpower. If any American bankers were fooled by Aschberg into funding a Marxist revolution, they sealed their own fate.

Sutton’s accusation that the German state sponsored the Bolsheviks first came from the Alexander Kerensky-led Provisional Government which took power following the abdication of Nicholas II in the February Revolution. The short-lived interim government based its claims on telegraphic cables which purportedly showed payments between Berlin and the revolutionaries which was then used as evidence to smear Vladimir Lenin as a “German agent.”

Historians have since debated the authenticity of the telegrams, but if Germany did divert funds toward the Bolsheviks, it was only because the revolutionary opposition to Russian participation in the imperialist war was an opening to undermine its enemy.

For this reason in April 1917, German intelligence permitted Lenin’s return to Russia from exile in Switzerland via train through Germany, Sweden and Finland in an arrangement made by the Social Democrat Alexander Parvus.

However, this meddling was no different than similar interference by the British and French governments who also attempted to influence Russia’s affairs. In fact, it was reportedly the French who intercepted the dispatches given to the Provisional Government showing the supposed transactions between Germany and the Bolsheviks.

If any Bolshevik was truly an agent of a foreign government, that distinction would belong to Leon Trotsky who was not admitted to the majority faction of the Russian socialist movement until September 1917 after previously siding with the Menshevik wing during the initial party split before straddling the fence for years as a self-described “non-factional social democrat.”

If the truth should be told, Trotsky was never a dedicated Bolshevik and his opportunism proved useful to the interests of Western imperialism, namely the British who suspiciously ordered Canadian authorities to release him from internment in Nova Scotia that April. Why the British would free a revolutionary to return to Russia and presumably withdraw another Allied nation from the war might seem puzzling, except Trotsky’s advocation of “neither war nor peace” was an opportunity to obstruct Lenin’s efforts to make a separate cease-fire with Germany and accept the Central Powers terms. This would have consequences five months after the October Revolution during the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, where Trotsky led the negotiations as Foreign Minister and nearly sabotaged the peace talks by disrupting them with his unauthorized tactics.

Of the original incumbents in the first Soviet cabinet, Trotsky was the only minister of Jewish descent. However, this did not prevent the Tsarist White movement from spreading propaganda during the Russian Civil War about the predominance of “Jews” within the Bolsheviks. Apart from the racism of such conjecture, it also turns out to be factually incorrect as shown in statistics published by the Moscow-based Vedomosti newspaper:

“If we discard the speculations of pseudoscientists who know how to find the Jewish origin of every revolutionary, it turns out that in the first composition of the Council of People’s Commissars of Jews there were 8%: of its 16 members, only Leon Trotsky was a Jew. In the government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic of 1917–1922 Jews were 12% (six out of 50 people). Apart from the government, the Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) on the eve of October 1917 had 20% Jews (6 out of 30), and in the first composition of the political bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) — 40% (3 out of 7)”.

This sensationalist big lie of “Jewish Bolshevism” was really an extension of the infamous hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which itself had been forged in 1903 by Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, who disseminated the fabricated text to deflect growing discontent under the Tsarist regime against a scapegoat. After the Romanovs were ousted in 1917, the White movement turned the propaganda against its opponents in the Russian Civil War while this sentiment was promoted by its backers in the West such as Winston Churchill and Henry Ford. At some point, the “Judeo-Bolshevism” hoax became “Jewish bankers” or “Wall Street” funding the Bolsheviks.

Sutton alleges the German-born Jewish-American banker, Jacob Schiff, was a clandestine financier of the Bolsheviks. This too is demonstrably false, as Schiff was a supporter of the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom, a transatlantic organization which was as vehemently anti-Bolshevik as it was anti-tsar. Today, reactionary historical revisionists would like us to forget that the treacherous Provisional Government, which was to some extent financed and backed by foreign bankers, ever existed in the months between the February and October Revolutions. Schiff had previously backed the failed 1905 Revolution because of the numerous anti-semitic pogroms that occurred under the Russian Empire but immediately withdrew his support from the 1917 Revolution once the Bolsheviks removed the pro-war Provisional Government, as explained by Kenneth Ackerman in Trotsky in New York, 1917: A Radical on the Eve of Revolution:

“Schiff’s gripe against Russia had been its anti-Semitism. At home Schiff had never shown any sympathy for socialism, not even the milder Morris Hillquit variety. Schiff had declared victory for his purposes in Russia after the tsar was toppled in March 1917 and Alexander Kerensky, representing the new provisional government, had declared Jews to be equal citizens. In addition to repeated public statements of support, he used both his personal wealth and the resources of Kuhn Loeb to float large loans to Kerensky’s regime. When Lenin and Trotsky seized power for themselves in November 1917, Schiff immediately rejected them, cut off further loans, started funding anti-Bolshevist groups, and even demanded that the Bolsheviks pay back some of the money he’d loaned Kerensky. Schiff also joined a British-backed effort to appeal to fellow Jews in Russia to continue the fight against Germany.”

Another member of the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom was the American explorer George Kennan, second cousin of future U.S. diplomat and influential strategist during the Cold War, George F. Kennan. Kennan is quoted in a March 1917 New York Times article explaining how Schiff and the Society of American Friends of Russian Freedom funded the February Revolution. However, the elder Kennan was also adamantly against the October Revolution and when U.S. President Woodrow Wilson approved American participation in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, it was after being persuaded by his report in 1918 criticizing the Bolsheviks. If Wall Street bankers funded the Bolsheviks, why did the Anglo-Americans send their army to join the Allied nations to invade Russia and fight the Reds? Kennan’s final denunciation of the Soviets was written in 1923:

“The Russian leopard has not changed its spots…. The new Bolshevik constitution… leaves all power just where it has been for the last five years — in the hands of a small group of self-appointed bureaucrats which the people can neither remove nor control.”

Years later, part of the inspiration as an envoy for George F. Kennan to found anti-communist Soviet émigré groups like the American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (ACLPR, AMCOMLIB) stemmed from his knowledge of the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom begun by his great uncle during the Russian Empire. Also going by the name of the American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism, AMCOMLIB was set up in 1950 as part of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Project QKACTIVE in which U.S. intelligence also established Radio Liberation, later known as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, to broadcast behind the Iron Curtain. So not only was the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom anti-Bolshevik, it’s activities became the impetus for part of Kennan’s influential Cold War containment strategy.

Oddly enough, it was George F. Kennan who later proved the infamous ‘Sisson Documents’ purporting that Lenin and his associates were “German agents” to be forgeries in a 1956 article for the Journal of Modern History. The 1918 documents published by Edgar Sisson of the U.S. government’s Committee on Public Information ministry were part of a propaganda operation to discredit the Bolsheviks which reinforced the theory of a German-Bolshevik plot and gave further grounds for the Allied invasion of Russia.

With eerie parallels to U.S. media coverage of the Iraq War, apart from war correspondent John Reed, most of the yellow press at the time accepted the Sisson Documents uncritically. While it is now generally acknowledged that the German Foreign Office funded the Bolsheviks to some degree, Kennan’s scholarly work showed the danger of believing deceptive information when it affirms preconceived notions and provides justification for desired actions, especially war.

In recent years, such fiction about the Russian Revolution has not been relegated to the margins but even found its way into the pages of The New York Times when it allowed pseudo-historian Sean McMeekin to take out an op-ed on the 100th anniversary resurrecting the hoax that Lenin was a “German agent.”

The ratcheting up of tensions between the U.S. and Russia in the new Cold War and the bogus allegations of interference by Moscow in American elections has normalized disinformation and fake narratives made up of anecdotes and distortion. Now, it is not just the right-wing which is a gullible audience for such psychological warfare regarding Soviet history but credulous Western liberals.

In his defense, at least paleolibertarians like Sutton are willing to question the ‘official’ narrative of the Russian Revolution but unfortunately, because of the Red Scare begun by Sisson’s forgeries, like a matryoshka doll there is only more propaganda within the propaganda regarding communism which runs deeper than any right-wing canard. If those seeking the truth about history are sincere, they will keep searching even when it reveals truths that call their whole political views into question. Keep searching.

*

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

Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His writing has appeared widely in alternative media. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Max may be reached at [email protected]

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

Updated on November 8, 2022, 07:13AM UTC.

Pakistan Looks for a Navigational Change

Pakistan’s trajectory of current affairs unfolds multiple crises of critical nature for its freedom, security and future-making.  Wherever the military comes into power, it destroys the culture of positive thinking, morals and hope for change.  Imran Khan alleges assassination attempt by the current “imported regime of the few” on his life while leading a Freedom March to Islamabad. Masses across Pakistan reacted against this evil act of subversion of people’s rights to decide their own future in a democratic system.

The Generals and their accomplice Sharifs and Bhuttos lack legitimacy to govern the country. They are part of the problems, not solutions. Most have criminal records, no political integrity and honesty and perhaps no other nation will embrace them as political figures.

The planned political chaos is intended to drive the nation towards further catastrophic ends and imposition of martial law and coming of an age of great uncertainty and beyond predicting no return to democracy.  All indicators point out to unwarranted intervention by the US-led policy to subdue the rights of people and support a military regime in Pakistan aligned to its foreign policy and anti-China and anti-Russia scenarios.

Most dreadful tragedies have infallibly resulted in victimizing the masses.  Today, the nation is crippled with catastrophic events of floods, insecurity and socio-economic and political exploitation. Pakistani ruling elite and the Generals are not open to reason and accountability. They cannot realize the imperatives of hopes and expectations of new generation of educated and morally and intellectually competent people.

Future belongs to the new generation of educated people, not to the naive and obsolete Generals. They view “power” and “Pakistan” as their own property. The authoritarian leaders played with its destiny and future without being questioned. They are the wrong people, with wrong thinking doing the wrong things. If there was any fair system of accountability, some of the Generals and accomplice politicians could well have faced firing squads for their crimes against the nation. Pakistan has a history of five major military –led coups which ended up in defeat and loss of East Pakistan. Are the Generals waiting for another mishap of formative history? Please see British Colonialism and How India and Pakistan Lost Freedom.” Global Research and Uncommon Thought Journal: 1/01/22.

Junaid Ahmed and Ben Norton (“Video: Pakistan Coup Regime Bans Imran Khan, Dissidents Killed, as US Eyes China Ties, Israel Normalization” Global Research 10/27/22), try to elaborate how the US intervention could undermine Pakistan’s national interests. Under a false pretext, Khan was banned to participate in any future national elections. The Election Commission has no legal justification for such an unconstitutional verdict.

Imran Khan, a former cricketer and a former PM is the victim of the established institutionalized political corruption in Pakistan. He made a new beginning of “Teherk-e-Insafe” PTI (Movement for Justice), party to create his own space for a moral and intellectual spirited movement for political change. Not so, the challenge comes from the known thugs, indicted criminals and conspirators who had dominated the national politics for more than 50 years.

To change an ill-informed and sadistic political culture, Pakistani masses were eagerly looking for a new age educated person to realize the hope for a peaceful and progressive Pakistan. Imran Khan was abruptly dismissed as the PM by a bogus and unconstitutional assembly secretly arranged by the Generals in alliance with the US paid agents to ensure political chaos and instability.

This could serve the US-India Strategic interests to control and manage Pakistan by eliminating its nuclear arsenals and making the nation a slave to the foreign Masters and IMF unpayable debts. This is not what people of Pakistan are looking for to surrender their freedom, security and sovereignty.  Ironically, Pakistani Generals have a history of selling their national interests and having been paid by the US to fight in Afghanistan and allowed the US to use its bases for military operations. The USAID buys and enslaves people and nations leading to dysfunctional governance of the few.

American foreign policy makers view the Pakistani politicians-Generals as beggars, bootlickers who will perform all kind of superficial acts to please the Master – the one who calls them an ally when needed but will stab Pakistanis when they become a liability. Disillusioned and disconnected with its roots, Pakistan continues to move forward – not towards planned political change, normalcy and progress – but towards tragic events fomenting planned deaths of the citizenry, destruction of the social, economic and political infrastructures, incapacitated and broken lifelines and ultimately to become a battle ground for mindless ethnic and regional divides and national collapse. Andrew Gavin Marshall “Imperial Eye on Pakistan- Pakistan in Pieces, Part 1 (Global Research: 5/28/2011), states that “in December of 2000, the CIA released a report of global trends to the year 2015, which stated that by 2015, “The war in Afghanistan is inherently related to the situation in Pakistan……….Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance.” It was noted that the US-led war in Afghanistan was ultimately aimed at denuclearization of Pakistan.

Could Khan Change the Neo-Colonial dominated Political Culture?

Comparatively. Imran Khan had four years of uncorrupted politics. He did not kill anybody nor robbed any bank s and was keen to have legal accountability for the stolen wealth and killings by Sharif brothers, Bhuttos, and Zardari and others. But political governance was infested with corrupt figures of the past.  According to the Pakistani media, there are 632 top civil servants with dual nationalities. Khan was unable to devise an Action Plan to reform a highly systematic culture of corruption. He needed people of new age education and intelligence to workout creative strategies for political change. That simply did not happen and he was hurriedly ousted by a political –military conspiracy. Imran Khan has the perception and vision for a new Pakistan but he needs people of new and educated generation to plan for a new beginning. Khan and his PTI supporter allege the few Generals and Shabaz Sharif involved in his assassination plan.

Khan’s accusations and past experience could help to identify the in-house evil mongers. Analyzing the videos of his attack, it was a well-planned targeted attack on a national leader for political purposes. While political cynicism is endemic, Pakistani masses view Imran Khan with great deal of optimism and integrity and hope for a new beginning, free of political corruption paving opportunities for sustainable change. If there is an established fair legal system of justice, there should be an independent inquiry to the allegations and those responsible must be held accountable for their heinous crimes. This author has shared specific remedial plan for the current problems: please view Pakistan in Search of Freedom and Security”, Uncommon Thought Journal and Global Research: 10/20/22.

Western strategic analysts claim Pakistan to be a ‘failing state’ as it is run by dubious political-military elite. The current Pakistani leaders exhibit deafening silence to respond to public demands as they have no legitimacy and political integrity. Tyranny is always powerless and transitory. Often when sadistic politicians cannot solve one set of problems, they come up with other naïve ideas to create more critical problems to distract the masses. The assassination attempt on Khan’s life could be a diversion in that context. Pakistan at the outset reflects a dead-ended moral and intellectual political culture. What is the solution to the morally and intellectually sickening political culture of Pakistani politics? In view of the obvious failure of the current regime under Shabaz Sharif, the conscientious people and organized political establishments should initiate action to set up a new Government of National Unity replacing Shabaz Sharif with a non-partisan, intelligent and honest leadership. It is hard to imagine a non-existent and unrepresentative National Assembly as is to act against Sharif, only to reaffirm its irrelevance and incompetence being a stooge of the rulers and unable to provide workable democratic option for change – when facts of life warrant a change.  The responsible institutions if any must respond to facilitate change to safeguard the national interests, freedom and integrity of the country. If the Generals and Sharif have any sense of history, reasoning, and accountability, they should immediately announce a date for new national elections and safeguard the country from further destabilization and coming of a dark and unsustainable future.

*

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

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: One Humanity and the Remaking of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution. Lambert Academic Publications, Germany, 12/2019.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan, Planned Political Chaos: Imran Khan a Victim of Hope for the Future
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

According to MiddleEastMonitor, a leading Israeli newspaper said that Israel “is now closing in on a right-wing, religious and authoritarian revolution” aimed at destroying democracy.  The recent Israeli elections have brought Benyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party back to power, but with the ultra-right wing religious party led by Itamar Ben-Gvir as an allied partner.

Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state.  It has democratic institutions, such as elections to the Knesset, but has been officially labeled by the UN and human rights organizations as an apartheid state.

Zionism is Israel’s national ideology. Zionists believe Judaism is a nationality as well as a religion.

Palestinian territory, encompassing the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967 according to the UN and the western world.

UN General Assembly passed a resolution labeling Zionism “a form of racism and racial discrimination” in 1975, though it was repealed 16 years later.

The question for liberal western democracies is, “Can democracy, sectarianism, and apartheid policies co-exist?”

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Dr. Mamoun Farhat of Ramallah to understand what may lay ahead for the West Bank and the Palestinian people in light of the new ultra-far right government.  He holds a PhD in international law and works for Palestinian human rights.

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  It appears that Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next prime Minister. He has aligned with an extremist far right party. What do you think that will mean for the Palestinians?

Dr. Mamoun Farhat (MF):  After assuming the premiership for 12 years, which is the longest in Israel’s history, and leaving the government headquarters, Benjamin Netanyahu returned to the premiership again.

If this indicates anything, it indicates internal and external crises experienced by the political system in Israel, which led to the rise of the extreme right, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of Kahane’s students, the founder of the racist Shas movement calling for the extermination of the Palestinians.

It is certain that Ben-Gvir will receive the security portfolio, which means an escalation in the security situation in the Palestinian territories, the escalation in the first place and the commission of more crimes against Palestinian civilians, or at the level of incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which worsens the situation in the absence of a political horizon and the tendency of Israeli society towards right-wing extremist.

SS:   We are seeing an increase in the Palestinian resistance operations in the West Bank. In your opinion, are we approaching a third intifada?

MF:  In my opinion, we are facing a new, different state of struggle that is distinguished from the first intifada, which adhered to only peaceful forms of struggle, such as throwing stones, raising flags, writing slogans, and ended with the signing of the Oslo Accords, and occupation forces in Palestinian cities.

Undoubtedly, the new struggle situation is witnessing a diversity of struggle forms.

This situation came after a blockage in the political horizon that lasted for nearly thirty years, in addition to the extensive violations committed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.

However, we cannot be certain that we are facing a third intifada because this is linked to material support on the one hand and regional and international political support on the other.

SS:  Recently “Israel” and Lebanon signed an agreement concerning offshore energy resources. Do you think that Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist allies will cancel this agreement?

MF:  It is known that international agreements are bound by states, not governments, and therefore the claim to cancel the border demarcation agreement with the Lebanese side is nothing more than electoral propaganda. Therefore, changing the Israeli government does not mean canceling the maritime border demarcation agreement between Lebanon and the Israeli occupation, but rather an Israeli obligation in accordance with international law, and most importantly, the Israeli interest forces Israel to abide by this agreement.

SS:  Algeria brokered an agreement between Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian groups, which brought them together. In your opinion, will this bring about a unity government for the Palestinians?

MF:  Palestinian-Palestinian agreement in Algeria will not change anything from the Palestinian situation, for a number of considerations, the first of which is that this agreement is not the first, as it was preceded by many agreements that did not succeed. For both parties, the subordination of the Palestinian political decision depends on external interests, and the fourth is the geographical dimension and the role of the Israeli occupation in promoting that.

SS:   The Arab League has recently met in Algeria, and Algeria has always been a strong supporter of Palestinian rights. In your opinion, will this meeting advance the Palestinian cause?

MF:  I do not think so, because the Arab summit meetings and its decisions are just ink on paper. They live in divisions in light of the collapse of the Arab regimes and their cracks as a result of internal conflicts and the collapse of the economic situation in them, and every Arab regime is preoccupied with its internal problems, which negatively affects the mother issue, the Palestinian issue.

*

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: Dr. Mamoun Farhat from Ramallah (Source: Mideast Discourse)

Berlin Goes to Beijing: The Real Deal

November 6th, 2022 by Pepe Escobar

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.

***

With his inimitable flair for economic analysis steeped in historical depth, Professor Michael Hudson’s latest essay,  originally written for a German audience, presents a stunning parallel between the Crusades and the current “rules-based international order” imposed by the Hegemon.

Professor Hudson details how the Papacy in Rome managed to lock up unipolar control over secular realms (rings a bell?) when the game was all about Papal precedence over kings, above all the German Holy Roman Emperors. As we know, half in jest, the Empire was not exactly Holy, nor German (perhaps a little Roman), and not even an Empire.

A clause in the Papal Dictates provided the Pope with the authority to excommunicate whomever was “not at peace with the Roman Church.” Hudson sharply notes how US sanctions are the modern equivalent of excommunication.

Arguably there are Top Two dates in the whole process.

The first one would be the Third Ecumenical Council of 435: this is when only Rome (italics mine) was attributed universal authority (italics mine). Alexandria and Antioch, for instance, were limited to regional authority within the Roman Empire.

The other top date is 1054 – when Rome and Constantinople split for good. That is, the Roman Catholic Church split from Orthodoxy, which leads us to Russia, and Moscow as The Third Rome – and the centuries-old animosity of “the West” against Russia.

A State of Martial Law

Professor Hudson then delves on the trip by “Liver Sausage” Chancellor Scholz’s delegation to China this week to “demand that it dismantle its public sector and stops subsidizing its economy, or else Germany and Europe will impose sanctions on trade with China.”

Well, in fact this happens to be just childish wishful thinking, expressed by the German Council on Foreign Relations in a piece published on the Financial Times (the Japanese-owned platform in the City of London). The Council, as correctly described by Hudson, is “the neoliberal ‘libertarian’ arm of NATO demanding German de-industrialization and dependency” on the US.

So the FT, predictably, is printing NATO wet dreams.

Context is essential. German Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in a keynote speech at Bellevue Castle, has all but admitted that Berlin is broke: “An era of headwinds is beginning for Germany – difficult, difficult years are coming for us. Germany is in the deepest crisis since reunification.”

Yet schizophrenia, once again, reigns supreme, as Steinmeier, after a ridiculous stunt in Kiev – complete with posing as a unwitting actor huddled in a bunker – announced an extra handout: two more MARS multiple rocket launchers and four Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzers to be delivered to the Ukrainians.

So even if the “world” economy – actually the EU – is so fragilized that member-states cannot help Kiev anymore without harming their own populations, and the EU is on the verge of a catastrophic energy crisis, fighting for “our values” in Country 404 trumps it all.

The Big Picture context is also key. Andrea Zhok, Professor of Ethical Philosophy at the University of Milan, has taken Giorgio Agamben’s “State of Exception” concept to new heights.

Zhok proposes that the zombified collective West is now completely subjugated to a “State of Martial Law” – where a Forever War ethos is the ultimate priority for rarified global elites.

Every other variable – from trans-humanism to depopulation and even cancel culture – is subordinated to the State of Martial Law, and is basically inessential. The only thing that matters is exercising absolute, raw control.

Berlin-Moscow-Beijing

Solid German business sources completely contradict the “message” delivered by the German Council on Foreign Relations on the trip to China.

According to these sources, the Scholz caravan went to Beijing to essentially lay down the preparatory steps for working out a peace deal with Russia, with China as privileged messenger.

This is – literally – as explosive, geopolitically and geoeconomically, as it gets. As I pointed out in one of my previous columns, Berlin and Moscow were keeping a secret communication back channel – via business interlocutors – right to the minute the usual suspects, in desperation, decided to blow up the Nord Streams.

Cue to the now notorious SMS from Liz Truss’s iPhone to Little Tony Blinken, one minute after the explosions: “It’s done.”

There’s more: the Scholz caravan may be trying to start a long and convoluted process of eventually replacing the US with China as a key ally. One should never forget that the top BRI trade/connectivity terminal in the EU is Germany (the Ruhr valley).

According to one of the sources, “if this effort is successful, then Germany, China and Russia can ally themselves together and drive the US out of Europe.”

Another source provided the cherry on the cake: “Olaf Scholz is being accompanied on this trip by German industrialists who actually control Germany and are not going to sit back watching themselves being destroyed.”

Moscow knows very well what the imperial aim is when it comes to the EU reduced to the role of totally dominated – and deindustrialized – vassal, exercising zero sovereignty. The back channels after all are not lying in tatters on the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Additionally, China has not provided any hint that its massive trade with Germany and the EU is about to vanish.

Scholz himself, one day before his caravan hit Beijing, stressed to Chinese media that Germany has no intention of decoupling from China, and there’s nothing to justify “the calls by some to isolate China.”

In parallel, Xi Jinping and the new Politburo are very much aware of the Kremlin position,reiterated again and again: we always remain open for negotiations, as long as Washington finally decides to talk about the end of unlimited NATO expansion drenched in Russophobia.

So to negotiate means the Empire signing on the dotted line of the document it has received from Moscow on December 1st, 2021, focused on “indivisibility of security”. Otherwise there’s nothing to negotiate.

And when we have Pentagon lobbyist Lloyd “Raytheon” Austin advising the Ukrainians on the record to advance on Kherson, it’s even more crystal clear there’s nothing to negotiate.

So could this all be the foundation stone of the Berlin-Moscow-Beijing trans-Eurasia geopolitical/geoeconomic corridor? That will mean Bye Bye Empire. Once again: it ain’t over till the fat lady goes Gotterdammerung.

*

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 Strategic Culture Foundation.

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 licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

How the Super-Rich Control the U.S. Government

November 6th, 2022 by Eric Zuesse

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

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

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

***

The U.S. Government tries to hide how obscenely top-end the nation’s wealth-distribution is; but one remarkably clear presentation of it (the U.S. private-wealth distribution)  was the web-page from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that presented an “Overview” of “Distribution of Wealth” starting in “1989:Q3” and extending up till “2021:Q2”. (It will be presented even more clearly here, using their reported data.)

The following shows breakdowns of the wealth-quintiles — percentages of the wealth held by the nation’s households, all the way from the top fifth to the bottom fifth — in the “US$ Trillions” for each fifth — during the latter quarter (the “2021:Q2”), as is shown on that web-page:

  • Top 5th =Top 20% total $94.68T ($36.23T for top 1% + $58.45T for all of the next 19%)
  • 2nd 5th =Top 40%-Top 20%: $20.68T
  • 3rd 5th = Top 60%-Top 40%: $9.62T
  • 4th 5th = Top 80%-Top 60%: $5.41T
  • 5th 5th = Too 100%-Top 80%: $3.69T
  • 100% = $94.68T + $20.68T + $9.62T + $5.41T + $3.69T = $134.08T total.

Therefore: Top 20% = 70.6% of all wealth.

  • Top 40% = 86.0% of all wealth.
  • Top 60% = 93.2% of all wealth.
  • Top 80% = 97.2% of all wealth.
  • Top 100% = 100% of all wealth.
  • Additionally shown was the top 1%:
  • Top 1% (“99-100%”): $36.23T
  • Top 20% less that top 1%: $58.45T
  • So: the top 1% (the wealthiest 5% of the wealthiest 20%) held 38.3% of all the top fifth’s $94.68T.
  • Top 1% =  27% of all wealth.
  • (Bottom 1% wasn’t shown.)
  • Bottom 20% = 2.8% of all wealth.
  • Bottom 40% = 6.8%
  • Bottom 60% = 14.0%
  • Bottom 80% = 29.4%

Virtually all people who have the discretionary cash to be able to donate significantly to the politicians they favor are in the top fifth — the people who have 70.6% of all wealth. They dominate the nation’s political money. Almost all of the virtually bribes that fill political campaign-chests in America come from the richest 20% of Americans — and the top 1% contain all of the ‘king-makers.” And if you’re in the bottom 80% of wealth-holders in the U.S., you’re not represented, at all, in the U.S. Government.

The top 1% have vastly more, than rest of the top 20%, available to them to donate to their favored politicians, because these people — the top-one-percenters — hold the corporate board seats, and select the corporate executives who hire the congressional lobbyists to entertain and reward and hire the crucial congress-members so as to serve their corporations, and serve those top one-percenters who control all of those corporations. Included in these corporations are the ones that control all of the major, and most of the minor, news-media and that thereby shape the ‘knowledge’ and thus the views that most of the voters (in each Party) hold.

America has around a thousand billionaires, and they have control over so much discretionary cash as to be able to get Congress to not pass any bill that these super-rich oppose, and to pass many of the legislative bills that those super-rich want to become law. So, almost all of the thousand-or-so individuals who control the U.S. Government are billionaires. They especially control international corporations. Those few people dominate both Parties.

But they do it very much behind-the-scenes. In previous centuries, aristocrats were publicly known, by formal titles; but in today’s ‘democracies’, they are, instead, as hidden as they can be. They don’t want the public to know that the Government represents only them, because, otherwise, the Government’s saying that this or that foreign ‘dictatorship’ that poses no real threat to the national security of one’s own country, should be regime-changed, would have the citizens wonder, instead, “Isn’t it our nation’s regime that should be regime-changed first?” Any look at the ‘news’-media will make clear that they DON’T want THAT question to be in anybody’s mind. The message is instead always to regime-change the foreign leaders whom one’s own nation’s billionaires WANT to be regime-changed. That’s the way to get the public to be willing to fund (via their own taxes) the ‘Defense’ Department. Isn’t it un-‘patriotic’ to want to slash the spending on ‘defense’? Where did THAT idea come from?

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from news.harvard.edu

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the Super-Rich Control the U.S. Government
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

Tech entrepreneur, philanthropist and founder of the Covid Early Treatment Foundation, Steve Kirsch, talks about his article titled “Evidence of Harm” and subtitled “A Short Collection of Key Evidence Showing Covid Vaccines are Not Safe and Effective, Not Even Close. They are the Most Deadly Vaccines We’ve Ever Produced.”

Kirsch also talks about how government public health agencies, including the CDC and the FDA, as well as The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, studiously avoid looking at data showing how dangerous covid vaccines are.

*

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 video was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page(NOTE: User-friendly)

Under the Christmas Tree, the New US Nuclear Bomb B61-12

November 6th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

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 oil giants are making record profits thanks to energy prices rising, and European factories are firing because they can’t pay their gas and electricity bills, the US is sending energy to Europe with their ships loaded with expensive LNG. 

Fearing that we do have not enough, now they are sending us another huge amount of energy: nuclear weapons. The United States will send 100 upgraded B61-12 nuclear bombs to Europe in December.

They will replace the previous ones in Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland, and Turkey, and will likely be deployed against Russia in other NATO countries, such as Poland and Finland.

In its strategic documents, the Pentagon announces:

We will use nuclear weapons to defend the vital interests of the United States and its allies.”

This constitutes a change of strategy that brings the world even closer to a nuclear war, which would cause the disappearance of the human species from the face of the Earth.

What will Russia do now?

Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti asked Vladimir Kozin, a Political-Military Studies Center Russian expert, in an interview that took place in Moscow for Grandangolo on the national channel Byoblu TV.

Vladimir Kozin calls the current situation “much worse than it was during the Cold War, much more lethal and more dangerous“. He denounces the fact that the United States, after tearing up the INF Treaty, is deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe close to Russia in addition to the new B61-12 nuclear bombs.

Kozin calls all this “madness“, he warns that, if it comes to a nuclear war,

there will be no winners or losers, everyone will lose“.

He, therefore, warns that

if our territory is attacked with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological, bacteriological and toxic, as well as nuclear weapons, we will respond“.

He was asked whether Russia will hit US nuclear bases in Europe, and he replies:

Yes, that’s for sure. If we are attacked.”

*

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).

Featured image is from This Can’t Be Happening!


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

This report dates back to the immediate aftermath of the 2014 Kiev Coup d’état, which consisted in an act of war by US-NATO directed against Ukraine, leading to the formation of a full-fledged Neo-Nazi government in Ukraine. 

First published on March 13, 2014 in the wake of US sponsored coup d’Etat

Author’s Note:

This was my assessment more than 8 years ago: The 2014 US sponsored Coup d’Etat was a preamble towards  a US-NATO war against Russia

“The World is at a dangerous crossroads: The structures and composition of this proxy government installed by the West do not favor dialogue with the Russian government and military.

A scenario of military escalation leading to confrontation of Russia and NATO is a distinct possibility”.

****

.

Violence and bloodshed continues to rock Ukraine as factions compete in the power vacuum of last month’s coup in Kiev.

As the country struggles to find its way forward, however, it finds itself in the crosshairs of a US-NATO war agenda that has been unfolding for years.

This is the GRTV Feature Interview with our special guest, Professor Michel Chossudovsky.

“We are not dealing with a transitional government in which Neo-Nazi elements integrate the fringe of the coalition, formally led by the Fatherland party.”

Moreover, this is the first full-fledged Neo-Nazi government in Europe in the post World War II period.

This US-NATO sponsored Coup d’etat –which has led to the formation of a coalition government integrated by Neo-Nazis– is an Act of Warfare against Ukraine.

“We have to ask ourselves: Are the architects of this Neo-Nazi government, the people who conspired to install a Nazi regime in Ukraine, are they Neo-Nazis or Neoliberals?

They claim to be Neoliberals. They are acting in support of a neoliberal economic policy agenda” (Michel Chossudovsky, March 2014)

 

“Washington has chosen to spearhead Neo-Nazis into positions of authority. Under a “regime of indirect rule”, however,  they take their orders on crucial military and foreign policy issues –including the deployment of troops directed against the Russian federation– from the US State Department, the Pentagon and NATO.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads: The structures and composition of this proxy government installed by the West do not favor dialogue with the Russian government and military.

A scenario of military escalation leading to confrontation of Russia and NATO is a distinct possibility.

The Ukraine’s National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) which is controlled by Neo-Nazis plays a central role in military affairs. In the confrontation with Moscow, decisions taken by the RNBOU headed by Neo-Nazi  Andrij Parubiy and his brown Shirt deputy Dmytro Yarosh (below) –in consultation with Washington and Brussels– could potentially have devastating consequences. ” (Michel Chossudovsky, March 2, 2014)

 

 Dmytro Yarosh speech at Euromaidan (Centre)

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The 2014 Neoliberal Neo-Nazi Coup in Ukraine. The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads

No Pain, No Grain: Putin’s Black Sea Comeback

November 6th, 2022 by Pepe Escobar

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

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

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

First published on November 3, 2022

***

So, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan picks up the phone and calls his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin: let’s talk about the “grain deal.” Putin, cool, calm and collected, explains the facts to the Sultan:

First, the reason why Russia withdrew from the export grain deal.

Second, how Moscow seeks a serious investigation into the – terrorist – attack on the Black Sea fleet, which for all practical purposes seems to have violated the deal.

And third, how Kiev must guarantee it will uphold the deal, brokered by Turkey and the UN.

Only then would Russia consider coming back to the table.

And then – today, 2 November – the coup de theatre: Russia’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) announces the country is back to the Black Sea grain deal, after receiving the necessary written guarantees from Kiev.

The MoD, quite diplomatically, praised the “efforts” of both Turkey and the UN: Kiev is committed not to use the “Maritime Humanitarian Corridor” for combat operations, and only in accordance with the provisions of the Black Sea Initiative.

Moscow said the guarantees are sufficient “for the time being.” Implying that can always change.

All rise to the Sultan’s persuasion

Erdogan must have been extremely persuasive with Kiev. Before the phone call to Putin, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) had already explained that the attack on the Black Sea Fleet was conducted by 9 aerial drones and 7 naval drones, plus an American RQ-4B Global Hawk observation drone lurking in the sky over neutral waters.

The attack happened under the cover of civilian ships and targeted Russian vessels that escorted the grain corridor in the perimeter of their responsibility, as well as the infrastructure of the Russian base in Sevastopol.

The MoD explicitly designated British experts deployed in the Ochakov base in the Nikolaev region as the designers of this military operation.

At the UN Security Council, Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzya declared himself “surprised” that the UN leadership “failed not only to condemn, but even to express concern over the terrorist attacks.”

After stating that the Brit-organized Kiev operation on the Black Sea Fleet “put an end to the humanitarian dimension of the Istanbul agreements,” Nebenzya also clarified:

“It is our understanding that the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine agreed on under UN supervision on 22 July, must not be implemented without Russia, and so we do not view the decisions that were made without our involvement as binding.”

This means, in practice, that Moscow “cannot allow for unimpeded passage of vessels without our inspection.” The crucial question is how and where these inspections will be carried out – as Russia has warned the UN that it will definitely inspect dry cargo ships in the Black Sea.

The UN, for its part, tried at best to put on a brave face, believing Russia’s suspension is “temporary” and looking forward to welcoming “its highly professional team” back to the Joint Coordination Center.

According to humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths, the UN also proclaims to be “ready to address concerns.” And that has to be soon, because the deal reaches its 120-day extension point on November 19.

Well, “addressing concerns” is not exactly the case. Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia Dmitry Polyansky said that at the UN Security Council meeting western nations simply could not deny their involvement in the Sevastopol attack; instead, they simply blamed Russia.

All the way to Odessa

Prior to the phone call with Erdogan, Putin had already pointed out that “34 percent of the grain exported under the deal goes to Turkey, 35 percent to EU countries and only 3-4 percent to the poorest countries. Is this what we did everything for?”

That’s correct. For instance, 1.8 million tons of grain went to Spain; 1.3 million tons to Turkey; and 0.86 million tons to Italy. By contrast, only 0,067 tons went to “starving” Yemen and 0,04 tons to “starving” Afghanistan.

Putin made it very clear that Moscow was not withdrawing from the grain deal but had only suspended its participation.

And as a further gesture of good will, Moscow announced it would willingly ship 500,000 tons of grain to poorer nations for free, in an effort to replace the integral amount that Ukraine should have been able to export.

All this time, Erdogan skillfully maneuvered to convey the impression he was occupying the higher ground: even if Russia behaves in an “indecisive” manner, as he defined it, we will continue to pursue the grain deal.

So, it seems like Moscow was being tested – by the UN and by Ankara, which happens to be the main beneficiary of the grain deal and is clearly profiting from this economic corridor. Ships continue to depart from Odessa to Turkish ports – mainly Istanbul – without Moscow’s agreement. It was expected they would be “filtered” by Russia when coming back to Odessa.

The immediate Russian means of pressure was unleashed in no time: preventing Odessa from becoming a terrorist infrastructure node. This means constant visits by cruise missiles.

Well, the Russians have already “visited” the Ochakov base occupied by Kiev and the British experts. Ochakov – between Nikolaev and Odessa – was built way back in 2017, with key American input.

The British units that were involved in the sabotage of the Nord Streams – according to Moscow – are the same ones that planned the Sevastopol operation. Ochakov is constantly spied upon and sometimes hit out of positions that the Russians have cleared last month only 8 km to the south, on the extremity of the Kinburn peninsula. And yet the base has not been totally destroyed.

To reinforce the “message,” the real response to the attack on Sevastopol has been this week’s relentless “visits” of Ukraine’s electrical infrastructure; if maintained, virtually the whole of Ukraine will soon be plunged into darkness.

Closing down the Black Sea

The attack on Sevastopol may have been the catalyst leading to a Russian move to close down the Black Sea – with Odessa converted into an absolutely priority for the Russian Army. There are serious rumblings across Russia on why Russophone Odessa had not been the object of pinpointed targeting before.

Top infrastructure for Ukrainian Special Forces and British advisers is based in Odessa and Nikolaev. Now there’s no question these will be destroyed.

Even with the grain deal in theory back on track, it is hopeless to expect Kiev to abide by any agreements. After all, every major decision is taken either by Washington or by the Brits at NATO. Just like bombing the Crimea Bridge, and then the Nord Streams, attacking the Black Sea Fleet was designed as a serious provocation.

The brilliant designers though seem to have IQs lower than refrigerator temperatures: every Russian response always plunges Ukraine deeper down an inescapable – and now literally black – hole.

The grain deal seemed to be a sort of win-win. Kiev would not contaminate Black Sea ports again after they were demined. Turkey turned into a grain transport hub for the poorest nations (actually that’s not what happened: the main beneficiary was the EU). And sanctions on Russia were eased on the export of agricultural products and fertilizers.

This was, in principle, a boost for Russian exports. In the end, it did not work out because many players were worried about possible secondary sanctions.

It is important to remember that the Black Sea grain deal is actually two deals: Kiev signed a deal with Turkey and the UN, and Russia signed a separate deal with Turkey.

The corridor for the grain carriers is only 2 km wide. Minesweepers move in parallel along the corridor. Ships are inspected by Ankara. So the Kiev-Ankara-UN deal remains in place. It has nothing to do with Russia – which in this case does not escort and/or inspect the cargoes.

What changes with Russia “suspending” its own deal with Ankara and the UN, is that from now on, Moscow can proceed anyway it deems fit to neutralize terrorist threats and even invade and take over Ukrainian ports: that will not represent a violation of the deal with Ankara and the UN.

So in this respect, it is a game-changer.

Seems like Erdogan fully understood the stakes, and told Kiev in no uncertain terms to behave. There’s no guarantee, though, that western powers won’t come up with another Black Sea provocation. Which means that sooner or later – perhaps by the Spring of 2023 – General Armageddon will have to come up with the goods. That translates as advancing all the way to Odessa.

*

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 Cradle.

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

Mentre i giganti del petrolio registrano profitti record grazie ai crescenti i prezzi dell’energia e le fabbriche europee licenziano perché non riescono a pagare le bollette del gas e dell’elettricità, gli USA mandano energia all’Europa con le loro navi cariche di costoso GNL. Temendo che non ne abbiamo abbastanza, ora ci mandano un’altra enorme quantità di energia: quella delle armi nucleari. Gli Stati Uniti inviano a dicembre in Europa 100 bombe nucleari B61-12 potenziate. Esse sostituiranno quelle precedenti in Italia, Germania, Belgio, Olanda e Turchia, e saranno probabilmente schierate contro la Russia in altri paesi NATO, come Polonia e Finlandia. 

Nei suoi documenti strategici il Pentagono annuncia: “Useremo le armi nucleari per difendere gli interessi vitali degli Stati Uniti e dei loro alleati”. Ciò costituisce un cambio di strategia che avvicina ancor più il mondo alla guerra nucleare, che provocherebbe la scomparsa della specie umana dalla faccia della Terra. Che cosa farà ora la Russia?   

Lo ha chiesto Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti a Vladimir Kozin, esperto russo del Centro studi politico-militari, in una intervista realizzata a Mosca per Grandangolo sul canale TV nazionale Byoblu. 

Vladimir Kozin definisce lattuale situazione molto peggiore di quanto non fosse durante la Guerra Fredda, molto più letale e più pericolosa”. Denuncia il fatto che gli Stati Uniti, dopo aver stracciato il Trattato INF, stanno schierando in Europa a ridosso della Russia, oltre alle nuove bombe nucleari B61-12, missili nucleari a raggio intermedio. Kozin definisce tutto questo una follia” avverte che, se si arriverà a una guerra nucleare,  non ci saranno né vincitori né vinti, tutti perderanno”. Avverte quindi che se il nostro territorio viene attaccato con armi nucleari o armi di distruzione di massa, come armi chimiche o biologiche, batteriologiche e tossiche, oltre che nucleari, risponderemo”. Alla domanda se la Russia colpirà le basi nucleari USA in Europa, risponde: Sì, questo è certo. Se veniamo attaccati”.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Sotto L’albero di Natale La Nuova Bomba Nucleare Usa B61-12 | Grandangolo – Pangea

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.

***

Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned that some ultrasound contrast agents contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) and therefore shouldn’t be administered to patients with known or suspected allergies to PEG — but there are no similar warnings for adults or children who get PEG-containing COVID-19 shots or MiraLAX, an over-the-counter laxative.

On Oct. 20 — the very same day the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) crooked vaccine advisory committee members voted to add COVID-19 shots to the Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule — Indonesia’s Ministry of Health took a bold step in a different direction: It banned the sale and prescription of pediatric cough syrups and other liquid medications, at least temporarily.

The ministry linked the cough syrups to kidney injuries that recently killed almost 100 Indonesian children and nearly 70 children in The Gambia in West Africa, and it voiced the suspicion that those numbers could be the tip of a much larger iceberg.

After the rash of West African deaths, the World Health Organization issued a medical product alert for four brands of cough syrup manufactured in India and imported into The Gambia through a U.S. company — warning of the products’ possibly global distribution and calling for the substandard products’ removal from circulation.

As it happens, the COVID-19 shots promoted by the CDC and the syrups prohibited by the Indonesian ministry have one glaring commonality — both contain the chemical polyethylene glycol (PEG).

Several months before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization to Pfizer and Moderna for their PEG-containing mRNA COVID-19 shots, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) put the FDA on notice about PEG’s life-threatening anaphylactic potential — and sure enough, anaphylaxis was among the very first adverse events reported.

When the president of the American Medical Association then asked Peter Marks — director of the FDA center that oversees vaccines — about anaphylaxis, PEG and the COVID-19 shots, his non-answer was, “It’s just one of those intriguing things,” accompanied by a vague promise about “lots of work getting done.”

As it turns out, that cavalier reply has typified regulators’ response to reports of serious PEG-related adverse events for many years — whether it is COVID-19 shots or other drugs that are causing the harms, regulators are content to dilly-dally.

FDA brushes off parents’ MiraLAX concerns

The FDA similarly has brushed off tens of thousands of parents, including the 67,000-plus members of a parent Facebook group, who for decades alleged that laxatives containing a form of PEG called PEG 3350 caused dramatic neuropsychiatric symptoms in their children, ranging from seizures to psychosis.

PEG 3350 is the active ingredient in the drug MiraLAX, originally developed by Braintree Labs and now a Bayer product.

The FDA in 2006 approved the switch from prescription to over-the-counter (OTC) status for MiraLAX.

Though Braintree developed MiraLAX for short-term use in adults, the drug’s OTC availability has encouraged pediatricians to frequently recommend it for constipated children, sometimes for months or years at a time.

Even knowing that children “are likely to receive a higher dose per unit body weight than adults,” no one has ever assessed the risks to children of prolonged exposure to PEG 3350.

However, when the drug received OTC status, FDA reviewer Dr. Karen Feibus acknowledged “a theoretical concern with long term or frequent repeated use of PEG by consumers” (p. 29).

A 2012 citizen petition urged a study on pediatric safety, requesting the FDA study PEG “in any medical product that is being prescribed to children in the United States or sold by US companies for overseas use.”

With its hand forced by the petition, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014 awarded a $325,000 grant to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to assess PEG 3350 safety in children in collaboration with the FDA — but thus far, the study has gone nowhere.

Though the NIH and FDA initially pledged that results would be available within a year, by late 2022, the study status was still shown as “recruiting” and the completion date was listed as June 2024.

In a September 2022 email to parent Mike Koehler, whose son experienced a serious neuropsychiatric reaction to MiraLAX, FDA Public Affairs Specialist Paul Richards offered more prevarication, writing, “While the FDA and CDC cannot predict how long the review of the data and information will take, we will complete our review as expeditiously as possible using a thorough and science-based approach.”

Known ‘impurities’ are anything but harmless

Manufacturers’ claims that PEGs are “biologically inert” — a claim coming under increasing challenge — is one of the key factors allowing PEG compounds to become so pervasive across multiple industries and thousands of products, including drugs, cosmetics, healthcare screening products and pesticides.

However, though companies describe PEG as “harmless,” the PEG manufacturing process is known to give rise to “degradation products” — also referred to as “impurities” — that are anything but harmless.

In the case of the fatal Indonesian cough syrups, government analysis detected the presence of three hazardous contaminants: ethylene glycol (EG), diethylene glycol (DEG) and ethylene glycol butyl ether.

Antifreeze is a more recognizable name for EG and DEG, chemicals with toxic metabolites capable of causing “extensive cellular damage to various tissues,” especially the kidneys.

Tragically, incidents in which these substances killed children have made headlines for at least a quarter-century, with medication-associated mass poisonings of children documented in countries ranging from Nigeria to Haiti to Bangladesh.

Although the NIH and FDA conceded that EG and DEG are neurotoxic for children, the FDA allows trace amounts (0.2% total by weight) of both in PEG-containing medications.

In fact, a 2011 study concluded that DEG contamination is an inevitable outcome of some manufacturing processes.

Meanwhile, parents who have studied MiraLAX believe PEG breaks down inside the gut into EG and DEG.

Retired pathologist Dr. David Bruns, credited as the first to describe poisoning by PEG in 1982, studied fatalities from acute renal failure that resulted from the use of PEG-containing burn creams on patients with severe burns.

The severely disrupted skin barrier allowed PEG to be absorbed “right into the body.” According to Bruns, something similar probably occurs in children with a damaged intestinal barrier who ingest PEG.

Additional studies on rabbits conducted by Bruns revealed some of PEG’s metabolites include toxic aldehydes, offering a likely explanation for PEG’s damaging effects on the kidneys.

Highly reactive aldehydes “can impair cellular functions and exacerbate organ injury, acute pain, and inflammation.”

Drugmakers praise ‘PEGylation,’ but ignore its downsides

In the vast landscape of PEG-containing drugs and biologics, some drugs are “PEGylated,” which refers to a specific way of attaching PEG to biomedical molecules.

When PEGylation came into vogue in the early 1990s, manufacturers were thrilled because the process impedes the kidney’s normal attempts to clear drugs and forces the body to hang on to drugs longer.

Drug researchers cheerfully refer to this as “half-life extension.”

The mRNA COVID-19 jabs’ inclusion of PEGylated fats — called lipid nanoparticles or LNPs — is specifically designed to support “prolonged circulation” of the vaccine.

Researchers writing in Nature in December 2021 argued that without the PEG-coated lipid nanoparticles, “COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would not exist,” and they enthused that the LNPs “have the ability to alter the course of history.”

Left unmentioned was the fact that PEGylation is “not without a price” — the price being a propensity to trigger adverse immune reactions “entailing severe allergic symptoms with occasionally fatal anaphylaxis.”

A 2016 study suggested that a large proportion of the U.S. population has likely been sensitized to PEG, leaving a significant subset susceptible to hypersensitivity reactions from the PEGylated vaccines.

In fact, the published literature has begun to reflect just such a scenario.

An October 2021 article in Endoscopy described three patients who experienced anaphylactic reactions to PEG-containing bowel-cleansing agents (for colonoscopy) — all three had received Moderna injections within the previous 12 to 18 days.

The researchers concluded, “The onset of a new PEG allergy shortly after COVID-19 vaccination makes a causal relationship likely” and cautioned that healthcare providers “should be aware of the possibility of a newly developed PEG allergy after COVID-19 vaccination.”

FDA issues selective PEG allergy warnings

Last year, the FDA warned consumers that some ultrasound contrast agents contain PEG “and should not be administered to patients with known or suspected allergies to PEG.”

The FDA did so in response to 11 cases of anaphylaxis and two deaths linked to the contrast agents’ use in patients with known PEG allergies.

However, for the thousands of families affected by MiraLAX, or the 10,000-plus individuals thus far reported to have experienced life-threatening or fatal anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination, there have been no warnings.

Instead, it is left to countries like Indonesia to set an example for responsible regulatory behavior, not waiting for endlessly deferred studies but instead simply pulling drugs off the market when they kill children.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Pediatric Perils of PEG: From MiraLAX to COVID Shots, FDA and CDC Ignore Safety Signals
  • Tags: , , ,

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

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

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

***

Look at the chart below. The chart explains everything.

It explains why Washington is so worried about China’s explosive growth. It explains why the US continues to hector China on the issues of Taiwan and the South China Sea. It explains why Washington sends congressional delegations to Taiwan in defiance of Beijing’s explicit requests.

It explains why the Pentagon continues to send US warships through the Taiwan Strait and ship massive amounts of lethal weaponry to Taipei.

It explains why Washington is creating anti-China coalitions in Asia that are aimed at encircling and provoking Beijing. It explains why the Biden administration is stepping up its trade war on China, imposing onerous economic sanctions on its businesses, and banning critical high-tech semi-conductors that are “are essential not just… for virtually every aspect of modern society, from electronic products and transport to the design and production of all manner of goods.” It explains why China has been singled-out in the US National Security Strategy (NSS) as “the only competitor with both the intent and, increasingly, the capability to reshape the international order.” It explains why Washington now regards China as its biggest and most formidable strategic adversary that must be isolated, demonized and defeated.

The chart above explains everything, not just the hostile diplomatic jabs that are designed to discredit and humiliate China, but also the openly belligerent policies that are aimed at Russia as well. People need to understand this. They need to see what is really going on so they can put events in their proper geopolitical context.

And what “context” is that?

The context of a Third World War; a war that was thoroughly-planned, instigated and (now) prosecuted by Washington and Washington’s proxies. That’s what’s really going on. The increasingly violent conflagrations we see cropping-up in Ukraine and Asia are not the result of “Russian aggression” or “evil Putin”. No. They are the actualization of a sinister geopolitical strategy to quash China’s meteoric rise and preserve America’s dominant role in the world order. Can there be any doubt about that?

No. None.

This is why we are experiencing the redivision of the world into warring blocs. This is why we are seeing the roll back of 30 years of Globalization and massive supply line disruption. And this is why Europe has been thrust headlong into frigid darkness and forced deindustrialisation.

All of these suicidal policies were concocted for one purpose and one purpose alone, to maintain America’s exalted spot in the global system. That is why all of humanity is presently embroiled in a Third World War; a war that is designed to prevent China from becoming the world’s biggest economy; a war that is designed to preserve US global primacy. Check out this excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

An October 19 Financial Times article by Edward Luce, entitled “Containing China is Biden’s explicit goal,” sounded the following alarm: “Imagine that a superpower declared war on a great power and nobody noticed. Joe Biden this month launched a full-blown economic war on China—all but committing the US to stopping its rise—and for the most part, Americans did not react.

“To be sure, there is Russia’s war on Ukraine and inflation at home to preoccupy attention. But history is likely to record Biden’s move as the moment when US-China rivalry came out of the closet.”

Moreover, last week, a top Biden administration official indicated that the US was preparing new bans on China in key hi-tech areas. Speaking at the Center for a New American Security, Alan Estevez, the under-secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, was asked if the US would ban China from accessing quantum information science, biotechnology, artificial intelligence software or advanced algorithms. Estevez admitted that this was already being actively discussed. “Will we end up doing something in those areas? If I was a betting person, I would put down money on that,” he said….

Luce concluded his Financial Times article cited above by declaring:“Will Biden’s gamble work? I’m not relishing the prospect of finding out. For better or worse, the world has just changed with a whimper not a bang. Let us hope it stays that way.”…(“Biden’s technology war against China”, World Socialist Web Site)

Once again, look at the chart. What does it tell you?

The first thing it tells you is that the hostilities we see in Ukraine (and eventually Taiwan), can be traced back to a fundamental shift in the global economy. China is growing stronger. It’s on a path to overtake the United States economy within the decade. And with growth, come certain benefits. As the world’s biggest economy, China will naturally become Asia’s regional hegemon. And, as Asia’s regional hegemon it will be able “to settle regional disputes in its own favor and to de-legitimize U.S. regional and global leadership.”

Can you see the problem here?

For nearly two decades, the US has oriented its foreign policy around a “rebalancing of forces” strategy called the “pivot to Asia”. In short, the US intends to be the dominant player in the world’s most populous and prosperous region, Asia. Can you see how China’s rise derails Washington’s plan for the future?

The United States is not going to let this happen without a fight. Washington is not going to let China muscle-it-out of the markets that it plans to dominate. That’s not going to happen. And if you think that’s going to happen, you’d better think again. The United States will go to war to avoid a scenario in which the US plays “second fiddle” to China. In fact, the foreign policy establishment has already decided that the US will engage China militarily for that very objective.

So, our thesis is simple; we think WW3 has already begun. That’s all we’re saying. The ructions we see in Ukraine are merely the first salvo in a Third World War that has already triggered an unprecedented energy crisis, massive worldwide food insecurity, a catastrophic break-down in global supply lines, widespread and out-of-control inflation, the steady reemergence of extreme nationalism, and the redivision of the world into warring blocs. What more proof do you need?

And it’s all economic. The origins of this conflict can all be traced back to the seismic changes in the global economy, the rise of China and the unavoidable decline of the United States. It is a case of one empire replacing the other. Naturally, a transition of this magnitude is going to generate tectonic changes in global distribution of power. And along with those changes will come more flashpoints, more devastation, and the looming prospect of nuclear war. And this is precisely how things are playing out.

So, how does the chart explain what is happening in Ukraine?

Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine is actually aimed at China not Russia.Russia is not a peer competitor and Russia does not have the economic wherewithal to displace the United States in the global order. NordStream, however, did pose a significant risk to the US by greatly strengthening Moscow’s economic relations with the EU and particularly with Europe’s industrial powerhouse, Germany. The Moscow-Berlin alliance—which was mutually beneficial and key to German prosperity—had to be sabotaged to prevent further economic integration that would have drawn the continents closer together into the world’s biggest free trade zone. Washington had to stop that in order to preserve its economic stranglehold on Europe and defend the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Even so, no one expected the US to blow up the pipeline itself in—what appears to be—the greatest act of industrial terrorism in history. That was truly shocking.

In essence, Washington sees Russia as an obstacle to its “pivot” plan to encircle, isolate and weaken China. But Russia is not the greatest threat to US global primacy; not even close. That designation belongs to China.

The Third World War is being waged to contain China not Russia. What the war in Ukraine suggests is that—among foreign policy elites—there is general agreement that, The road to Beijing goes through Moscow. That appears to be the consensus view. In other words, US powerbrokers want to weaken Russia in order to spread US military bases across Asia. Ultimately, the military will be called upon to enforce Washington’s economic rule over its new Asian subjects. If that day ever comes.

We think it is extremely unlikely that Washington’s ambitious plan will succeed, but we have no doubt that it will be implemented all the same. Tens of millions of people are likely to die in a desperate attempt to turn-back the clock to the fleeting ‘unipolar moment’ and the equally short-lived American Century. It is a tragedy beyond comprehension.

*

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).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The One Chart that Explains Everything. Containing China. “Humanity Embroiled in a Third World War”
  • Tags: ,

Why Are Cancers Escalating Post-mRNA Vaccination?

November 4th, 2022 by DailyClout

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.

***

Amy Kelly, COO of DailyClout, talks with Dr. Chris Flowers.

Dr. Chris Flowers is an author, academic cancer radiologist, and member of the War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project.

Ms. Kelly and Dr. Flowers discuss what may be causing cancers to occur and to escalate much more quickly post-mRNA vaccination, definitions of different types of cancers mentioned in Pfizer’s document, the dangers of lipid nanoparticles, and spike proteins and how they enter cells.

Cancers found in Pfizer document

Document description: “PFIZER CONFIDENTIAL SDTM Creation: 25MAR2021 (20:15) Source Data: adae Table Generation: 27MAR2021 (01:37) (Cutoff Date: 13MAR2021, Snapshot Date: 25MAR2021) Output File: ./nda2 unblinded/C4591001 BLA/”

Adverse Event legend code for all cancers listed below:

NEOPL – Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified

All Unique Mentions of Cancers in the Pfizer Document

  1. Breast cancer/Ductal carcinoma right Breast + Invasive ductal breast carcinoma/Ductal Carcinoma Left Breast + Metastases to lymph nodes/Right Axillary Metastases
  2. Breast cancer/breast cancer initial diagnosis
  3. Lung cancer metastatic/Metastatic Lung cancer
  4. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer
  5. Brain cancer metastatic/Metastatic Brain Tumor
  6. Breast cancer/left breast carcinoma
  7. Papillary thyroid cancer/Suspected papillary thyroid carcinoma
  8. Breast cancer/LEFT BREAST CANCER
  9. Prostate cancer/Prostate cancer
  10. Hepatic cancer/liver cancer
  11. Prostate cancer/Prostate Cancer (Gleason 8)
  12. Biliary cancer metastatic/Biliary Cancer Metastatic + Metastases to liver/Metastases to Liver
  13. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell skin cancer (head)
  14. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer (right breast)
  15. Skin cancer/sebaceous carcinoma of skin
  16. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell cancer
  17. Uterine cancer/Uterine Cancer
  18. Breast cancer in situ/Stage 0 Breast Cancer Right Breast
  19. Prostate cancer/Prostate Cancer
  20. Prostate cancer/Malignant Neoplasm of Prostate
  21. Breast cancer stage II/Stage II Breast Cancer (Left)
  22. Prostate cancer/Prostate Cancer
  23. Gallbladder cancer stage II/Gallbladder Cancer – Stage 2
  24. Pancreatic carcinoma metastatic/Metastatic pancreatic cancer
  25. Prostate cancer/Prostate cancer-early stage
  26. Breast cancer/Right breast cancer
  27. Lobular breast carcinoma in situ/Left Lobular Breast Cancer, Stage I, Grade I
  28. Bladder cancer/STAGE I Bladder Cancer
  29. Prostate cancer metastatic/Prostate Cancer with mets
  30. Tonsil cancer/tonsil cancer
  31. Non-small cell lung cancer stage III/Nonsmall cell lung carcinoma stage 3
  32. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell skin cancer (right side of nose)
  33. Breast cancer/breast cancer
  34. Pancreatic carcinoma/Pancreatic cancer
  35. Oropharyngeal cancer recurrent/Recurrence of Oropharyngeal Cancer, Left side
  36. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer
  37. Basal cell carcinoma/basal cell skin cancer-left lower leg
  38. Rectal cancer/Worsening of Rectal Cancer
  39. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer, Right Breast
  40. Adrenal gland cancer/ADRENAL ADENOCARCINOMA
  41. Non-small cell lung cancer stage IV/stage IV non-small cell lung cancer
  42. Prostate cancer/prostate cancer
  43. Hormone receptor positive breast cancer/Malignant neoplasm of upper-outer quadrant of right breast in female, estrogen receptor positive
  44. Thyroid cancer/Thyroid Cancer
  45. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell skin cancer- Right ear
  46. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer of Right Breast
  47. Breast cancer/Right Breast Cancer
  48. Bladder cancer/Bladder Cancer
  49. Breast cancer stage I/Breast Cancer, Stage 1
  50. Prostate cancer/Prostate adenocarcinoma
  51. Gastric cancer/Signetringcellgastriccarcinoma (SRCGC)
  52. Uterine cancer/Uterine Cancer
  53. Squamous cell carcinoma of skin/Squamous Cell Carcinoma to cheek
  54. Chronic myeloid leukaemia/chronic myelogenous leukemia
  55. Haemangioma of skin/NEOPLASM OF UNCERTAIN
  56. BEHAVIOR OF SKIN, LEFT EAR 2mm dark freckle or hemangioma
  57. Intraductal proliferative breast lesion/ductal carcinoma in situ, right breast
  58. Benign pancreatic neoplasm/Serious cystadenoma of Pancreas
  59. Plasma cell myeloma/IGA Kappa Multiple Myeloma
  60. Invasive ductal breast carcinoma/invasive ductal carcinoma stage 1B, left
  61. Adenocarcinoma gastric/INFILTRATING, POORLY DIFFERENTIATED ADENOCARCINOMA – STOMACH
  62. Malignant melanoma/Malignant Melanoma (etiology unknown)
  63. Transitional cell carcinoma/Urothelial Carcinoma
  64. B-cell lymphoma/B-Cell Lymphoma
  65. Malignant melanoma/right forearm melanoma
  66. Malignant melanoma/
  67. Pigmented ephitelioid melanoma of the vagina
  68. Invasive ductal breast carcinoma/Right breast invasive ductal carcinoma
  69. Metastases to central nervous system/Brain metastasis
  70. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma/Clear cell renal cell carcinoma
  71. Adenocarcinoma pancreas/pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
  72. Intraductal proliferative breast lesion/Right Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
  73. Squamous cell carcinoma/Squamous Cell Carcinoma R Ankle

Female-Specific Cancers

  1. Uterine cancer/Uterine Cancer
  2. Uterine cancer/Uterine Cancer
  3. Pigmented ephitelioid melanoma of the vagina

Male-Specific Cancers

  1. Prostate cancer/Prostate cancer
  2. Prostate cancer/Prostate Cancer (Gleason 8)
  3. Prostate cancer/Prostate Cancer
  4. Prostate cancer/Malignant Neoplasm of Prostate
  5. Prostate cancer/Prostate Cancer
  6. Prostate cancer/Prostate cancer-early stage
  7. Prostate cancer metastatic/Prostate Cancer with mets
  8. Prostate cancer/prostate cancer
  9. Prostate cancer/Prostate adenocarcinoma

Non-Gender Specific Cancers

  1. Breast cancer/Ductal carcinoma right Breast + Invasive ductal breast carcinoma/Ductal Carcinoma Left Breast + Metastases to lymph nodes/Right Axillary Metastases
  2. Breast cancer/breast cancer initial diagnosis
  3. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer
  4. Breast cancer/left breast carcinoma
  5. Breast cancer/LEFT BREAST CANCER
  6. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer (right breast)
  7. Breast cancer in situ/Stage 0 Breast Cancer Right Breast
  8. Breast cancer stage II/Stage II Breast Cancer (Left)
  9. Breast cancer/Right breast cancer
  10. Lobular breast carcinoma in situ/Left Lobular Breast Cancer, Stage I, Grade I
  11. Breast cancer/breast cancer
  12. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer
  13. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer, Right Breast
  14. Intraductal proliferative breast lesion/ductal carcinoma in situ, right breast
  15. Invasive ductal breast carcinoma/invasive ductal carcinoma stage 1B, left
  16. Invasive ductal breast carcinoma/Right breast invasive ductal carcinoma
  17. Intraductal proliferative breast lesion/Right Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Sit
  18. Malignant melanoma/ Malignant Melanoma (etiology unknown)
  19. Hormone receptor positive breast cancer/Malignant neoplasm of upper-outer quadrant of right breast in female, estrogen receptor positive
  20. Breast cancer/Breast Cancer of Right Breast
  21. Breast cancer/Right Breast Cancer
  22. Breast cancer stage I/Breast Cancer, Stage 1
  23. Lung cancer metastatic/Metastatic Lung cancer – fatal (onset 04DEC2020; death: 19JAN2021)
  24. Brain cancer metastatic/Metastatic Brain Tumor
  25. Papillary thyroid cancer/Suspected papillary thyroid carcinoma
  26. Hepatic cancer/liver cancer
  27. Biliary cancer metastatic/Biliary Cancer Metastatic + Metastases to liver/Metastases to Liver
  28. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell skin cancer (head)
  29. Skin cancer/sebaceous carcinoma of skin
  30. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell cancer
  31. Gallbladder cancer stage II/Gallbladder Cancer – Stage 2
  32. Pancreatic carcinoma metastatic/Metastatic pancreatic cancer
  33. Bladder cancer/STAGE I Bladder Cancer
  34. Tonsil cancer/tonsil cancer
  35. Non-small cell lung cancer stage III/Nonsmall cell lung carcinoma stage 3
  36. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell skin cancer (right side of nose)
  37. Pancreatic carcinoma/Pancreatic cancer
  38. Oropharyngeal cancer recurrent/Recurrence of Oropharyngeal Cancer, Left side
  39. Basal cell carcinoma/basal cell skin cancer-left lower leg
  40. Rectal cancer/Worsening of Rectal Cancer
  41. Adrenal gland cancer/ADRENAL ADENOCARCINOMA
  42. Non-small cell lung cancer stage IV/stage IV non-small cell lung cancer
  43. Thyroid cancer/Thyroid Cancer
  44. Basal cell carcinoma/Basal cell skin cancer- Right ear
  45. Bladder cancer/Bladder Cancer
  46. Gastric cancer/Signetringcellgastriccarcinoma (SRCGC)
  47. Squamous cell carcinoma of skin/Squamous Cell Carcinoma to cheek
  48. Chronic myeloid leukaemia/chronic myelogenous leukemia
  49. Haemangioma of skin/NEOPLASM OF UNCERTAIN
  50. BEHAVIOR OF SKIN, LEFT EAR 2mm dark freckle or hemangioma
  51. Benign pancreatic neoplasm/Serious cystadenoma of Pancreas
  52. Plasma cell myeloma/IGA Kappa Multiple Myeloma
  53. Adenocarcinoma gastric/INFILTRATING, POORLY DIFFERENTIATED ADENOCARCINOMA – STOMACH
  54. Malignant melanoma/Malignant Melanoma (etiology unknown)
  55. Transitional cell carcinoma/Urothelial Carcinoma
  56. B-cell lymphoma/B-Cell Lymphoma
  57. Malignant melanoma/right forearm melanoma
  58. Malignant melanoma/
  59. Metastases to central nervous system/Brain metastasis
  60. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma/Clear cell renal cell carcinoma
  61. Adenocarcinoma pancreas/pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
  62. Squamous cell carcinoma/Squamous Cell Carcinoma R Ankle

*

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page(NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

***

Starting January 2023, Harvard University is requiring all on-campus students to be vaccinated with the bivalent COVID-19 booster. 

In September statement, Harvard warned that

“[s]tudents must be compliant with all vaccine requirements in order to register for the spring term. This includes the annual flu shot as well as the bivalent Omicron-specific COVID-19 booster.”

In an October update to the university’s COVID-19 plan, the same policy was reiterated, this time with an instructional YouTube video featuring Suzanne Spreadbury, Dean of Academic Programs.

“Because I care about your health,” Spreadbury begins, holding her hands to her heart, “I want to walk you through the process for uploading your COVID-19 vaccination documentation if you plan to be on campus this upcoming semester.”

She continues,

“If you’re coming to campus, we are so excited to see you…Here is what you need to do within seven days of registering for a course with an on-campus presence. I know it’s fast, but you can do it.”

Once uploaded documentation is reviewed by a health services professional, it will be marked “as green, compliant, or red, not compliant,” Spreadbury emphasizes.

According to the CDC, the new booster is called “bivalent” because it “protect[s] against both the original virus that causes COVID-19 and the Omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5.”

“Previous boosters are called ‘monovalent’ because they were designed to protect against the original virus that causes COVID-19. They also provide some protection against Omicron, but not as much as the updated (bivalent) boosters,” it continues.

Harvard isn’t the only university imposing strict vaccine mandates on their students.

Campus Reform began reporting on which universities were mandating booster shots in late 2021, and has continued to follow school policies on the issue of vaccinations since.

This September, for example, Campus Reform reported on Susquehanna University’s double-standard for student and employee vaccination: While returning students were mandated to take the vaccine, it was only “strongly encouraged” for employees.

Campus Reform reached out to the Harvard University Health Services, Harvard’s media relations department, and Suzanne Spreadbury for comment. The article will update accordingly.

*

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.

Ava Sherwood Erculiani is a sophomore studying Biology and Political Science at Slippery Rock University. Where she is a student Senator as well as the president and founder of the American Conservation Coalition at Slippery Rock, a conservative environmentalist group.

Featured image is from Campus Reform


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page(NOTE: User-friendly)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Harvard Mandates New COVID-19 Booster, Threatens Holds on Enrollment If Students Don’t Comply

Austria Looks to Ban Oil and Coal Heaters from 2023

November 4th, 2022 by Michael Kern

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.

***

Austria’s government is looking to ban the use of new fossil fuel heaters as of next year and replace very old oil and coal heaters with climate-friendly options by 2025, Euractiv reports.

Austria, like the other EU countries, aims to cut its reliance on Russian gas as soon as possible. The government says that abandoning Russian gas should happen simultaneously with adopting renewable heat options.

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Austria received around 80% of the natural gas it consumed from Russia. As of August, this high dependence on Russian gas flows had dropped to below 50%, the government said.

The ban on new fossil fuel heaters, however, would need the approval of at least two-thirds of the Austrian Parliament because the draft bill would require amendments to the constitution, Euractiv’s Nikolaus Kurmayer notes.

“The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has shown how vulnerable our energy supply is. The answer to that can only be ‘get rid of Russian gas’,” Austria’s Energy and Climate Minister Leonore Gewessler said on Wednesday.

With the Renewable Heat Act (EWG), Austria is now taking another big step on this path, Gewessler added.

Under the new act, gas heaters cannot be installed in new buildings as of 2023, the minister said, adding that by 2040, Austria would switch all heaters in the country to climate-friendly alternatives, getting rid of oil and gas boilers, and moving to use heat pumps, district heating, or pellets.

Austria will support the proposed heaters switch program by making available around $1.95 billion (2 billion euros) by 2026, the minister said.

The Renewable Heat Act (Erneuerbaren-Wärme-Gesetz, EWG) says that fossil-fuel heating such as coal, oil, and gas heating should be phased out in Austria by 2040.

Presenting the initial draft of the bill, minister Gewessler said earlier this year that heating currently accounts for around one-quarter of Austria’s gas consumption.

*

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

Michael Kern is a newswriter and editor at Safehaven.com and Oilprice.com.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Austria Looks to Ban Oil and Coal Heaters from 2023
  • Tags: ,

United Nations Votes to Condemn US Blockade by 185 to 2

November 4th, 2022 by Cuba Solidarity Campaign

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 United Nations General Assembly has voted for the 30th year to condemn the US blockade and in support for Cuba’s resolution calling for an end to the US governments unilateral sanctions against the country which have been in place for over 60 years.

The vote was 185:2 in favour of the Cuban motion with the US and Israel voting against and Brazil and Ukraine abstaining.

Speaker after speaker addressed the UNGA to condemn the US sanctions, Cuba’s continued inclusion on the US ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism List’, and to praise the island’s internationalism.

Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, Nerys Dockery, said that as her country’s youngest and first female representative says she owes her ability to deliver her speech to Cuba. Only five months ago she was facing losing her right eye, she said, but it was saved by a Cuban optician. She asked

“what justifies Cuba, a small Caribbean nation, which has such a disproportionately positive impact on the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, and whose internationalism and humanitarianism has saved, impacted and empowered so many human lives. What justifies it continuing to be burdened and limited by an outdated embargo.”

The Peruvian representative said,

“Any measure that leads to adverse humanitarian consequences on the population by any state must be suspended immediately. The blockade violates the right to life and health of all the Cuban people.”

Closing his speech the Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez appealed:

“Let Cuba live in peace. Cuba would be better off without the blockade. Every Cuban family would be better off without the blockade. The US would be better off without the blockade.”

*

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 Cuba Solidarity Campaign

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

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

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

***

Germany has become an economic satellite of America’s New Cold War with Russia, China and the rest of Eurasia. Germany and other NATO countries have been told to impose trade and investment sanctions upon themselves that will outlast today’s proxy war in Ukraine. U.S. President Biden and his State Department spokesmen have explained that Ukraine is just the opening arena in a much broader dynamic that is splitting the world into two opposing sets of economic alliances. This global fracture promises to be a ten- or twenty-year struggle to determine whether the world economy will be a unipolar U.S.-centered dollarized economy, or a multipolar, multi-currency world centered on the Eurasian heartland with mixed public/private economies.

President Biden has characterized this split as being between democracies and autocracies. The terminology is typical Orwellian double-speak. By “democracies” he means the U.S. and allied Western financial oligarchies. Their aim is to shift economic planning out of the hands of elected governments to Wall Street and other financial centers under U.S. control. U.S. diplomats use the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to demand privatization of the world’s infrastructure and dependency on U.S. technology, oil and food exports.

By “autocracy,” Biden means countries resisting this financialization and privatization takeover. In practice, U.S. rhetoric means promoting its own economic growth and living standards, keeping finance and banking as public utilities. What basically is a issue is whether economies will be planned by banking centers to create financial wealth – by privatizing basic infrastructure, public utilities and social services such as health care into monopolies – or by raising living standards and prosperity by keeping banking and money creation, public health, education, transportation and communications in public hands.

The country suffering the most “collateral damage” in this global fracture is Germany. As Europe’s most advanced industrial economy, Germany steel, chemicals, machinery, automotives and other consumer goods are the most highly dependent on imports of Russian gas, oil and metals from aluminum to titanium and palladium. Yet despite two Nord Stream pipelines built to provide Germany with low-priced energy, Germany has been told to cut itself off from Russian gas and de-industrialize. This means the end of its economic preeminence. The key to GDP growth in Germany, as in other countries, is energy consumption per worker.

Image is from PressTV

These anti-Russian sanctions make today’s New Cold War inherently anti-German. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said that Germany should replace low-priced Russian pipeline gas with high-priced U.S. LNG gas. To import this gas, Germany will have to spend over $5 billion quickly to build port capacity to handle LNG tankers. The effect will be to make German industry uncompetitive. Bankruptcies will spread, employment will decline, and Germany’s pro-NATO leaders will impose a chronic depression and falling living standards.

Most political theory assumes that nations will act in their own self-interest. Otherwise they are satellite countries, not in control of their own fate. Germany is subordinating its industry and living standards to the dictates of U.S. diplomacy and the self-interest of America’s oil and gas sector. It is doing this voluntarily – not because of military force but out of an ideological belief that the world economy should be run by U.S. Cold War planners.

Sometimes it is easier to understand today’s dynamics by stepping away from one’s own immediate situation to look at historical examples of the kind of political diplomacy that one sees splitting today’s world. The closest parallel that I can find is medieval Europe’s fight by the Roman papacy against German kings – the Holy Roman Emperors – in the 13th century. That conflict split Europe along lines much like those of today. A series of popes excommunicated Frederick II and other German kings and mobilized allies to fight against Germany and its control of southern Italy and Sicily.

Western antagonism against the East was incited by the Crusades (1095-1291), just as today’s Cold War is a crusade against economies threatening U.S. dominance of the world. The medieval war against Germany was over who should control Christian Europe: the papacy, with the popes becoming worldly emperors, or secular rulers of individual kingdoms by claiming the power to morally legitimize and accept them.

Medieval Europe’s analogue to America’s New Cold War against China and Russia was the Great Schism in 1054. Demanding unipolar control over Christendom, Leo IX excommunicated the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and the entire Christian population that belonged to it. A single bishopric, Rome, cut itself off from the entire Christian world of the time, including the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

This break-away created a political problem for Roman diplomacy: How to hold all the Western European kingdoms under its control and claim the right for financial subsidy from them. That aim required subordinating secular kings to papal religious authority. In 1074, Gregory VII, Hildebrand, announced 27 Papal Dictates outlining the administrative strategy for Rome to lock in its power over Europe.

These papal demands are strikingly parallel to today’s U.S. diplomacy. In both cases military and worldly interests require a sublimation in the form of an ideological crusading spirit to cement the sense of solidarity that any system of imperial domination requires. The logic is timeless and universal.

The Papal Dictates were radical in two major ways. First of all, they elevated the bishop of Rome above all other bishoprics, creating the modern papacy. Clause 3 ruled that the pope alone had the power of investiture to appoint bishops or to depose or reinstate them. Reinforcing this, Clause 25 gave the right of appointing (or deposing) bishops to the pope, not to local rulers. And Clause 12 gave the pope the right to depose emperors, following Clause 9, obliging “all princes to kiss the feet of the Pope alone” in order to be deemed legitimate rulers.

Likewise today, U.S. diplomats claim the right to name who should be recognized as a nation’s head of state. In 1953 they overthrew Iran’s elected leader and replaced him with the Shah’s military dictatorship. That principle gives U.S. diplomats the right to sponsor “color revolutions” for regime-change, such as their sponsorship of Latin American military dictatorships creating client oligarchies to serve U.S. corporate and financial interests. The 2014 coup in Ukraine and selection is just the latest exercise of this U.S. right to appoint and depose leaders.

Image is from Club Orlov

More recently, U.S. diplomats have appointed Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s head of state instead of its elected president, and turned over that country’s gold reserves to him. President Biden has insisted that Russia must remove Putin and put a more pro-U.S. leader in his place. This “right” to select heads of state has been a constant in U.S. policy spanning its long history of political meddling in European political affairs since World War II.

The second radical feature of the Papal Dictates was their exclusion of all ideology and policy that diverged from papal authority. Clause 2 stated that only the Pope could be called “Universal.” Any disagreement was, by definition, heretical. Clause 17 stated that no chapter or book could be considered canonical without papal authority.

A similar demand as is being made by today’s U.S.-sponsored ideology of financialized and privatized “free markets,” meaning deregulation of government power to shape economies in interests other than those of U.S.-centered financial and corporate elites.

The demand for universality in today’s New Cold War is cloaked in the language of “democracy.” But the definition of democracy in today’s New Cold War is simply “pro-U.S.,” and specifically neoliberal privatization as the U.S.-sponsored new economic religion. This ethic is deemed to be “science,” as in the quasi-Nobel Memorial Prize in the Economic Sciences. That is the modern euphemism for neoliberal Chicago-School junk economics, IMF austerity programs and tax favoritism for the wealthy.

The Papal Dictates spelt out a strategy for locking in unipolar control over secular realms. They asserted papal precedence over worldly kings, above all over Germany’s Holy Roman Emperors. Clause 26 gave popes authority to excommunicate whomever was “not at peace with the Roman Church.” That principle implied the concluding Claus 27, enabling the pope to “absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.” This encouraged the medieval version of “color revolutions” to bring about regime change.

What united countries in this solidarity was an antagonism to societies not subject to centralized papal control – the Moslem Infidels who held Jerusalem, and also the French Cathars and anyone else deemed to be a heretic. Above all there was hostility toward regions strong enough to resist papal demands for financial tribute.

Today’s counterpart to such ideological power to excommunicate heretics resisting demands for obedience and tribute would be the World Trade Organization, World Bank and IMF dictating economic practices and setting “conditionalities” for all member governments to follow, on pain of U.S. sanctions – the modern version of excommunication of countries not accepting U.S. suzerainty. Clause 19 of the Dictates ruled that the pope could be judged by no one – just as today, the United States refuses to subject its actions to rulings by the World Court. Likewise today, U.S. dictates via NATO and other arms (such as the IMF and World Bank) are expected to be followed by U.S. satellites without question. As Margaret Thatcher said of her neoliberal privatization that destroyed Britain’s public sector, There Is No Alternative (TINA).

My point is to emphasize the analogy with today’s U.S. sanctions against all countries not following its own diplomatic demands. Trade sanctions are a form of excommunication. They reverse the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia’s principle that made each country and its rulers independent from foreign meddling. President Biden characterizes U.S. interference as ensuring his new antithesis between “democracy” and “autocracy.” By democracy he means a client oligarchy under U.S. control, creating financial wealth by reducing living standards for labor, as opposed to mixed public/private economies aiming at promoting living standards and social solidarity.

As I have mentioned, by excommunicating the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and its Christian population, the Great Schism created the fateful religious dividing line that has split “the West” from the East for the past millennium. That split was so important that Vladimir Putin cited it as part of his September 30, 2022 speech describing today’s break away from the U.S. and NATO centered Western economies.

The 12th and 13th centuries saw Norman conquerors of England, France and other countries, along with German kings, protest repeatedly, be excommunicated repeatedly, yet ultimately succumb to papal demands. It took until the 16th century for Martin Luther, Zwingli and Henry VIII finally to create a Protestant alternative to Rome, making Western Christianity multi-polar.

Why did it take so long? The answer is that the Crusades provided an organizing ideological gravity. That was the medieval analogy to today’s New Cold War between East and West. The Crusades created a spiritual focus of “moral reform” by mobilizing hatred against “the other” – the Moslem East, and increasingly Jews and European Christian dissenters from Roman control. That was the medieval analogy to today’s neoliberal “free market” doctrines of America’s financial oligarchy and its hostility to China, Russia and other nations not following that ideology. In today’s New Cold War, the West’s neoliberal ideology is mobilizing fear and hatred of “the other,” demonizing nations that follow an independent path as “autocratic regimes.” Outright racism is fostered toward entire peoples, as evident in the Russophobia and Cancel Culture currently sweeping the West.

Just as Western Christianity’s multi-polar transition required the 16th century’s Protestant alternative, the Eurasian heartland’s break from the bank-centered NATO West must be consolidated by an alternative ideology regarding how to organize mixed public/private economies and their financial infrastructure.

Medieval churches in the West were drained of their alms and endowments to contribute Peter’s Pence and other subsidy to the papacy for the wars it was fighting against rulers who resisted papal demands. England played the role of major victim that Germany plays today. Enormous English taxes were levied ostensibly to finance the Crusades were diverted to fight Frederick II, Conrad and Manfred in Sicily. That diversion was financed by papal bankers from northern Italy (Lombards and Cahorsins), and became royal debts passed down throughout the economy. England’s barons waged a civil war against Henry II in the 1260s, ending his complicity in sacrificing the economy to papal demands.

What ended the papacy’s power over other countries was the ending of its war against the East. When the Crusaders lost Acre, the capital of Jerusalem in 1291, the papacy lost its control over Christendom. There was no more “evil” to fight, and the “good” had lost its center of gravity and coherence. In 1307, France’s Philip IV (“the Fair”) seized the Church’s great military banking order’s wealth, that of the Templars in the Paris Temple. Other rulers also nationalized the Templars, and monetary systems were taken out of the hands of the Church. Without a common enemy defined and mobilized by Rome, the papacy lost its unipolar ideological power over Western Europe.

The modern equivalent to the rejection of the Templars and papal finance would be for countries to withdraw from America’s New Cold War. They would reject the dollar standard and the U.S. banking and financial system. that is happening as more and more countries see Russia and China not as adversaries but as presenting great opportunities for mutual economic advantage.

The broken promise of mutual gain between Germany and Russia

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 promised an end to the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact was disbanded, Germany was reunified, and American diplomats promised an end to NATO, because a Soviet military threat no longer existed. Russian leaders indulged in the hope that, as President Putin expressed it, a new pan-European economy would be created from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Germany in particular was expected to take the lead in investing in Russia and restructuring its industry along more efficient lines. Russia would pay for this technology transfer by supplying gas and oil, along with nickel, aluminum, titanium and palladium.

There was no anticipation that NATO would be expanded to threaten a New Cold War, much less that it would back Ukraine, recognized as the most corrupt kleptocracy in Europe, into being led by extremist parties identifying themselves by German Nazi insignia.

How do we explain why the seemingly logical potential of mutual gain between Western Europe and the former Soviet economies turned into a sponsorship of oligarchic kleptocracies. The Nord Stream pipeline’s destruction capsulizes the dynamics in a nutshell. For almost a decade a constant U.S. demand has been for Germany to reject its reliance on Russian energy. These demands were opposed by Gerhardt Schroeder, Angela Merkel and German business leaders. They pointed to the obvious economic logic of mutual trade of German manufactures for Russian raw materials.

Image is from InfoBrics

The U.S. problem was how to stop Germany from approving the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Victoria Nuland, President Biden and other U.S. diplomats demonstrated that the way to do that was to incite a hatred of Russia. The New Cold War was framed as a new Crusade. That was how George W. Bush had described America’s attack on Iraq to seize its oil wells. The U.S.-sponsored 2014 coup created a puppet Ukrainian regime that has spent eight years bombing of the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces. NATO thus incited a Russian military response. The incitement was successful, and the desired Russian response was duly labeled an unprovoked atrocity. Its protection of civilians was depicted in the NATO-sponsored media as being so offensive as to deserve the trade and investment sanctions that have been imposed since February. That is what a Crusade means.

The result is that the world is splitting in two camps: the U.S.-centered NATO, and the emerging Eurasian coalition. One byproduct of this dynamic has been to leave Germany unable to pursue the economic policy of mutually advantageous trade and investment relations with Russia (and perhaps also China). German Chancellor Olaf Sholz is going to China this week to demand that it dismantle is public sector and stops subsidizing its economy, or else Germany and Europe will impose sanctions on trade with China. There is no way that China could meet this ridiculous demand, any more than the United States or any other industrial economy would stop subsidizing their own computer-chip and other key sectors.1 The German Council on Foreign Relations is a neoliberal “libertarian” arm of NATO demanding German de-industrialization and dependency on the United States for its trade, not China, Russia or their allies. This promises to be the final nail in Germany’s economic coffin.

Another byproduct o America’s New Cold War has been to end any international plan to stem global warming. A keystone of U.S. economic diplomacy is for its oil companies and those of its NATO allies to control the world’s oil and gas supply – that is, to reduce dependence on carbon-based fuels. That is what the NATO war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine was about. It is not as abstract as “Democracies vs. Autocracies.” It is about the U.S. ability to harm other countries by disrupting their access to energy and other basic needs.

Without the New Cold War’s “good vs. evil” narrative, U.S. sanctions will lose their raison d’etre in this U.S. attack on environmental protection, and on mutual trade between Western Europe and Russia and China. That is the context for today’s fight in Ukraine, which is to be merely the first step in the anticipated 20 year fight by the US to prevent the world from becoming multipolar. This process, will lock Germany and Europe into dependence on the U.S. supplies of LNG.

The trick is to try and convince Germany that it is dependent on the United States for its military security. What Germany really needs protection from is the U.S. war against China and Russia that is marginalizing and “Ukrainianizing” Europe.

There have been no calls by Western governments for a negotiated end to this war, because no war has been declared in Ukraine. The United States does not declare war anywhere, because that would require a Congressional declaration under the U.S. Constitution. So U.S. and NATO armies bomb, organize color revolutions, meddle in domestic politics (rendering the 1648 Westphalia agreements obsolete), and impose the sanctions that are tearing Germany and its European neighbors apart.

How can negotiations “end” a war that either has no declaration of war, and is a long-term strategy of total unipolar world domination?

The answer is that no ending can come until an alternative to the present U.S.-centered set of international institutions is replaced. That requires the creation of new institutions reflecting an alternative to the neoliberal bank-centered view that economies should be privatized with central planning by financial centers. Rosa Luxemburg characterized the choice as being between socialism and barbarism. I have sketched out the political dynamics of an alternative in my recent book, The Destiny of Civilization.

*

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 Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of Killing the Host (published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet). His new book is J is For Junk Economics.

Note

1 See Guntram Wolff, “Sholz should send an explicit message on his visit to Beijing,” Financial Times, October 31, 2022. Wolff is the director and CE of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Featured image: U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Robert J. Horstman

Lessons from the Rise of Mussolini, 100 Years On

November 4th, 2022 by Luca Tavan

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.

***

One hundred years ago, in October 1922, Benito Mussolini’s paramilitary blackshirts marched on the Italian capital to demand the dissolution of the government of Prime Minister Luigi Facta. The March on Rome is the foundational myth of fascist power. Through this daring act, so the story goes, the strongman Mussolini installed himself as head of the Italian government.

Yet the march itself was a farce. Mussolini’s fascist forces numbered only a few thousand and, armed mostly with sticks, were scattered and bogged down in mud and rain. They were vastly outnumbered and outgunned by government troops in the capital. And Mussolini, the “man on horseback” himself, hid in a barricaded office near the Swiss border.

Despite the obvious weakness of the fascists, the government mounted only symbolic resistance to the coup. “Everybody knew perfectly well that the troops would refuse to take any forcible action whatever against the Fascisti, with whom they were in sympathy”, the British ambassador observed. Less than 24 hours later, King Victor Emanuele appointed Mussolini prime minister. When the new dictator’s troops finally reached Rome, they entered in a victory parade.

For all the theatrics of the March on Rome, Mussolini didn’t take power against the will of the ruling class, but with its blessing. The fascists’ road to power was paved by tolerance, the outright collaboration of the police and politicians, and lavish financial backing from industrialists. The Italian ruling class welcomed Mussolini because its members viewed the fascists as a solution to several years of crisis and class struggle that had put in question their own rule.

The First World War had turned the country into a tinderbox. Nearly 6 million Italians had been drafted, 600,000 killed and 700,000 permanently disabled. Peasant conscripts returned from the fronts radicalised. Factory workers chafed against the establishment of martial law in their workplaces. The 1917 Russian Revolution provided radicalising workers with a practical example to follow: topple the capitalist system to end the barbarity of war. During the movement’s height, the Biennio Rosso (Two Red Years) of 1919-20, workers launched a decisive struggle to wrest control over Italy from the ruling class. At the same time, peasants seized the land and began forcing massive concessions from large landowners. Civil war seemed imminent.

The social crisis also produced the right-wing radicalisation that gave birth to fascism. Benito Mussolini, a prominent figure in the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), shocked his comrades by declaring in favour of the country’s entry into the war. A meeting of PSI members drove Mussolini out, spitting on him and calling him a traitor.

In November 1914, Mussolini founded a new right-wing daily newspaper, Il Popolo d’Italia (The People of Italy), with the backing of Italian industrialists and French imperialism. In these pages, his new ideas took form. Il Popolo trumpeted support for the war and hostility to all forces, such as the socialist movement, that had the potential to disrupt it. Mussolini quickly began drawing the conclusion that democracy itself was holding the country back from achieving its destiny—he would eventually describe fascism as “supreme anti-democracy”.

The movement was a new form of reactionary politics. Instead of relying on sections of the ruling class and state, Mussolini created a mass popular movement in defence of the capitalist order. Fascism’s method was political violence; its ultimate objective was, as Russian Marxist Leon Trotsky described, “to smash the working class, destroy its organisations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery”. Mussolini brought together different disaffected layers of society to this end: bitter war-hardened veterans, middle-class youth who revelled in political violence and the despairing long-term unemployed. The project won him support from British government agents, who sponsored the fascist movement after Mussolini explained: “I will mobilise the mutilati [disabled ex-soldiers] in Milan, and they will break the heads of any pacifists who try to hold anti-war meetings in the streets”.

In April 1919, the fascists launched their first major attack on the left, burning down the headquarters of the Socialist daily newspaper Avanti! (Forward!). Police stood aside as the fascist gang murdered three socialists. But while the workers’ and peasants’ movements were still on the offensive, and Italy was caught in “strike frenzy”, the fascists were hesitant to confront the workers’ movement in its metropolitan centres of power in the industrial north. They instead built their base in rural areas, such as the Po Valley, where landowners hired them to terrorise peasant organisations.

The wave of struggle reached its peak in September 1920, when half a million armed workers in the industrial north occupied their factories. Many workers saw this as the final struggle to expropriate their bosses and begin the construction of a socialist society. Speaking at a workers’ occupation of FIAT (the Italian Automobiles Factory of Turin), Antonio Gramsci, a revolutionary Marxist, underlined the historic nature of the events: “Social hierarchies have been smashed and historical values turned upside down”. The head of FIAT was so despondent that he offered to hand his factories over to the workers.

But the Italian Socialist Party blinked at the opportunity to lead a struggle for power. Its leadership was paralysed by divisions between revolutionaries who wanted to topple the capitalist system and reformists who wanted a share of power within it. In the end, they compromised with the bosses, extracting a few concessions and agreeing to end the occupations.

While the September factory struggles formally ended in a stalemate, the capitalists immediately sought revenge on the workers’ movement. As the French anarchist Daniel Guérin wrote, they “felt the chill of expropriation pass over them” and wasted no time re-establishing their dominance. In early 1921, unemployment rose dramatically and the strike rate plummeted. Capitalists banded together in new industrial and agricultural federations to coordinate their assault. They also started to give serious backing to the fascist movement. In spring, Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti endorsed fascist candidates as part of a national bloc, helping 30 of them get elected. Large amounts of money began flowing to Mussolini’s organisation.

The fascists were carrying out an orgy of violence against the left. In six months, they ransacked 119 trades council branches, 107 cooperatives, 100 workers’ cultural centres and 28 union branches. Dozens of left-wing militants were murdered. The state rapidly ceded power to the blackshirts—as they marched through town after town, military arsenals were handed to them.

Given the profound threat that fascist violence posed to the organisations of the workers’ movement, it is remarkable that neither of the main left parties waged a consistent fight against Mussolini’s gangs.

The Italian Communist Party (PCI) was formed at the beginning of 1921 by activists repulsed by the Socialist Party’s repeated betrayals. The undisputed head of the PCI was Amadeo Bordiga, an energetic and charismatic revolutionary who had organised the opposition to the Socialist Party’s reformist leadership. Bordiga rightly condemned the electoral obsession of the Socialist Party, which subordinated workers’ struggle to winning seats in parliament. But he went too far, dismissing any distinction between capitalist democracy and fascist dictatorship, and systematically underplaying the threat fascists posed to democratic rights, arguing that they would be no different to any other capitalist government:

“Fascism incorporates the counter-revolutionary struggle of all the allied bourgeois forces, and, for this reason, it is by no means necessarily compelled to destroy the democratic institutions. From our Marxist point of view, this situation is by no means paradoxical, because we know that the democratic system is only a collection of deceptive guarantees, behind which the ruling class conducts its battle against the working class.”

At other times, he implied that the victory of fascist dictatorship would actually be an advance for the workers’ movement because it would destroy illusions in capitalist democracy. “So the fascists want to burn down the parliamentary circus? We’d love to see the day”, he wrote in July 1922, just months before Mussolini’s victory. “The main danger is, and remains, that everyone agrees that the apple cart isn’t overturned, and that a legal and parliamentary solution is found.” This perspective ignored the fact that democratic rights are vital for the workers’ movement. The right to form unions and political organisations, which are the basis for developing workers’ social power, was precisely what the fascists wanted to destroy.

The response of the Socialist Party, which still commanded the loyalty of most organised workers, was equally dismal. It was still divided between “maximalists” who mouthed revolutionary rhetoric, and reformist parliamentarians and union leaders. The reformists set the tone of the party’s response to fascism, arguing that the institutions of the capitalist state would defend democracy and protect the working class from fascist attacks. Reformist leader Giacomo Matteotti spoke in parliament urging passivity: “Stay home! Do not respond to provocations. Even silence, even cowardice, are sometimes heroic”.

There was, however, one popular organisation that understood the need to unite masses of people in practical resistance to the physical threat of fascism: the Arditi del Popolo (The People’s Daring Ones). This organisation arose out of associations of the war veterans, who had returned to Italy from the front deeply politically polarised. While some joined the fascists, many turned to the left, and pledged to use their military experience to obstruct the advance of the blackshirts.

In July 1921, the organisation held its first national rally in Rome. Three thousand armed Arditi led a march of 50,000 striking workers from different political and union organisations. The demonstration called for the disarming of the fascists. In August 1922, they repelled an armed attack by 20,000 fascists on the left-wing stronghold of Parma. As an Arditi leader later recalled:

“Working-class people took to the streets—as bold as the waters of a river which is bursting its banks. With their shovels, pick-axes, iron bars and all sorts of tools, they helped the Arditi del Popolo to dig up the cobblestones and tram tracks, to dig trenches, and to erect barricades using carts, benches, timber, iron girders and anything else they could get their hands on. Men, women, old people, young people from all parties and from no party at all were all there, united in a single iron will: resist and fight.”

Just ten weeks after his forces were defeated in Parma, however, Mussolini was in power. He later admitted that, had the tactics used by the left in Parma been replicated across the country, the success of his movement would have been thrown into question.

Despite its initial strength, the Arditi del Popolo was quickly isolated. This was primarily because the main workers’ parties disgracefully abandoned it. While many rank-and-file Communist Party members naturally understood the importance of defending democratic rights, and gravitated toward the Arditi, the party leaders around Bordiga had other ideas. They declared: “We can only deplore the fact that Communists have been in contact with the people in Rome who initiated the Arditi del Popolo, offering to work with them and follow their instructions. If such actions are repeated, the most severe measures will be taken”.

Bordiga had a sterile and sectarian approach to revolutionary politics. Rather than attempting to convince masses of workers of the necessity of revolution by fighting alongside them, he believed it was necessary to build a party of the “pure and hard” that strictly separated itself from every other institution and waited patiently for the masses to come and join it.

The PSI, on the other hand, clung to the idea that appealing to “legality” would save it, and signed a disgusting “peace pact” with Mussolini. This meant disavowing any support for the actions of the Arditi. Ultimately, the tragedy of Mussolini’s rise is not only that the working class was defeated, but that it was beaten without a real fight. There was no lack of will to confront the barbarity of the fascists, but workers were misled and disoriented by the leaders of their organisations.

The ruling class thought that it could use the fascists as a battering ram against the workers’ movement, and then incorporate them into the political system. The Liberal prime minister believed that, in power, Mussolini would behave like any other conservative politician. But Mussolini’s project radicalised as he consolidated control over the state. Political assassinations of socialists and other dissenters increased. Within three years, Mussolini had banned all political opposition, dissolved the trade unions and consolidated the world’s first fascist regime.

A century on from the March on Rome, new fascist and far-right forces are assembling. Again, the global ruling classes are showing that they are perfectly willing to deal with them as long as it’s good for business. The red carpet has been rolled out for Giorgia Meloni, a fascist Mussolini admirer, to form a new government in Italy. Far-right regimes have been normalised from India to Brazil.

The experience of Mussolini’s rise holds important lessons for socialists. Perhaps the greatest lesson, obscured by most conventional accounts of the March on Rome, is that Mussolini could have been stopped. Had the workers’ movement been united to confront the fascists, as it did in Parma, one of the darkest and most brutal chapters of European history might have been avoided.

*

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.

A Biden-Putin Meeting in Bali Cannot be Ruled Out

November 4th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

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

***

The Russian-American summit meetings have a history of calibrated foreplay. As the G20 summit in Bali on November 15-16 draws closer, the big question is still hanging in the air: Will there be a meeting between the US President Joe Biden and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the event? 

From the look of it, a meeting cannot be ruled out. It increasingly seems that the scheduling of such a meeting may even be  under discussion between Washington and Moscow.   

On Wednesday afternoon, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow that Putin had a call with Indonesian President Joko Widodo (who is hosting the G20 summit.) 

Parrying questions, Peskov cryptically added that “we are currently working on a statement” and declined to answer if Putin and Widodo had discussed the Russian president’s possible participation in the G20 summit. Instead, he simply told reporters to wait for an official statement on the phone call. 

The Russian-American meetings at the highest level are customarily announced simultaneously in the two capitals. The delay in the release of the statement that Peskov referred to can only be taken to mean that consultations are still going on. 

A readout drafted by a Kremlin official would have served the purpose in the normal course on the phone conversation between Putin and Widodo, but in this case, there has been an undue delay while a statement is still under preparation. Given the state of relations between the US and Russia, a unilateral announcement of a Biden-Putin meeting by either side is simply inconceivable. 

Then there are discernible signs that both sides are striving to lower the tensions as much as they can so as to create a “cordial” enough atmosphere. Thus, from the American side, the White House spokesman John Kirby went on record yesterday to categorically state that the US does not see any signs that Russia is making preparations to use nuclear weapons. 

From the Russian side too, it is apparent that Moscow has virtually ignored the media leaks in the US that American military personnel are on Ukrainian soil on a mission to audit the weaponry given to Kiev to fight the war with the Russian forces. The US has a record of staying put in foreign countries and Moscow is in all likelihood conscious of that. Yet, it is keeping mum. 

Again, on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Ministry issued an important statement proposing out of the blue that the atomic powers should “demonstrate in practice” their own commitment to the principle that a nuclear war can never be won and should never be fought as well as “abandon dangerous attempts to infringe on each other’s vital interests, balancing on the brink of direct armed conflict and encouraging provocations with WMD, which can lead to catastrophic consequences.” 

The statement reaffirmed categorically that “Use of nuclear weapons by Russia is hypothetically allowed only in response to aggression carried out with the use of WMDs, or aggression with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.” 

Interestingly, the IAEA inspectors on a mission to Ukraine have given a clean chit to Kiev on Wednesday regrading the latter’s “undeclared nuclear activities and materials.” This followed Moscow’s recent allegation that Kiev was working on a “dirty bomb.” 

Clearly, there will be no need now for Biden and Putin to squander away their time discussing the spectre of Armageddon if they meet in Bali.

Today, again, Moscow and Kiev conducted a second major prisoner swap in under a week. 

Meanwhile, Russia has returned to the UN-brokered grain deal to facilitate the transportation of Ukraine’s produce to the world market. Of course, this followed written guarantee from Kiev that the humanitarian corridor will not be used for military purposes. Foreign Minister Lavrov, in turn, expressed appreciation that such an assurance has been held out by Kiev. 

Neither Moscow nor Washington has shown any inclination to dial up tensions over the Russian allegation regarding the involvement of British intelligence in the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines and the drone attack on the Russian naval base at Sevastopol. 

Curiously, Washington has been somewhat indifferent washing its hands off the entire unsavoury episode involving Britain, while the Russian demarche with the UK ambassador today suggested good behaviour by the British intelligence in future and hinted at a desire to move on. Indeed, Russia is not contemplating any retaliation against the UK. 

Quite obviously, if a Biden-Putin meeting indeed takes place, the discussion will be largely devoted to the Ukraine situation. Significantly, the deputy head of the Russian presidential administration Magomedsalam Magomedov said today at a public function in Moscow that Putin’s decision to launch the special military operation in Ukraine was not an easy one but he had no other choice given existing dangers.  

That said, if a meeting between Biden and Putin were to take place, that would create a piquant situation insofar as the stated American position all along has been that the US will not discuss Ukraine with Russia without President Zelensky’s participation. 

However, on his part, Zelensky said today that Ukraine will not participate in the upcoming G20 summit if Putin also attends the event. He sounded wary of being left out. One possible way out of the labyrinth would be that Putin also meets Zelensky at Bali. Perhaps, that is precisely what the wily TV actor himself has in mind.  

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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

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

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

***

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has voted down a Russian proposal to establish a commission to investigate claims of a joint US-Ukraine “military biological” program.

Going back to at least March, Moscow has alleged Ukrainian biolabs have been studying and stockpiling deadly pathogens like anthrax and cholera at US-sponsored labs, saying further this is a violation of the 1972 international convention on biological weapons.

At Wednesday’s security council vote, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said the United States and its ally the Ukrainian government have been “through Russia’s allegations in Geneva, point by point, and debunked every single one.”

US, Britain, and France voted against Russia’s proposal – but crucially China backed it, while ten rotating council members abstained, among the 15-nation body.

“The United States does not have a biological weapons program. There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories supported by the United States,” Thomas-Greenfield countered.

Instead of military biolabs, Washington has presented the following narrative on its program in Ukraine:

During a series of U.N. meetings prompted by the Russian allegations, the U.S. has described the non-military biological labs it has supported in Ukraine since the 1990’s, including one called the “Biological Threat Reduction Program” that was created to disassemble the former Soviet Union’s programs, to “reduce legacy threats from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons left in the Soviet Union’s successor states.”

One key facility that Russian allegations have long focused on remains the Virology Reference Laboratory in Kiev. The lab says they get regularly inspected by a World Health Organization team, and further that after the Russian invasion started, and bombs started falling, they destroyed “particularly dangerous biological strains they had in storage,” according to the lab’s director as quoted in CBS.

Russia and China have pointed out that Congressional testimony from earlier in the war by US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland was particularly damning and is confirmation that US-backed research into deadly pathogens at Ukrainian facilities was happening.

As for China, during the same month that Nuland gave her testimony (in March), Beijing demanded that the Biden administration “give a full account of its biological military activities at home and abroad and subject itself to multilateral verification.”

In response, the US has consistently rejected the allegations as a “conspiracy theory” with US officials meeting with Chinese counterparts in Rome at a previous bilateral meeting being “shocked” at the assertions.

*

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: Stepnogorsk biological weapons complex in Kazakhstan. Image: US via Department of 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.

***

Whichever of these three courses of action they choose to go through with, there’s no denying that the strategic inertia is decisively against The Establishment’s elite echelons, who already lost their Hybrid War/Fifth Generational War (5GW) against the Pakistani people. They can either go with the flow by finally allowing the masses to democratically choose their leader, or temporarily delay this inevitability by continuing to conspire against them or even literally risking a civil conflict by directly attacking them.

State-Sponsored Threats

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, who was ousted through a US-orchestrated post-modern coup in early spring as punishment for his independent foreign policy, narrowly survived an assassination attempt on Thursday. He was leading his promised Long March from Lahore to Islamabad along with thousands of his supporters to demand free and fair elections as early as possible. Prior to the former premier setting off, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah threatened to “hang him upside down.”

Defaming The Former Premier

It’s little wonder then that the most popular political figure in Pakistan, whose party continues to sweep every by-election that they’ve participated in since April, blamed Sanaullah, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Chief of ISI’s Counter-Intelligence Major General Faisal Naseer for trying to kill him. The first already telegraphed his intentions in the prior example and others, the second has an obvious stake in stopping his opponent, and the third was evidently ordered to carry out this dirty deed.

Outside observers might wonder why the head of the country’s counter-intelligence would be tasked with this but it actually makes sense from the perspective through which The Establishment – which is Pakistani parlance for this state’s powerful military-intelligence services – regards the former premier. The weaponized information warfare narrative that its elite echelons have encouraged their media and political proxies to gaslight the public into believing over the past half-year is that he’s a “terrorist”.

After all, Imran Khan was ridiculously charged under the country’s “Anti-Terrorism Act” after announcing his intent to file court cases against those officials who he alleged had abused one of his top aides in custody. The Establishment’s elite echelons have attempted to frame the former premier as a so-called “anti-state extremist” who’s allegedly conspiring to “incite mutiny” and is “defaming” state institutions. These lies were invented simply because he’s actively seeks to reverse this spring’s regime change.

From Fake News To A Failed Assassination

To be absolutely clear, Imran Khan envisages doing this through purely peaceful and political means connected to his country’s constitutional processes, not through violence, terrorism, or disinformation. All that he and his tens of millions of patriotic supporters demand is free and fair elections as early as possible so that the Pakistani people themselves can directly decide who they want to lead them. This noble goal perfectly aligns with the purest democratic principles, yet that’s precisely why he’s a “threat”.

Those domestic collaborators who colluded with the US to overthrow the former premier know fully well how unpopular their post-modern coup is, which is why they’ve had to resort to increasingly despotic, dictatorial, and ultimately dystopian means to cling to power. Free and fair elections as early as possible would reverse the regime change against Imran Khan, after which the conspirators would likely be out of a job at best or prosecuted at worst if they don’t flee abroad first.

After having lost complete control of the country’s socio-political (soft security) dynamics as a result of the post-modern coup that they helped carry out and everything that unfolded afterwards, The Establishment’s elite echelons panicked and thus decided to eliminate Imran Khan. They could have presumably sought to cut some sort of deal with him for ensuring their early retirement with amnesty in exchange for holding free and fair elections as early as possible but probably feared the US’ reaction.

Martial Law Motives

It shouldn’t be forgotten that those who were responsible for this regime change, which includes The Establishment’s elite echelons who infamously remained “neutral” and thus “passively facilitated” it, are politically (and possibly economically) indebted to the US. Complying with the former premier’s demand without first receiving the US’ approval – which could in theory have been granted if it decided to cut its losses with early elections instead of risk Pakistan’s destabilization – might be very dangerous.

That’s not to excuse their attempt to assassinate him but simply to explain their likely thought process. In any case, the decision was made to eliminate Imran Khan once he commenced his promised Long March since The Establishment’s elite echelons expected that the only other way to stop it would be to order the use of lethal force against those thousands of peaceful protesters once they entered the capital. The resultant bloodshed would have prompted martial law and led to international isolation.

Of course, the obvious recourse would simply have been to have their political proxies organize free and fair elections as early as possible as the most responsible pressure valve, but this wasn’t ever seriously considered for the earlier mentioned reasons. Moving along, The Establishment’s elite echelons expected that the former premier would be successfully assassinated, after which his supporters would predictably riot and thus create the pretext for imposing martial law without international isolation.

In other words, the decision was already made to formally reimpose military rule over Pakistan in order to prevent free and fair elections from being held as early as possible, though The Establishment’s elite echelons needed to craft a so-called “publicly plausible” pretext first. Absent that, and especially in the event that the Long March reached the capital and thus resulted in them ordering the use of lethal force against peaceful protesters, there’d be international isolation and possibly even sanctions.

The Three Most Likely Scenarios

The “solution” was to organize the former premier’s assassination, blame it on a “lone wolf” patsy, impose martial law in response to his supporters predictably rioting afterwards, and then possibly even outlaw his party on the false basis that they’re supposedly “anti-state extremists”. This plot failed by a stroke of luck, which now places The Establishment’s elite echelon in a dilemma since they lost their only chance at manufacturing the pretext for imposing martial law without international consequences.

Their dirty game was exposed and the entire world now suspects that something foul is afoot since the sequence of events that everyone expected to transpire in the event that this assassination plot succeeded is obvious to all objective observers. Since Imran Khan survived and promised that his Long March to Islamabad will continue no matter what, The Establishment’s elite echelons are now forced into a zugzwang, which refers to a situation in chess where all possible moves are disadvantageous.

They can either finally do the politically right thing by having their proxies organize free and fair elections as early as possible (though at the expense of their self-interests as was previously explained); try to concoct another clearly manufactured pretext for imposing martial law (though this time possibly with international consequences since everyone is now aware of their intentions); or just outright “go rogue” by using lethal force against the peaceful protesters after no longer giving a damn what happens.

The Establishment’s Elite Echelons Already Lost (Even If They Don’t Know It Yet)

Whichever of these three courses of action they choose to go through with, there’s no denying that the strategic inertia is decisively against The Establishment’s elite echelons, who already lost their Hybrid War/Fifth Generational War (5GW) against the Pakistani people. They can either go with the flow by finally allowing the masses to democratically choose their leader, or temporarily delay this inevitability by continuing to conspire against them or even literally risking a civil conflict by directly attacking them.

In any case, The Establishment’s elite echelons have lost all legitimacy after their unsuccessful assassination plot against Imran Khan. The battle for hearts and minds is over after having been decisively won by the former premier and his supporters, who pushed their foreign-backed institutional opponents into the corner through their peaceful political protests and thus caused them to overreact by practically declaring war on the same 220+ million people who they’re supposed to represent.

The best-case scenario is that those among The Establishment’s elite echelons who are responsible for this egregious violation of the people’s trust, which indisputably crossed the latter’s red line, accept their defeat by allowing democracy to prevail without continuing to try to dangerously obstruct it in vain. No sincerely patriotic member of The Establishment would risk throwing Pakistan into pandemonium by continuing to conspire against its people, let alone seriously countenance waging war against them.

Concluding Thoughts

Pakistan is literally in the throes of a peaceful political revolution led by grassroots patriots who want to liberate their beloved country from the foreign yoke that’s been imposed upon it since the US-orchestrated post-modern coup. Those elite members of The Establishment who are responsible for that regime change and all that came afterwards, especially the attempted assassination of Imran Khan, need to do the right thing in order to save the same country that they dedicated their lives to serving.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Assassination Attempt Against Imran Khan Exposes the Establishment’s Dirty Game
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

An Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is the formal procedure for negotiating amendments to the founding treaties of the EU. Under the treaties, an IGC is called into being by the European Council and is composed of representatives of the Member States, with the European Commission, and to a lesser degree the European Parliament which as well is having participants.[i]

However, the functioning of the IGC has long been provided by a real leader of the EU which is a Franco-German axis although its strength has historically varied and its nature seems to be changing. This did not differ much in the case of the 2002 Convention on the Future of Europe, partly because it did not replace the IGC as an institution and, in fact, it took place in the shadow of the following IGC, i.e., the veto power of the Member States.

It is, therefore, no surprise that the bargaining space, i.e., the set of settlements potentially acceptable to the Convention on the Future of Europe, was bounded by the positions and bottom lines of the most powerful Member States and that the very salient issues were firmly kept under their control. Once concrete issues were put on the table, the representatives of the national Governments loyally defended their interests – as did most of the national MPs nominated by the Governments. By the autumn of 2002, they started to build coalitions and invoke their veto in the pending IGC. The other members, anticipating the IGC, adapted their behavior to this constraint.

Not only did the Member States take the lead, but at the same time, the MPs were largely ineffective. The political parties were unable to develop coherent visions and positions, except in a few specific instances, for example, related to symbolic ideological gains (ex. the “social market economy” for the socialists). But the big parties only had a superficial unity and on most issues were unable to overcome their divisions and build coalitions beyond the status quo. For most representatives, the party’s political or component identity was not the primary determinant of their positions in the Convention on the Future of Europe. They saw the role of the party’s groups as channels to exchange information rather than forums to coordinate positions.

Thus, the Convention on the Future of Europe was overall – particularly in institutional and policy issues – not radically different from the IGC and much of its end-game was dominated by the kind of hegemonic compromises that have characterized EU politics since its inception.

The Franco-German “Dual EU’s Presidency”

The Franco-German compromise was put forward by the two countries on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of their bilateral friendship (Élysée) treaty in January 2003. Shortly before presenting their joint institutional proposals, in October 2002, France and Germany replaced their Government representatives with their Foreign Ministers increasing their political weight in the Convention on the Future of Europe. Germany did not defend the rotating Presidency but sought to strengthen the power of the European Commission. Although the Franco-German compromise was not formally put on the agenda of the Convention on the Future of Europe it generated widespread opposition and immediately became a focal point for subsequent debates. The contribution included the controversial creation of what became referred to as a “Dual EU’s Presidency” with a permanent European Council, the President elected from amongst its members, and a directly elected Commission President by the EP. The permanent Chairs would also be created for Foreign Affairs, Ecofin, the Eurogroup, and Justice and Home Affairs (the JHA).

From the outset, France and Germany relied upon a number of resources that were instrumental in turning their proposal into the focal point. First and most importantly, they found a crucial ally in Valéry Giscard d’Estaing (the President of France in 1974−1981) who reacted favorably calling their compromise “a positive proposal [that is] going in the right direction (…) guaranteeing the stability of EU’s institutions”. He was personally much closer to the Franco-German compromise than to the Benelux proposals and sensitive to the British position which – while supporting the permanent European Council Presidency – was initially skeptical about the election of the European Commission President.

His detractors recalled the fact that he had become the Chair of the Convention on the Future of Europe on the insistence of J. Chirac, T. Blair, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. In addition, he “created” the European Council in 1974 and would, therefore, naturally want to make it the apex of the European system. They pointed out, furthermore, that this dual presidency set-up resembled the peculiar French political system in which the President is the “leader of the nation” and the “ultimate arbitrator of the national interest”, while the Prime Minister heads the Government. Finally, they argued that his two foremost goals have been to support the claims of big countries and to weaken the European Commission. His defenders, in turn, retort that this only appeared to be the case because he tried to ensure that “his” Constitution would not be radically altered by the IGC, and therefore the most powerful Member States. Whatever the motivation, at some point before the official tabling of the draft articles on institutions, he chose to take sides and support the idea of a permanent European Council Presidency.

V. Giscard’s and the Presidium’s support were crucial because its composition, functions, procedural control, and operating style gave it the necessary legitimacy and influence to shape the outcome of the Convention on the Future of Europe. V. Giscard had ample room for maneuvering. During the first three months, the members were invited to present their views on the EU and listen to civil society associations. On this basis, V. Giscard presented what he called an issue-specific “synthesis” reducing the scope of the discussion, and set up working groups on controversial topics to study the subject in-depth. Finally, after the reports of the working groups had been discussed in plenary sessions, the Presidium presented actual draft articles to the Convention on the Future of Europe which was supposed to mirror the substance of working group reports and reactions of the plenary sessions. Members then suggested amendments leading to revised proposals by the Presidium. But, crucially, while the Convention on the Future of Europe was supposed to remain sovereign in this process, the Presidium acted as the interpreter of the dominant view and was the sole drafter of the actual text presented to the floor. V. Giscard fully exploited his formal and informal powers assuming the major directing and leadership role. As D. Allen finds, he

“monopolized reporting of the work of the Convention to both Member States and the public”, “it was usually Giscard’s or Kerr’s summary of proceedings that formed the ongoing basis for further negotiation”, and he cleverly “created controversies (…) or negotiating positions that were designed to be conceded in return for consensus on more important items”.[ii]

In fact, it was V. Giscard who determined that no voting would take place in the Convention on the Future of Europe, that a single text would be agreed upon rather than options proposed, how consensus and the majority were to be defined, and when a consensus existed. This gave him much leverage to steer the result toward his most preferred option. Crucially, as his definition of consensus rested essentially on the Member States’ population size rather than the number of the Member States, the Franco-German compromise guaranteed a dominant position in the drafting process.

Support of a permanent European Council President

The UK’s and Spain’s support of a permanent European Council President (they advocated an even stronger President than the Franco-German compromise did) was a second key resource. In addition, Italy supported a strong “Mr. Europe”.[iii] Once onboard, the countries which supported the idea of a permanent Presidency represented the largest part of the European population – as V. Giscard pointed out in various interviews. Before the plenary, he argued that the EU now comprised three categories of states:

  1. The four largest ones, with a population of more than forty million inhabitants each, together, amount to 74% of the EU population.
  2. Eight medium-sized countries, with a population between 8 and 16 million people each, represent 19% of the population.
  3. 11 small states, together, only include 7% of the population.

Some weeks later, at the Athens European Council, he explicitly drew the consequences of this analysis: since those who reject the idea of a permanent President for the European Council only represent a quarter of the EU’s total population, they should not be allowed to prevent the formation of a consensus (which in V. Giscard’s mind seemed to mean a very large majority). With such an argument, V. Giscard contradicted the principle of equality among conventioneers he had supported so far.[iv]

It is also noteworthy that Spain was amongst the Presidium’s three Government representatives. So was Denmark, which was the only country not to join the small country camp in their defense of the rotating Presidency. In addition, it proved difficult for the small to split the big country coalition promoting the permanent Presidency. Thus, the big country camp remained strong – the only wedge appeared on the European Commission’s composition when Spain and Poland, joined quietly by some new members, started waging a “give Nice a chance” campaign towards the end. This position later explained the difficulties of the IGC and the failure of the December 2003 Brussels Summit.

A third resource on which the Franco-German axis could rely was its past reputation and legitimacy. As F. Cameron argues, the EU as a whole has usually reaped beneficial results from the Franco-German initiatives – a prominent example being the European Monetary Union (the EMU).[v] Particularly, Germany had in the past frequently defended small state interests and the legitimacy of the Franco-German compromise was enhanced as – apart from the Presidency – it contained important elements that were in line with small state suggestions. The election of the European Commission President by the European Parliament, for example, reflected Benelux’s suggestions and had broad support in the Convention on the Future of Europe. Crucially, the British position evolved in this regard. Apparently, its traditional opposition to replacing the European Commission’s President chosen by the Member States with an elected one could be traded off against the “strategic prize” of a stronger leader representing EU’s Governments on the world stage. As Peter Hain, the British Government’s representative put it to his Parliament:

“in the end, there will have to be an agreement and a necessary process of adjustment by all parties. We have, for example, been willing to look at, with certain very big safeguards, electing the Commission President through some method, provided that does not involve being hostage to a particular political faction and provided that the outcome is one that the Council can accept. So it is not something we sought and we remain deeply skeptical about it, but if, as part of the end game, getting an elected President of the Council, which is very much a priority for us, involves doing something with the Commission President with those very important safeguards that I mentioned, then that is something that we might have to adjust to”.[vi]

Moreover, a consensus had emerged on the double-hatted Foreign Affairs Minister as included in the Franco-German proposal and supported in the autumn by a narrow majority in plenary even if the precise division of tasks (in particular in terms of external representation) between the European Council’s President and the proposed European Foreign Minister in charge of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy were unclear under the Franco-German plan and remained so in the Convention on the Future of Europe’s draft treaty.

Conclusion

To sum up, the strategy on which France and Germany relied was fourfold:

  1. Uniting their resources to provide direction in the Convention over the EU’s future institutional set-up.
  2. Fully exploiting its positional resources such as access to and support by the Convention’s Chairman and its Presidium in order to move its proposal into the dominant position.
  3. Bringing the UK and Spain on their side.
  4. Inducing the smalls to make concessions on the permanent Presidency in return for an elected European Commission President and the Minister of European Foreign Affairs.

*

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

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

Notes

[i] Wikipedia.

[ii] D. Allen, “The Convention and the Draft Constitutional Treaty”, F. Cameron (ed.), The Future of Europe, London: Routledge, 2004.

[iii] The Guardian, January 24th, 2003.

[iv] About the general issue of the European politics, see more in [Maria Green Cowles, Michael Smith, The State of the European Union, 2000].

[v] F. Cameron (ed.), The Future of Europe, London: Routledge, 2004, 12.

[vi] Peter Hain, Interview in the European Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, March 25th, 2003.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on France, Germany, and the European Union: The Franco-German “Dual EU’s Presidency”

mRNA Covid Jab: Record Surge of Infections in Children

November 4th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

Hospitals around the U.S. are suddenly struggling to keep up with surging rates of respiratory infections among children, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), COVID, rhinoviruses and influenza

Moderna is working on an mRNA jab for RSV, which is scheduled for release in 2023. They’re also working on a combination mRNA jab for COVID, RSV and the flu

Censored scientists and doctors have long warned that the mRNA COVID jabs are destroying people’s immune systems, and that we’re going to see an avalanche of infections as immune system failure sets in

The COVID jab causes innate immune suppression, which makes you more susceptible to all kinds of infections and chronic diseases. Suppression of Type 1 interferon signaling appears to be one of the primary mechanisms by which the shot destroys immune competence, and repeated booster shots can reliably be anticipated to amplify adverse effects

The more shots you get, the more likely you are to die from COVID. While only 34% of Canadians have received three or four doses of the COVID jab, triple and quadruple jabbed made up 81% of all COVID deaths in June 2022. Excess mortality among young children, teens and young adults is also skyrocketing

*

Hospitals around the U.S. are suddenly struggling to keep up with surging rates of respiratory infections among children, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV),1 COVID, rhinoviruses and influenza.2 Hospital staff feign confusion, saying they have no idea what’s going on.

Meanwhile, censored scientists and doctors have long warned that the mRNA COVID jabs are destroying people’s immune systems, and that we’re going to see an avalanche of infections as immune system failure sets in.

Many Hospitals at or Near Capacity

As of the third week of October 2022, several children’s hospitals in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Connecticut and Virginia reported being at or near capacity.3 To expand capacity, officials in Hartford, Connecticut, are seeking help from the National Guard and FEMA.

According to Dr. Margaret R. Moon, co-director of Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in Baltimore, the hospital “is experiencing a surge of patients due to an increase in cases of RSV, as well as other reasons, and many surrounding hospitals are facing the same.”4

RSV typically causes mild cold-like symptoms that last for a week or two. While harmless in adults, in infants the virus can cause more severe infections such as bronchiolitis (inflammation of the smaller branches of the bronchial airways) and pneumonia.

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,5 58,000 children under age 5 are hospitalized for RSV each year, and the CDC’s RSV dashboard6 (screenshot below) does show that RSV is acting unseasonably. Could this out-of-season emergence of RSV have something to do with the fact that the Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID shot for children under 5 in June 2022?7

Maybe, maybe not. It’s not a clear parallel, as RSV also rose out of season during the summer of 2021, when young children did not yet have access to the COVID shot. Parents and older siblings, however, were eligible, and there are still many open questions surrounding the issue of shedding. It’s possible that spike protein shedding from the shots were affecting younger children, suppressing their immune systems.

overall rate of RSV-associated hospitalizations

mRNA RSV Jab in the Works

Considering hospitalization rates for RSV are actually lower than historical seasonal highs, one also wonders whether the media’s attention on RSV might be related to the fact that Moderna is working on an mRNA jab for RSV, which is scheduled for release in 2023.8

They’re also working on a combination mRNA jab for COVID, RSV and the flu. Ultimately, Moderna wants to create an annual mRNA shot that covers all of the top 10 viruses that result in hospitalizations each year.9 If the COVID shot is any indication, such an injection could be catastrophic.

COVID Jab Causes Innate Immune Suppression

There’s now ample evidence showing the COVID jab causes innate immune suppression, which makes you more susceptible to all kinds of infection, not just COVID, as well as any number of chronic diseases.

In June 2022, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Dr. Greg Nigh, Dr. Anthony Kyriakopoulos and Dr. Peter McCullough published a paper10 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, reviewing the mechanisms by which the shots suppress immune function and trigger disease. As noted in the abstract:11

“The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health.

Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites.

We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis.”

Suppression of Type 1 interferon signaling appears to be one of the primary mechanisms by which the shot suppresses and destroys immune competence, and repeated booster shots can reliably be anticipated to amplify any and all adverse effects.

Type 1 Interferon Suppression Is a Recipe for Ill Health

Type 1 interferon plays an important role in the immune response to viral infections, cancer and autoimmune diseases. So, the fact that we’re now seeing significant increases in all of these conditions is not surprising.

When a cell is invaded by a virus, it releases Type 1 interferon alpha and Type 1 interferon beta. They act as signaling molecules that tell the cell that it’s been infected. That, in turn, launches the immune response and gets it going early in the viral infection. It’s been shown that people who end up with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection have a compromised Type 1 interferon response. Those who get the jab have an even more suppressed response.

Importantly, the antibody response you get from the COVID shot is exponentially higher than what you get from natural infection, and the level of antibody response rises with disease severity. So, the shot basically mimics severe infection, and this is why boosters can spell disaster.

If your Type 1 interferon response is already deficient, your immune cells are not very capable at stopping the spread of a virus in your body. Hence, the more shots you get, and the more your Type 1 interferon response is impaired, the more likely you become to develop severe infections, be it COVID or any other infection. This also means that you’re more likely to die, and rising excess mortality statistics, which I’ll review in a moment, confirm this.

Type 1 interferon also keeps latent viruses like herpes and varicella (which causes shingles) viruses in check, and when your interferon pathway is suppressed, these latent viruses can also start to emerge. And, indeed, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database reveals many who have been jabbed do report these kinds of infections.

Don’t Be Fooled by ‘Reframing’ Efforts

Disturbingly, researchers and mainstream media are still pushing the idea that COVID shot side effects are a sign that the shot is working well. As reported by CNN October 24, 2022:12

“People who reported experiencing side effects to the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines such as fever, chills or muscle pain tended to have a greater antibody response following vaccination, according to new research.

Having such symptoms after vaccination is associated with greater antibody responses compared with having only pain or rash at the injection site or no symptoms at all, suggests the paper published Friday in the journal JAMA Network Open.13

‘In conclusion, these findings support reframing postvaccination symptoms as signals of vaccine effectiveness and reinforce guidelines for vaccine boosters in older adults,’ the researchers … wrote in their paper.”

To be clear, feeling terrible after your COVID shot is not to be taken as evidence that the shot is providing you with protection. What you’re experiencing is akin to having severe COVID. The shot is suppressing your Type 1 interferon, and continuing with additional jabs is a recipe for ill health. It’s just that simple.

As suggested in that JAMA article, they really want to “reframe postvaccination symptoms” to stop people from reconsidering the wisdom of taking subsequent jabs, but don’t fall for it. You’re feeling terrible because your body is being harmed.

The More Shots You Get, the More Likely You’ll Die of COVID

As noted by Dr. Charles Hoffe in a September 15, 2022, interview with Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, “The more shots you get, the more likely you will die from COVID-19.” An excerpt from the interview is included above. You can find the full interview on Bitchute.14

According to the latest data from Canada, summarized by Hoffe, 85% of Canadians have received at least two COVID shots, and in June 2022, 92% of all COVID deaths were in fully jabbed individuals. And, while only 34% of Canadians had received three or four doses, they made up 81% of all COVID deaths in the month of June.

“This is the clearest evidence that the more shots you have, the more likely you will die of COVID,” Hoffe said. “These [shots] are severely damaging the immune system. And so, the discrimination against those who have chosen to be vaxx free is absolutely absurd because those are the people who are going to survive.”

Youths Are Dying at Frightening Rates

In the video above, nurse educator John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews the latest U.K. and U.S. data on excess deaths in the young. The U.K. is now seeing 20 to 30 excess deaths per week in the age group of birth to 24.

Excess deaths are also statistically higher in the U.S. than expected. For the age group of birth to 24, cumulative all-cause excess deaths was 16,747 as of week 35. The screenshot below, from USmortality.com,15 illustrates how the cumulative excess deaths among our children, teens and young adults have skyrocketed since June 2020.

Recall the FDA authorized the first COVID shot December 11, 2020, for individuals aged 16 years and older.16 If the excess deaths from June through December were related to COVID, the shots certainly have NOT improved the situation or made youths less likely to die. Quite the contrary.

cumulative excess deaths Unites States 0-24 years

Excess deaths among all age groups follows a similar but more step-like rise.

cumulative excess deaths Unites States

Medical Abuse of Women and Children Is Rampant

The medical system has mistreated and abused infants for decades, forcing a number of completely useless and harmful interventions on them. Antibiotic eye treatment17 and the hepatitis B vaccine,18 both administered on the day of birth, are but two examples. The fact that U.S. child mortality ranks19 worst among the 20 wealthiest nations speaks to the effects of all this medial mistreatment and overtreatment of infants.

The U.S. also has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world,20 and according to medial investigators, 84% of all these maternal deaths are preventable.21 Clearly, we’re doing a lot of things wrong.

CDC Takes Child Abuse to a Whole New Level

With its decision to add COVID shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules,22 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is taking the abuse of infants and pregnant women to a whole new level. As reported by The Defender:23

“Commenting on [the CDC’s unanimous] vote, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of the board and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said:

‘This reckless action is final proof of the cynicism, corruption and capture of a once exemplary public health agency. ACIP members have again demonstrated that fealty to their pharma overlords eclipses any residual concerns they may harbor for child welfare or public health. This is an act of child abuse on a massive scale’ …

[A]dding the COVID-19 vaccines means 18 more shots — one per year between the ages of 6 months and 18 years — will be added to the schedule, according to Toby Rogers, Ph.D.

‘So overnight the childhood schedule would go from 54 injections (72 antigens because of combined shots like MMR) to 72 injections (90 antigens),’ Rogers said. ‘This has absolutely nothing to do with health — it’s all about profit and power’ …

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., told The Defender, ‘Given the high risk of vaccine injury for a product that provides little or no benefit to children, this represents a criminal enterprise solely to ensure a revenue stream for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers’ …

As of Oct. 7 [2022], the VAERS data for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds who received a COVID-19 vaccine showed reports of 4,279 adverse events, including 182 cases rated as serious and 7 reported deaths. For 5- to 11-year-olds, there were 14,622 reports of adverse events, including 692 rated as serious and 29 reported deaths.”

Can Children Survive This Many mRNA Shots?

The following COVID-19 jab recommendations will go into effect in 2023:

  • Age 6 months to 4 years — a two-dose primary series for Moderna, or a three-dose primary series for Pfizer, plus an annual booster
  • Age 5 to 11 years — a two-dose series of either Moderna or Pfizer plus an annual booster
  • Age 12 to 18 years — a two-dose series for Moderna, Novavax or Pfizer plus an annual booster

For children with moderately or severely compromised immune systems, the recommended primary series is increased from a two-dose series to a three-dose series, which is madness heaped upon insanity. I really don’t see how young children will get through their primary education alive if they have to take annual boosters on top of a primary series.

Rules Upended for Vaccine Injury Compensation

Adding insult to injury, while the COVID jab makers get a permanent liability shield through the addition of the jabs to the childhood vaccination schedule, those injured by these mRNA shots will not get compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers nearly every other vaccine on the schedule. The Defender explains:24

“Vaccine makers are not liable for injuries or deaths associated with EUA [emergency use authorized] vaccines but can be held liable for injuries caused by a fully licensed vaccine — unless that vaccine is added to the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule.

Parents of children injured by vaccines listed on the childhood schedule typically can seek compensation through the taxpayer-funded National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury claims.

However, the revisions voted on today by the committee explicitly state25 (slide 24) that the newly added … COVID-19 vaccines are not covered under the VICP.

Instead, the COVID-19 vaccines added to the childhood schedule will remain covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). To date, only six claims filed with the CICP have been approved for compensation.”

In closing, if you care about your children, do not allow them to be injected with these immune-destroying shots. If you’re still on the fence, please read the cited paper by Seneff, Nigh, Kyriakopoulos and McCullough,26 to get an understanding of how these shots can utterly decimate your child’s health.

*

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

Notes

1 NPR October 24, 2022

2 Axios October 21, 2022

3, 4 DCist October 20, 2022

5 CDC RSV Trends

6 CDC RSV Interactive Dashboard, Screenshot grabbed October 26, 2022

7 CNN June 20, 2022

8 World Economic Forum, COVID-19: What’s Next? January 17, 2022, 6:25

9 CNBC January 10, 2022

10, 11, 26 Food and Chemical Toxicology June 2022; 164: 113008

12 CNN October 24, 2022

13 JAMA Network Open October 21, 2022; 5(10): e2237908

14 Bitchute Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson September 15, 2022

15 US Mortality Weekly All-Cause Excess Deaths, Cumulative

16 Immunize.org Historical Vaccine Timeline

17 CBC March 20, 2015

18 Medical News Today March 28, 2022

19 CNN January 8, 2018

20 NPR May 12, 2017

21 NPR October 21, 2022

22 Rumble October 20, 2022

23, 24 The Defender October 20, 2022

25 CDC ACIP Meeting October 20, 2022

Featured image is from Xavier Donat

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

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

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

***

Russia’s ambassador insists he has evidence of UK aiding a Ukrainian drone attack on Putin’s fleet in Black Sea

Diplomat Andrei Kelin has said Britain is involved ‘too deep’ in the Ukraine War and warns of consequences

Russia said it lodged a ‘strong protest’ over Nord Stream and Black Sea attacks which it accuses UK of aiding 

Britain denies direct attacks on Russia as ‘false claims on an epic scale’ but is open about support for Ukraine

*

The UK is ‘too deep’ in the Ukraine war, Russia‘s ambassador warned – while insisting that Putin will not use nuclear weapons in an attack despite a series of thinly veiled threats.

Diplomat Andrei Kelin alleges he has evidence of UK special forces’ participation in a Ukrainian drone attack on Russia’s Black Sea fleet, which he claims to have passed on to his UK counterpart.

Speaking to Sky News‘ Mark Austin, Mr Kelin said:

‘We perfectly know about the participation of British specialists in [the] training, preparation and execution of violence against the Russian infrastructure and the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. We know that it has been done.’

Mr Kelin told media that the evidence will be made public ‘pretty soon’.

He said:

‘It is dangerous because it escalates the situation. It can bring us up to the line of… I won’t say “no return”, because return is always possible. But anyway, we should avoid escalation.

‘And this is a warning actually that Britain is too deep in this conflict. It means the situation is becoming more and more dangerous.’

Click here to read the full article.

*

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 Drive

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Ambassador Warns ‘Britain is too deep’ Into the Ukraine Conflict and Says Moscow Will Publish ‘Proof’ UK Helped Carry Out Suicide Drone Attack on the Black Sea Fleet – Adding: ‘It is dangerous… it escalates the situation’
  • Tags: , , , ,

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

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

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

***

Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich, a mother and grandmother from Medicine Hat, explained why she got involved in the protest movement during her Nov. 3 testimony at the public inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act to end convoy protests earlier this year.

“I was growing increasingly alarmed with the mandates and the harm that I was seeing the mandates inflict,” said Lich, who got emotional several times during her testimony. “I heard from families that were living in their vehicles because they’d lost their jobs. I heard from people that had lost their jobs and lost everything. I have the tears of thousands of Canadians on my shoulder, who everyday told me that we were bringing them hope.”

Lich said she saw families torn apart due to COVID-19 policies.

“The suicides in my hometown were so numerous that they stopped reporting them,” she said. “Elderly people were dying by themselves in long-term care facilities and saying goodbye over iPads.”

Lich explained how the policies impacted herself and her family members as well. She said both herself and her husband lost their jobs due to COVID-19 policies, and her parents, who run a trucking business, could no longer cross the border.

Lich added that vaccine passports restricted many Canadians who decided against getting COVID-19 shots from entering any non-essential business, which meant she “didn’t go out.”

Epoch Times Photo

A protester holds a sign on Wellington St. during the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa on Feb. 12, 2022. (Noé Chartier/The Epoch Times)

She said her 94-year-old grandmother was “locked” in her apartment by herself for two years, and by the time lockdowns were lifted her grandmother “wasn’t healthy enough” to do things. She also said that her father, who lives in a small town in Saskatchewan, used to go to a local restaurant for coffee every day to see his friends, but “was asked to leave,” presumably referring to vaccine mandates that barred unvaccinated Canadians from non-essential business.

Lich said she didn’t want her children and grandchildren to live in a world like this.

“I listened to my prime minister call me a racist, and say that [people like me] shouldn’t be tolerated. I found his rhetoric to be incredibly divisive,” she said. “I’m a believer, that if you’re a leader of a country, you have to lead all of your people, even if you don’t agree with them.”

Freedom Convoy

The Freedom Convoy protest started as a demonstration against COVID-19 vaccine mandates for truckers travelling across the Canada-U.S. border. But it grew to a larger movement as people against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions joined the cause.

Lich said in her testimony that as the convoy travelled across Canada, many people offered them support.

“They said don’t stop until we are free. Don’t stop until the mandates are lifted,” she said.

When their GoFundMe campaign raised the first $1 million, Lich said she was “exhilarated.” She said she never expected that level of support, but with it, came responsibility that caused her overwhelming anxiety.

She told the commission—to some chuckles from the room—that her previous fundraising experience consisted of “selling chocolate-covered almonds.”

The convoy’s fundraising campaign on GoFundMe gathered over $10 million before it was shut down by the platform. The group raised the same amount of funds on GiveSendGo, but the funds were frozen by a court order.

Epoch Times Photo

Protesters stand on the back of a truck during the Freedom Convoy demonstrations against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other restrictions on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Jan. 29, 2022. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Lich, who was formerly part of the Maverick Party which calls for Western autonomy, says she didn’t want to be part of the movement anymore after bonding with people from different parts of Canada during the protest in Ottawa.

She said one day while in Ottawa, as she was talking with some protest organizers from Quebec through Google Translate, she realized “that they’re the same as us.”

“This division has all been a lie,” she said. “I knew that I didn’t want to see Canada divided at that point.”

Arrest

The Public Order Emergency Commission has been set up as required by law to evaluate if the use of the Emergencies Act to clear convoy protests was justified.

The act was invoked by the federal government on Feb. 14, and revoked on Feb. 23 after the protest in Ottawa was cleared.

Lich was arrested in Ottawa on Feb. 17 on charges of mischief, and was initially denied bail. She was kept in jail until March 7, when an Ontario Superior Court overturned the initial decision to deny her bail and set her free on bail conditions.

She was arrested again on June 27 for an alleged breach of bail conditions, related to a brief exchange she had with fellow convoy organizer Tom Marazzo at an award ceremony in Toronto on June 16. She was released again on bail on July 26, with the Ontario Superior Court Judge Andrew Goodman saying that the previous decision by another court to detain her was “clearly inappropriate.”

Epoch Times Photo

Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich with her lawyer Lawrence Greenspon as she leaves court after being released on bail, in Ottawa on July 26, 2022. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Lich’s court hearing for her mischief charges is scheduled for September 2023. Her bail conditions include not talking with other convoy organizers, not using social media, and not organizing further protests.

Lich took a few minutes to contain her emotions before answering the commission about how her arrest and bail conditions have impacted her life.

“I’ve lost my job. I’ve lost my freedom of speech. I’ve lost my freedom to communicate with my friends, which was quite traumatizing because we just experienced something huge,” she said.

“I have to be very careful about every move that I make. As you know, I was arrested on an alleged breach charge for attending a dinner in Toronto. I have a daughter, and I don’t want her to be seen with me, because I’m worried.”

Lich’s testimony at the inquiry will continue on Nov. 4.

*

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.

Marnie Cathcart is a reporter based in Edmonton.

Featured image: Tamara Lich appears as a witness at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa on Nov. 3, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Tears of Thousands of Canadians on My Shoulder’: Tamara Lich Gives Emotional Testimony at Emergencies Act Inquiry
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

At this point, where Gallup Pakistan is reporting more than a 90% popularity rating for Imran Khan in the country, both the traditional mafioso-style corrupt dynastic political parties as well as significant sections of the military high command see Khan’s assassination as the only solution.

There is no doubt in people’s minds that Gen. Bajwa, the Chief of Army Staff, and his highly unusual visit to Washington weeks before his retirement gives every indication that the US has also put pressure on Islamabad to get rid of the one irritant in Washington’s ‘New Cold War’ against both China and Russia, but also the Global South more generally – that irritant in Eurasia being Imran Khan.

Sadly, this may only be the first assassination attempt in a series to come. But the sense on the ground is that Khan supporters and/or those who thoroughly despise the traditional ruling civilian and military elites, those who have been out in the streets in the tens of millions for the past few weeks protesting alongside Khan, feel both intense anger and renewed vigor to carry on the struggle. 

Junaid S. Ahmad, November 4, 2022

*

Here is an excerpt from the Reuters’ report, Ousted Pakistan PM Imran Khan shot in shin in what aides call assassination attempt:

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan was shot in the shin on Thursday when his anti-government protest convoy came under attack in the east of the country in what his aides said was a clear assassination attempt by his rivals.

Khan, ousted as prime minister in a parliamentary confidence vote in April, was six days into a protest procession bound for Islamabad, standing and waving to thousands of cheering supporters from the roof of a container truck, when the shots rang out.

Several in his convoy were wounded in the attack in Wazirabad, nearly 200 km (120 miles) from the capital. Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb said a suspect had been arrested.

“It was a clear assassination attempt. Khan was hit but he’s stable. There was a lot of bleeding,” Fawad Chaudhry, a spokesperson for Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, told Reuters.

“If the shooter had not been stopped by people there, the entire PTI leadership would have been wiped out.”

Click here to continue reading.

*

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 IRF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ousted Pakistan PM Imran Khan Shot in Shin in ‘Clear Assassination’ Attempt
  • Tags: ,

Hell No to the WHO Pandemic Treaty

November 4th, 2022 by Richard Gale

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

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

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

***

No doubt, as president, one of Donald Trump’s more bold steps that thoroughly outraged the medical industrial complex was to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO). One of Trump’s reasons was due to his disgust with the WHO’s lack of competence in its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The intention to remove itself from the WHO was filed in July 2020; however WHO rules require a year for a nation’s withdrawal to become effective. Sadly, under Joe Biden, the US remains party to and a leader funder of the undemocratically elected global organization.

Earlier in 2022, the proposal for a WHO international Pandemic Treaty has raised alarms over the organization’s usurping the individual sovereignty of nations. The Treaty, which is scheduled to be finalized by May 2024, is largely a result of the WHO’s numerous inconsistencies, inadequacies and failures during the Covid-19 pandemic. If we call a spade a spade, the WHO has proven itself inept in handling any pandemic. Therefore, for the hardened globalists such Bill Gates and the leaders of the US and EU who wholly support the WHO, it makes perfect sense that the bumbling bureaucracy should be given more authority and control over global health.

The Pandemic Treaty would authorize the WHO complete control over both governments’ and civil societies’ internal preparedness over actions and policies to tackle future pandemics. During the Ukraine crisis, we frequently hear Western leaders speak about a “rules based order” in international relations. However, such rules are defined by and primarily serve the interests of those nations at the top of the food chain (i.e. the US, UK and EU).  What the Treaty offers is a new rules based order completely determined by an international organization with a horrible track record of conflicts of interests with the pharmaceutical industry and hegemonic governments and billionaires.

Image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

The Treaty would hold every WHO member nation accountable for following the organization’s dictates. On a global scale, all power over dictating the rules for pandemic preparedness would be centralized in the organization. If a nation fails to do so, it can face potential sanctions. The WHO would also be the final arbiter and judge over medical related misinformation that it solely believes undermines public health. As we have witnessed during the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO was repeatedly wrong about the benefits of face masks and lockdowns, the benefit-risk ratio of the mRNA vaccines — which are now causing more injuries and deaths than the virus — and safe and effective treatments.

No doubt with Bill Gates’ assistance and the US’s and its allies’ intelligence apparatus, the WHO will be responsible for countermeasures against social media critics.  In other words, the organization will be responsible for censorship. It would also have he authority to regulate both domestic and international travel, coordinate vaccination passports, and oversee the digitalization of populations’ health forms and documentation.  In brief, the WHO Pandemic Treaty is the harbinger of a medical dictatorship.

A uniform approach to prevention and treatment of diseases, especially a pandemic, is unquestionably attractive and desirable. This was the original intention of the emergence of “evidence based medicine” (EBM) in the mid 1990s. However, EBM has yet to be proven to be a practical goal. Worse, the rhetoric of EBM has turned into politicalized weapon to silence alternative medical views that challenge the medical authorities that control the narrative.  Consequently during the past decade the EBM theory has come under increasing criticism. Empowering the WHO to be the architect of a single, uniform global structure for administering pandemic responses is a deeply distrubing proposition. There are simply too many glaring reasons and examples for not trusting the WHO to have any control over our lives.  On this account, Donald Trump was precisely correct to remove the US’s membership.

The WHO has become the ultimate international authority for infectious diseases. Due to its widespread acceptance by the world’s national governments, it has assumed the helm to monitor regional and global infectious diseases and dictate medical intervention policies to international health agencies. The organization has become the final word to rule whether the spread of a serious pathogen is a pandemic or not. For the majority of the medical community, the media and the average person, the WHO is the front line command post for medical prevention (i.e., vaccination) and treatment.  Consequently its rulings are often regarded as the gold standard.  On matters of global health, the WHO holds dominance.

Image is from Children’s Health Defense

Prior to mass vaccination campaigns, the WHO propagated the belief that the first line of defense for curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic was lockdowns, self-isolation and distancing. Although it approved Ivermectin as a cost-effective treatment against SARS-CoV-2 infections, it disapproved hydroxychloroquine in favor of Gilead Bioscience’s and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease’s (NIAID) Anthony Fauci’s novel and costly drug Remdesivir.  Seemingly, much of its funding efforts had been reserved for promoting the new generation of experimental vaccines. Throughout the pandemic, the WHO was deeply allied with the US’s and UK’s national health systems, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and his Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) initiative.

Most people assume wrongly that the WHO acts independently from national and private commercial interests for the welfare of the world’s population. However, its real mission is dubious. The organization has frequently been accused of conflicts of interests with private pharmaceutical companies and mega-philanthropic organizations such as the Gates’ Foundation. It is riddled with political alliances, ideologies, and profiteering motives. Despite the WHO’s infrequent public ridicule of the pharmaceutical industry’s corruption, it is at the same time fully immersed if not actually controlled by those same forces of corruption.  For example, the WHO has stated:

“Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occurs throughout all stages of the medicine chain, from research and development to dispensing and promotion…. A lack of transparency and accountability within the medicines chain can also contribute to unethical practices and corruption.”

However, these are similar charges that have been leveled against the WHO. An article in the National Review called the WHO “scandal plagued” with “wasteful spending, utter disregard for transparency, pervasive incompetence, and failure to adhere to even basic democratic standards.” In his book, Immunization: How Vaccines Became Controversial, University of Amsterdam professor emeritus Dr. Stuart Blume raises the serious problem of the WHO’s most influential advisors on emergency health conditions, such as the current Covid-19 pandemic and earlier the 2009 H1N1 swine flu scare that never was, serve as consultants for the vaccine industry. During times of global emergencies and crises, the WHO confers with a separate group of advisors outside its formal sitting Strategic Advisory Group of Experts or SAGE; the names of this group’s members are not made public.

The WHO’s level of incompetence has resulted in serious misinformation about pandemics, medical risks of vaccines and other health-threatening chemicals.  For example, during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, the organization reported it could not find any evidence of human transmission. However, the WHO also repeatedly kowtowed to China’s demands and unscrupulously accepted whatever statistics and statements the Chinese Communist Party health ministry provided. Responding to a petition signed by over 700,000 signatories demanding the resignation of the current WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom, Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso told the Japanese parliament that the organization “should be renamed the Chinese Health Organization” for favoring China’s policy to stall and obstruct international investigations and for lauding unsubstantiated praise on the country’s transparency and handling of the pandemic.

Writing for The Hill, University of Texas at San Antonio professor Bradley Thayer wrote, “Tedros apparently turned a blind eye to what happened in Wuhan and the rest of China and… has helped play down the severity, prevalence and scope of the Covid-19 outbreak.”

Thayer concludes, “Tedros is not fit to lead the WHO.”

He has no formal medical training as a physician or any international management experience in global health. Many others have voiced similar criticisms pointing out Tedro’s unsuitable background.  Moreover, the Director General’s conflicts of interest with China abound. Immediately before and after his tenure as the Health Minister for Ethiopia’s ruling Communist party, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, China had donated an estimated $60 million to the terrorist government and its social programs. In 2017, the Washington Post noted the fundamental problem:

“[China] worked tirelessly behind the scenes to help Tedros defeat the United Kingdom candidate for the WHO job, David Nabarro. Tedros’s victory was also a victory for Beijing, whose leader Xi Jinping has made public his goal of flexing China’s muscle in the world.”

Upon assuming his new position at the WHO, Tedros left Ethiopia’s healthcare system in ruin.  As one young healthcare worker reported, there was no “bare necessities of a health care office…. Sterile gloves, paper exam gowns and covers, cotton swabs, gauze, tongue depressors, alcohol prep pads, chemical test strips, suturing equipment, syringes, stethoscopes… were non-existent. This is a fact in most health care centers in Ethiopia.”

During the more recent re-investigation of SARS-2 origins, the Chinese authorities refused to provide raw case data and created repressive conditions to curtail reliable analysis and disclosure. The WHO’s final report concluded that the virus had an animal origin and did not escape Wuhan’s high security pathogen laboratory. But there are viable reasons to discredit the report as untrustworthy at best and perhaps intentionally deceptive.

First, the entire agenda of the investigation was staged theater rather than a deep investigation to uncover empirical evidence. The team simply inspected seafood and open-air markets. Consequently, the WHO team returned empty handed and without laboratory records for a proper forensic examination. To call the entire WHO effort gross incompetence is an understatement. Based upon the evidence, a large number of professional medical voices called the entire investigation a farce.

Most problematic is the appointment of Peter Daszak on the WHO’s group to carry out the investigation. Daszak is the founding president of the shadowy non-profit organization EcoHealth Alliance. With the intention to divert attention away from an escaped laboratory virus, Daszak stated on a Going Viral podcast there was no evidential reason to visit and inspect the Wuhan laboratory. According to Independent Science News, despite Daszak’s denial of a lab origin, “EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research, including virus collection, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and thus could themselves be directly implicated in the outbreak.” The research at the Wuhan lab included ‘gain of function” efforts on coronaviruses, and received funds directly approved by Anthony Fauci. Newsweek reported the NIH had given a total of $7.4 million to the Chinese lab for the research. The organization has received over $100 million from a variety of sources, including the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, the NIH and undisclosed amounts from the Chinese government. Daszak himself has authored 25 studiesfunded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, think tanks, universities, military institutions, and ministries directly connected with the Chinese Communist Party.

Vaccine Promotional Misconduct

For many years the WHO’s recommendations for certain vaccines were kept secret. Writing in a 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Marc Girard uncovered “scientific incompetence, misconduct or even criminal malfeasance” over the intentional inflation of vaccines’ benefits while undermining toxicity and adverse effects. Dr. Girard testified as a medical expert before a French court in a criminal trial against the WHO after French health officials obliged the organization to launch its universal Hepatitis B vaccine campaign. The campaign resulted in the deaths of French children. Girard gained access to confidential WHO documents. He noted that the WHO’s “French figures about chronic liver diseases were simply extrapolated from the U.S. reports.” He further accused the WHO serving “merely as a screen for commercial promotion, in particular via the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB), which was created, sponsored, and infiltrated by the manufacturers.”

Now during the Covid-19 pandemic, as early as July 2020, the WHO approved of China’s first vaccine for emergency use, long before it had undergone proper clinical trials and much earlier than Moderna’s and Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines’ approval.

Orchestration of Pandemic Panics

Before the current COVID-19 pandemic, there was the H1N1 swine flu scare in 2009. The WHO’s declaration of a pandemic was solely based more on fear mongering than empirical evidence.  The fabrications are believed to have originated from the WHO’s senior consultant on viral outbreaks who happens to carry the reputation of being one of the world’s leading pandemic alarmists: Dr. Albert Osterhaus, nicknamed “Dr. Flu.” At the time, Osterhaus was head of the Department of Virology at Erasmus University in the Netherlands. When the swine flu scare appeared, he was also the president of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), an organization funded by the major vaccine manufacturers including Baxter, MedImmune, Glaxo, Sanofi Pasteur and others. Osterhaus was responsible for transforming an otherwise potentially bad flu season into a global pandemic. The British Medical Journal reported that the WHO failed to report conflicts of interests within its H1N1 advisory group. The journal’s Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee wrote, “WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate.” The former head of the prestigious Cochrane Database Collaboration’s vaccine studies, Dr. Tom Jefferson, told a Der Spiegel interviewer, “the WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies… built this machine around the impending [H1N1] pandemic. And there’s a lot of money involved, and influence and careers, and entire institutions.” According to a financial forecast published by JP Morgan, the collaboration between the WHO and Osterhaus’s ESWI to orchestrate the pandemic would have profited the pharmaceutical industry up to $10 billion.

In 2010, the EU’s Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe launched an investigation into the evidence that the WHO had created “a fake pandemic” in order to financially benefit the pharmaceutical giants’ vaccine market and to strengthen the influence private drug interests have over the health organization. The Assembly’s chairperson Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg charged the WHO’s fake pandemic as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century that resulted in “millions being needlessly vaccinated.”

Epidemic of Conflict of Interests

According to former World Bank geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig, about half of the WHO’s budget is derived from private sources — primarily pharmaceutical companies but also other corporate sectors including the telecommunication and agro-chemical industries. It also receives large donations from large philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI. Twelve years ago, Gates had committed $10 billion to the WHO; after the US, his Foundation is its second largest donor providing 10 percent of its funding.  His financial commitment aligned with his global ambition to “make this the decade of vaccines.” Koenig also believes that Tedros’s appointment was due to Gates’ influence. In fact, Tedros is a former Chair of GAVI’s Vaccine Alliance.

Vaccine Adverse Effects Monitoring System Needs Overhaul

The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety is responsible for administering vaccine programs in poorer, developing countries. It is also responsible for gathering data on incidents of vaccine injuries. Any deaths following vaccination campaigns are ignored and ruled as coincidental. This policy is based on an erroneous assumption that if no one died during a vaccine’s clinical trials, then the vaccine should be regarded as automatically safe and unrelated to any deaths that might occur later. Consequently, the WHO’s monitoring system is seriously flawed and requires a major overhaul.

One of the more controversial incidences was the WHO’s collaboration with the Bill Gates’ GAVI campaign to launch the Pentavalent vaccine (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, HIP and Hepatitis B) in Africa and later in South and Southeast Asia. In India, health officials recorded upwards to 8,190 additional infant deaths annually following GAVI’s Pentavalent campaign.  The WHO’s response was to reclassify its adverse event reporting system to disregard “infant” deaths altogether. Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a member of India’s  National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization concluded,

“deaths and other serious adverse events following vaccination in the third world, that use WHO-AEFI classification are not recorded in any database for pharmaco-vigilance. It is as if the deaths of children in low (and middle) income countries are of no consequence.”

WHO’s Double Standards of Vaccine Safety

During the WHO’s Global Vaccine Safety Summit convened in December 2019, a scandal erupted.  Days before the summit, one of the WHO’s medical directors for vaccination, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, who is now its chief science officer, appeared in a public advertisement touting the unquestionable safety of vaccines and ridiculing parents who speak out against vaccination. She assured viewers that the WHO was in control of matters and monitored any potential adverse risks carefully. However, during the Summit, Dr. Swaminathan acknowledged vaccine health risks and stated, “We really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems.” Another Summit participant, Dr. Heidi Larson stated,

“We have a very wobbly ‘health professional frontline’ that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the frontline professionals are starting to question or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to the person asking the questions. I mean most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you are lucky if you have half a day on vaccines.”

Later in September 2021, the Indian Bar Association sued Dr. Swaminathan for misleading the Indian government about Ivermectin to treat SARS-2 infections. The Association accused her of leading a disinformation campaign that resulted in “mass murder.” Covid-19 deaths exploded ten-fold due to Swaminathan’s claims that the drug was ineffective.

WHO’s Depopulation Efforts with Vaccines

Without doubt, the most nefarious activity conducted by the WHO is its alleged support and distribution of vaccines to poorer developing countries that may have been intentionally designed to decrease population rates.  Back in 1989, the WHO sponsored a symposium at its Geneva headquarters on “Antifertility Vaccines and Contraceptive Vaccines.” The symposium presented proposals for vaccines that were later discovered to have been laced with the sterilizing hormones HCG and estradiol; the former prevents pregnancy and triggers spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, and the latter can turn men infertile.

In 2015, the Kenyan Conference of Catholic Bishops reported its discovery of a polio vaccine laced with estradiol that was manufactured in India and distributed by the WHO. A year earlier, Dr. Wahome Ngare from the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association uncovered a tetanus vaccine specifically being administered to women, also distributed by the WHO, that contained the HCG hormone. All of the polio vaccine samples tested contained HCG, estrogen-related compounds, follicle stimulating and luteinizing hormones, which will damage sperm formation in the testes. Even more disturbing, this vaccine was going to be administered to children under five years of age.

This was not the first time the WHO made efforts to use vaccination campaigns for depopulation.  A decade earlier, in 2004, the WHO, UNICIF and CDC launched a vaccination campaign to immunize 74 million African children during a polio outbreak. The initiative encountered a serious obstacle. In Nigeria, laboratory tests on the WHO’s vaccine samples resulted in the presence of estrogen and other female hormones. And in the mid-1990s, a tetanus vaccine being administered to Nicaraguan and Filipino girls and women in their child-bearing years was discovered to contain HCG, which accounted for a large number of spontaneous abortions that were reported by Catholic health workers.

Illegal Vaccine Experiments

In 2014, The Economic Times of India published a report that provided details of a joint venture between the WHO and the Gates Foundation to test an experimental Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine on approximately 16,000 tribal girls between the ages of 9 and 15 unwittingly. The experiment was conducted in 2008; many of the girls, the report states, became ill and some died. This was Merck’s Gardasil vaccine.

The following year the WHO and Gates Foundation conducted a similar experiment on 14,000 girls with Glaxo’s HPV vaccine Cervarix. Again “scores of teenage girls were hospitalized.”  Investigations led by Indian health officials uncovered gross violations in India’s laws regarding medical safety. In numerous cases there was no consent and the children had no idea what they were being vaccinated for. The Indian Supreme Court has taken up a case against the duo for criminal charges.

Over the years the WHO has been engaged in many other questionable and nefarious activities. The above examples argue the case that, at least within the upper echelons of the WHO, global health does not stand in high priority.  The organization employs over 7,000 people around the world and most are dedicated to improving the lives of populations in poor and developing nations. On the other hand, the WHO’s leaders exist solely to benefit the powers of Washington, London, Bill Gates and the pharmaceutical industry by advancing their agendas.

Corruption is systemic throughout global health and national health agencies.  In a 2021 article appearing in The Lancet, Dr. Patricia Garcia wrote,

“Corruption is embedded in health systems. Throughout my life—as a researcher, public health worker, and a Minister of Health—I have been able to see entrenched dishonesty and fraud. But despite being one of the most important barriers to implementing universal health coverage around the world, corruption is rarely openly discussed.”

Bear in mind, the WHO, along with Bill Gates and his Foundation, and Anthony Fauci at the NAIAD, led the effort to get the COVID-19 vaccine administered as quickly as possible. Gates Foundation has given $1.75 billion for developing and distributing these vaccines. Can we trust the WHO’s judgment and intentions to serve global health and the well-being of the world’s citizens.

*

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.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow

They are regular contributors 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.

***

A collective of medical doctors and scientific professionals in cooperation with a Réinfo Covid Québec have sent an open letter addressed to the Quebec college of physicians, the public health director, and the Quebec association of pediatricians raising numerous concerns surrounding the mRNA injections for children.

The open letter is specifically addressed to Dr. Luc Boileau (public health director), Dr. Mauril Gaudreault (President of the Quebec college of physicians), and Dr. Marie-Claude Roy (President of the Quebec association of pediatricians) and was signed by 19 medical doctors, researchers and pharmacists.

The letter was produced in collaboration with Réinfo Covid Québec, an arm of an international collective of 4,000 doctors and 80,000 members.

The group describes itself as a collective of caregivers, doctors and citizens gathered around an idea: the need for a fair and proportionate health policy in Quebec and elsewhere in the world.

In short, the Quebec chapter of the collective aims to provide a unified voice for doctors, health care professionals, and citizens to express their concerns and views regarding the Covid-19 pandemic health measures adopted in the province and its consequences – many of which they feel aren’t being equally shared and honestly discussed by traditional media and health authorities.

Though the open letter is quite lengthy and detailed, here are some of the principal contentions held therein [Google translated from French]:

“The principles underlying this text are those found in the Civil Code of Quebec, articles 10 and 11 and of Canada as well as the code of ethics of Quebec physicians. Some fall under the Nuremberg Code.”

“The physician’s personal and unavoidable duty, enshrined in his code of ethics, and from which he cannot escape, requires him to ensure that free and informed consent is obtained from the patient.”

Free means without threat or constraint and, in the case of an investigational pharmaceutical product, without any promotion.”

Informed means that the patient receives truthful, factual, complete and clearly expressed information.”

“An experimental product of gene manipulation was presented as a “vaccine like any other”. This product has been presented as a “safe and effective vaccine”.

“If we seek the support of the institutions that are the Public Health Department and the College of Physicians of Quebec (CMQ), it is in order to allow parents in Quebec to make free and informed decisions; decisions which, it should be mentioned, are irreversible.”

“Complete information, which includes all the dangers of a pharmaceutical product, is an unavoidable ethical obligation. What we have found as information communicated to parents in the context of anti-covid vaccines is ethically and scientifically insufficient, hence this text, which aims to better inform them.”

“Censorship that deprives parents of information essential to informed decision-making is unacceptable.”

“This text will also be sent to the media. Journalists or “decryptors” may want to comment on this information. They are free to do so. However, we ask them to disclose their sources and their possible conflicts of interest and to demand the same from all specialists they call to speak publicly as required by the journalistic code of ethics. Nothing less than the lives and health of children in Quebec are at stake.”

Obligation to inform, Informed consent: Before prescribing or giving a treatment or a drug, the doctor, the government or Public Health, in this case, has an ethical and legal obligation to provide the person with all the information relating to the product concerned. This is an unavoidable duty of physicians and it is also a legal obligation enshrined in the Civil Code of Quebec, articles 10 to 25. This obligation is inspired by the principle of “inviolability of the person” and his “right to the truth”.

Freedom of choice: The person must have complete freedom to accept or refuse any pharmaceutical product without being rewarded or penalized for their choice. This is true for both adults and children.[1] As the gene vaccine against COVID-19 is an unlicensed experimental product authorized under the guise of public health emergency and which, moreover, has not been adequately tested in animals, there should be no promotion of this product, and, above all, there should be no adverse consequences for anyone who refuses. No pressure should be exerted on the person.[2] (See section 9).”

Informed choice: no information should be hidden: For the choice to be informed, all available information (potential advantages and disadvantages, risks, uncertainties) must be provided and transmitted in understandable language. However, the highest authorities (Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC) have affirmed that the information on the gene vaccine cannot all be disclosed. In addition, the manufacturers of mRNA injections still refuse, even if their products are deployed on a global scale, to reveal the exact composition alleging that it is a trade secret. The authorities concerned, the World Health Organization, Public Health of Quebec, Health Canada, the College of Physicians of Quebec (CMQ), our governments (federal and provincial) have not required pharmaceutical companies to disclose the exact composition of their products. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain truly informed consent, which contravenes the fundamental principles of the CMQ.”

Parent Consent and Responsibilities: Never has an experimental product been administered to human beings without full animal testing since the tragic drugs thalidomide[3] and DES[4] administered to pregnant women.”

“Children are not able to understand the information transmitted for consent to be considered truly “informed”. Thus, the parent who gives his authorization on behalf of his child must understand

1. that it is an irreversible intervention whose short and medium term consequences are unknown and often underestimated, and whose long term repercussions (including the risk of infertility) are unknown due to the absence of hindsight;

2. that he makes a decision on behalf of his child, considered incapable of deciding for himself, and that this is a long-term responsibility;

3. that this mRNA injection is a product that has never been used on a large scale in humans and is totally different from all the vaccines we have been used to. It is false to claim that this injection is a “vaccine like the others”.

Risk/benefit balance: One must always ask whether the product has more advantages or more disadvantages (risks). We must also take into account the age and particularities of the child concerned. The studies carried out in children by the manufacturers did not meet the minimum criteria of validity (necessity, efficacy and safety). These studies are scientifically insufficient and unsatisfactory. They have nevertheless been accepted by the FDA and by Health Canada. First of all, you have to know that the vast majority of children have already acquired a natural immunity against COVID-19 and then that children are very rarely seriously affected by the disease. In addition, it is now recognized by the CDC, since August 6, 2021, that this vaccination does not prevent either contracting the disease or transmitting it.”

“The benefits of this product for our children have not been satisfactorily explained, let alone demonstrated, by Public Health or the Government of Quebec. There are therefore unproven benefits, but the risks are indisputable and sometimes irremediable, thus subjecting children to unnecessary and unjustified danger.”

Product not tested on animals? For a drug product to be approved, it must first have been tested in animals (mice, rats, and rabbits of both sexes and pregnant animals). In the climate of urgency surrounding this pandemic and in the rush to manufacture a “vaccine”, the manufacturer considerably shortened the crucial stage of animal testing, which would have taken several years for all phases are completed. Complete studies of bio-distribution and toxicity normally required have also been neglected. The disastrous examples above of Thalidomide and DES causing fetal malformations, infertility and vaginal cancers should have prompted us to be more cautious. It is important to mention that novel, experimental and mRNA vaccines, whose risk/benefit profile is unfavorable for young people and children in good health, benefit from a marketing authorization under a decree of emergency, even though there has never been an emergency in the pediatric population.”

Is it a “safe and effective” product? A safe product? No, since Pfizer has identified 1,291 side effects that may result from its product. The VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) which is a self-reporting system of side effects by the American population, whose data everyone can consult, mentions, as of September 16, 2022, 1,418,220 reports of side effects in all age groups, including over 31,000 fatalities and nearly 260,000 serious injuries. Moreover, it is considered, according to an analysis commissioned by the FDA, that the actual frequency should be multiplied by 10 or 100.”

“Efficient? Currently the authorities cannot explain certain official statistics including the many deaths by COVID in doubly or triply vaccinated people, sudden deaths in athletes as well as excess mortality statistics; this raises legitimate questions. Has the effectiveness of “vaccines” in healthy people really been demonstrated? [8]

Ethics: vaccinating children to protect adults??? The INSPQ affirms in its report intended for the Quebec government that it can be ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly and vulnerable. This logic of the INSPQ is all the more questionable as:

(1) It is not children who transmit COVID to the elderly, but adults who transmit it to children.

(2) “Vaccination” does not prevent either contracting the disease or transmitting it, and does so with the same intensity.”

As a conclusion: We have attached ourselves to the obligation of truth and to the nature and extent of the information which must be transmitted to parents and which is essential for an informed decision-making concerning the inoculation of their child with an experimental product based on messenger RNA.”

“On the other hand, we believe that the Collège des médecins du Québec and the Direction de la santé publique could facilitate more informed decision-making by producing a document that is neither promotional nor propagandistic and which would include the information contained in the current.”

“In short, we, the signatories, are asking our indispensable regulatory institutions, the Direction de la santé publique and the Collège des médecins du Québec, to put science back on the agenda regarding the vaccination of children.”

“This also constitutes a formal notice in compliance with article 39 of the code of ethics of physicians concerning the reporting of a situation that endangers the population, in this case the children of Quebec. If the above is consistent, a complete and immediate ban on the vaccination of children in Quebec against COVID-19 is necessary, if only by virtue of the precautionary principle (“First, do no harm” ).”

Verifying some claims made by the group

While it would be too lengthy to verify all of the claims found in the contentions enumerated above, some are worth checking.

Firstly, the group claims that the vaccines should not be promoted since they were not fully tested on animals.

If we look at the information on the Quebec Health website, we can notice the following in the section Safety of the vaccines:

Previous versions (such as that of Oct. 29, 2021) somewhat varied and used to include a hyperlink pointing to the page that describes all the steps in the vaccine development process, including conducting preclinical studies in animals.

While it remains unclear why Quebec Health removed the link to the Vaccine development process page, the current page does state that they “have gone through all the necessary steps prior to approval” which remains disputable, given insufficient testing on animals.

As for the legality in promoting the vaccines, the group cited Section 9 of the Canadian Food and Drugs Act which states:

“9 (1) No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any drug in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.”

Advertising the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a manner that suggests it has met “the same quality and safety standards as any other vaccine used in Canada” is highly questionable since it was not fully tested on animals, it was hurriedly released and administered under an emergency directive, and was as an experimental product of gene manipulation very different from conventional vaccines.

One of the other key contentions of the group was that the health authorities do not meet required ethical standards specifically with regards to the completeness of information communicated to parents, that they fail in their obligation to provide informed consent, and that the public health authority, the INSPQ, had asserted it an ethical justification to vaccinate children in order to protect the elderly and vulnerable.

Moreover, they stress that complete information should include the dangers and risks of the vaccine, but parents are not informed of all of these due to censorship. And consequently, it deprives them of making an informed decision.

Informed consent is a complex concept with many norms and standards to follow as well as relevant laws which are well beyond the scope of this article. Notwithstanding, the claim that the health authority advocated to the Quebec government the advantages of vaccinating children to protect more vulnerable groups is easily verifiable.

In this regard, the group makes reference to the INSPQ’s publication entitled Vaccination contre la COVID-19 chez les enfants âgés de 6 mois à 4 ans au Québec (English: Vaccination against COVID-19 in children aged 6 months to 4 years in Quebec) for the allegation. The document in question does state the following:

English translation (via Google Translate):

9 Ethical Considerations

Vaccination of children raises certain questions ethics that have been discussed in detail in the notice for vaccination against COVID-19 of children aged 5 to 11 years(6).

Specifically for young children, remember the issues related to non-maleficence: given that the anticipated benefits of youth vaccination children are less than for other groups age, the individual risks must be low and the vaccination must have an excellent safety profile.

The possible negative impacts of vaccination against COVID-19 on the offer and acceptability of others routine vaccines should also be minimized, in order to respect the principle of non-maleficence.

Moreover, from a utilitarian point of view, the principle of solidarity can make it possible to ethically justify the vaccination of young children in the context of a uncertain benefit/risk ratio at the individual level, especially if the vaccination of young children offers societal benefits (for example, if vaccination protects other people more vulnerable). It could also allow parents who identify their child at risk of developing complications as a result of an infection to SARS-CoV-2 to benefit from this strategy preventative, should it become offered or recommended.”

They key passage here is

“Moreover, from a utilitarian point of view, the principle of solidarity can make it possible to ethically justify the vaccination of young children in the context of a uncertain benefit/risk ratio at the individual level, especially if the vaccination of young children offers societal benefits (for example, if vaccination protects other people more vulnerable)”.

It is clearly stated that the health authority, the INSPQ, is indeed suggesting vaccinating children in order to protect more vulnerable groups of society.

While the group has raised many important questions surrounding the numerous and contentious issues raised in their open letter, it remains to be seen if any of the targeted health authorities will reply, as they seldom do.

The author of this article has contacted Réinfo Covid Québec to inquire as to whether they have received any response from any of the three health authorities to whom they have addressed the letter, but has not received a reply as of publication time. Should they respond, a note will be added in the comments section for this article.

At the very least, the group of doctors and health care professionals who penned this open letter have provided the public in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada with a lot to contemplate.

*

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, Dan Fournier’s Writings.

Dan Fournier is a Freelance/Independent Investigative Journalist.

Featured image: A young girl receives a Covid-19 vaccination. Image source: Wikimedia Commons


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page(NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

***

What did you think would happen? What was the Zionist left, which sank into a coma after the Oslo Accords, thinking? That it was possible to return to power out of a coma? Empty-handed? Without an alternative and without leadership? Solely on the basis of hatred for Netanyahu? Aside from that, it had nothing to offer.

No one should be surprised by what happened. It could not have been otherwise. It began with the occupation – pardon the annoying and clichéd mention of that – but that is where it really began, and it had to culminate in a government of racism and transfer. Fifty years of incitement against the Palestinians and scare tactics about them cannot culminate in a government of peace.

Fifty years of almost wall-to-wall Israeli support, from the Zionist left and right, for the occupation, could not end any other way than with Ben-Gvir as the popular hero. A never-ending occupation could only lead to the Benjamin Netanyahu-Itamar Ben-Gvir government. For if you’re going to have an occupation, then you need to embrace its genuine version, the one that is not the least bit abashed about it – the Ben-Gvir version.

It was simply impossible to continue with the illusions – Jewish and democratic, an enlightened occupation, a temporary occupation – and that whole tired repertoire of phrases. The time for truth had arrived, and that is what Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir are going to tell us.

There is no point in pursuing a blame campaign now – Yair Lapid siphoned off Labor votes, Labor didn’t merge with Meretz, Balad didn’t go with the Joint List. These things would have amounted to temporary pain relievers for a terminal illness. Even if all that would not have happened, nothing about the overall picture would have been different: The society that has arisen here is partly religious and largely racist, with hatred of Arabs being its main fuel, and there was no one to stand against that.

What happened two days ago did not begin two days ago. Maybe Golda Meir started it, maybe Shimon Peres, but in any event, none of their successors tried to go another way to stem the tide. Did you really think that Yair Lapid, a moderate and hollow rightist, filled with good intentions, was capable of offering an alternative to Ben-Gvir? What alternative? To kill gently? To embrace Emmanuel Macron? Now Israel has decided it prefers not to be gentle when it comes to killing. The next government will at least avoid the self-preening.

For years, a rudderless left and center that lacks leadership and lacks courage has desperately attempted to grovel to and look like the right. It just had to end with Ben-Gvir and with the nationalist Shas. There was no other possible outcome.

For years, Israelis have been about the Chosen People, about the Holocaust after which anything is permitted, about the Arabs who want to throw us into the sea, about our right to the land because of the biblical stories, about the IDF as the world’s most moral army, about David versus Goliath, about Israeli Arabs as a fifth column, about the whole world being against us and that anyone who criticizes us is an antisemite. What did we think would arise out of all that? Ben-Gvir actually took his time. He could well have made his big splash a long time ago. That’s what happens when you have a Bolsonaro and no Lula facing him. That’s what happens when cries of “Death to the Arabs,” which will now be drilled at morning assembly in schools, were not met with a single cry of “Freedom for the Arabs.” That is where it began, this is where it ends.

*

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 Narrative Around the Safety of COVID Shots Is Cracking

By Dr. Rob Verkerk, November 03, 2022

It’s becoming ever more clear that the major, most influential health authorities around the world are now blatantly lying to the public, given the current status of scientific and medical information. Why do I say this?

What to Expect from COP27 in Egypt’s Police State: An Interview with Sharif Abdel Kouddous

By Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Medea Benjamin, November 04, 2022

The global climate meeting called COP27 (the 27th Conference of Parties) will be held in the remote Egyptian desert resort of Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt from November 6-18. Given the extremely repressive nature of the Egyptian government, this gathering will likely be different from others, where there have been large, raucous protests led by civil society groups.

Twelve Lessons to be Learned from the Ethiopian Conflict

By Andrew Korybko, November 04, 2022

The global systemic transition within which the New Cold War is being waged played a major role in catalyzing the Ethiopian Conflict due to the Golden Billion’s self-interested geostrategic reasons in provoking what could have been the greatest African tragedy since the Congo Wars.

EU’s “Carrot and Stick” Policy Toward Serbia Ends, Brussels “Drops Carrot” from Equation

By Drago Bosnic, November 04, 2022

After over two decades of keeping Serbia in a semi-colonial state, the European Union seems to finally admit that it sees the Southeast European country precisely as such – a semi-colony. For approximately 20 years, Brussels played the carrot and stick cards with Belgrade, forcing it to renounce important segments of its sovereignty in return for access to EU funds and markets.

Former President Lula Declared Winner in Brazil

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 03, 2022

A runoff election which pitted the right-wing and neo-fascist President Jair Bolsonaro against former Workers’ Party President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has resulted in a narrow victory which illustrates the sharp political divisions in the South American state of the Republic of Brazil.

COVID-19: A Universe of Questions in a Time of Universal Deceit

By Michael Bryant, November 03, 2022

The original Covid Story narrated by health ‘experts’ and government officials told of a particularly virulent pathogen which besieged the planet in 2020 and spread like wildfire– terrorizing, infecting, and killing people en masse. It was the story of a “pandemic level event” in which people were told to stay indoors, entire sectors of society were forced to shut down and humans were told to do everything possible to avoid contact with one another.

UK Government “War Gamed” Emergency Plans for Multi-Day Power Blackouts; Leaked Docs Reveal

By Zero Hedge, November 03, 2022

Documents are not for public consumption, warn a “reasonable worst-case scenario” power blackout would roil all segments of the economy. Transport, food, water supply, communications, and energy would grind to a halt. In such a scenario, the government will provide citizens with food, water, and shelter if power blackouts last more than several days.

Donbass Self-Determination: Referenda and the Rights of Minorities. Analysis by UN Expert

By Alfred de Zayas and Arnaud Develay, November 03, 2022

The Russian population in Donbass certainly had reason to feel threatened in the light of the virulence of the anti-Russian rhetoric by the leaders of the Maidan coup and the anti-Russian legislation adopted by the putsch-Parliament.

Full-blooded Psychopaths: Engineered Global Genocide in the Guise of a Global Pandemic

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, November 03, 2022

How may one describe the nature of those psychopaths who have deviously and with supreme cleverness engineered a global genocide in the guise of a global pandemic, and who have so befuddled and seduced the masses that their acts of evil have been welcomed as acts of greater good?

Canada Prepares War Bonds for Nazi-infested Ukrainian Government

By Daniel Xie, November 03, 2022

On October 28 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a plan to raise further money for Ukraine as the eight year NATO-led proxy war against Russia rages on. This plan involves Canada selling a government backed 5-year bond for Ukraine, NATO’s primary means used to target Russia. Canada calls it a “Ukrainian Sovereignty Bond”.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Narrative Around the Safety of COVID Shots Is Cracking

Rishi Sunak: A Thatcherite in Downing Street

November 4th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

***

They are falling like ninepins, and the Tories have now given the weary people of Britain yet another prime minister.  And what a catch: stupendously wealthy, youthful – the youngest in two centuries – and a lawbreaker.  As Chancellor of the Exchequer in the government of Boris Johnson, he was fined for breaches during the partygate scandal, despite telling the Commons that he had attended no illegal gatherings.

The statement released in response to the fine was ice cool, belying the fact that he had become the first Chancellor ever charged with an offence while in office.  “I understand that for figures in public office, the rules must be applied stringently in order to maintain public confidence.”  He respected “the decision that has been made and have paid the fine.”  The outcome was always likely: not paying could have landed him in an even stickier situation.

Being sly with regulations is obviously something that runs in the family.  Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, ran into some trouble earlier this year when attention was brought to her non-domiciled (non-dom) status in the UK.  She owns a jaw dropping £700 million in shares in the Indian IT giant Infosys, from which she received £11.6 million in dividend income last year.

Declaring one’s domicile to be in another country can be a fine money saver: in this case, £2.1 million a year.  But Murty wanted to be generous and gracious – at least for her husband’s political ambitions.  “I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family.”

The new prime minister’s coming to power is a perfect statement of the leader estranged and continentally distant from voters, a person evidently bored by his time as a banker and keen to make a showing in parliament.  “In his technocratic aloofness,” George Eaton suggests, “Sunak resembles an IMF official poised to impose a ‘structural adjustment programme’ on a stricken developing world economy.”  The analogy is not out of place, given what Trussonomics has done to Britain in a matter of weeks.

While Sunak distanced himself from his predecessor’s loopy variant of steroid-fed Reaganomics, the inner Thatcherite’s heart continued to beat to the rhythm of nostalgia.  As Thatcher’s own Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, said of Sunak, he was “the only candidate who understands Thatcherite economics.”

He is, to illustrate the point, very much in favour of fiscal tightening and keeping public spending thin, and, like the Iron Lady he so adores, happy to tout tax rises if needed.  Thatcher, it should be remembered, raised the Value Added Tax (VAT) from 8 per cent to 15 per cent and imposed the infamous poll tax otherwise advertised as a “Community Charge”.

Sunak’s belief in redistribution is of that rather distasteful variety.  As Labour had, in his ill-chosen words of a leaked video, “shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas”, it was incumbent on the Tories to undo it.  “I managed to start changing the funding formulas to make sure areas like this are getting the funding they deserved.”  The area in question was the rather well-heeled town of Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

During Sunak’s tenure and the “levelling up” programme of Johnson, the wealthiest parts of Britain received amounts of money up to 10 times more per capita than the poorest, showing how Tories can be socialistic to the class of their own choosing.  Sajid Javid’s wealthy constituency of Bromsgrove in Worcestershire was earmarked to receive £15 million, or £148 a head.  Eight local authorities counted as some of the poorest in Britain received less than £10 a head from levelling up funds.

His economic embrace of Brexit was filled with hubristic assessments, some of this evident in a report authored for the Centre for Policy Studies in 2016.  “Brexit will provide the UK with new economic freedom, and the Government should take the opportunity to create Free ports across the nation.”  Such ports would “increase manufacturing output, create employment regionally where it is most needed, and promote trade.”

The report obsesses over the presence of 3,500 Free Trade Zones spread across the globe, with the US deserving a special mention: 250 FTZs “which employ 420,000 people and handle £750bn of merchandise.”  Airy predictions about what free ports would do to the unshackled British economy are offered, including 86,000 jobs “if they were as successful as the US Foreign Trade Zone programme.”

Such a rarefied market world says little about civic duties and citizenship.  It speaks volumes that Sunak expressed scepticism about lockdowns and has preferred to take climate change less seriously than others, even within his own party.  The issue of whether planning permission is going to be given to opening the UK’s first coal mine in a generation – in Cumbria – has been dismissed by the new PM as a “local issue”.

Sunak even had to be persuaded to change his mind attending the upcoming COP27 conference to be held in Egypt.  On Twitter, he rationalised his about face, characterised by Green MP Caroline Lucas as a “screeching U-turn” on the climate change conference: “There is no long-term prosperity without action on climate change.  There is no energy security without investing in renewables.”

The change of heart suggested a weakness to the Labour opposition.  “The prime minister,” according to the party’s climate policy spokesperson Ed Miliband, “has been shamed into going to COP27 by the torrent of disbelief that he would fail to turn up.”  The only reason for putting in an appearance was “to avoid embarrassment not to provide leadership.”  There is still much time for the markets, and everybody else, to be spooked.

*

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: Sunak introducing the 2021 autumn budget (Photo by HM Treasury and The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP, licensed under OGL 3)

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 global climate meeting called COP27 (the 27th Conference of Parties) will be held in the remote Egyptian desert resort of Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt from November 6-18. Given the extremely repressive nature of the Egyptian government, this gathering will likely be different from others, where there have been large, raucous protests led by civil society groups.

So as tens of thousands of delegates – from world leaders to climate activists and journalists – descend on Sharm el-Sheik from all over the world, we asked Egyptian Journalist Sharif Abdel Kouddous to give us his thoughts about the state of Egypt today, including the situation of political prisoners, and how he expects the Egyptian government will act with the eyes of the world upon it.

*

Medea Benjamin: For those who don’t know or have forgotten, can you give us a quick overview of the nature of the present government in Egypt today?

Sharif Abdel Kouddous: The 2011 revolution against Hosni Mubarak, an uprising that was part of what has been called the Arab Spring, was very inspiring and had reverberations around the world, from the Occupy Movement in the United States to the Indignados in Spain. But that revolution was crushed in a very brutal way in 2013 by the military, led by General Abdel Fattah al Sisi–who later became president.

Right now, Egypt is ruled by a very tight and closed clique of military and intelligence officers, a circle that is completely opaque. Its decision-making process does not allow for any political participation and it does not brook any kind of dissent or opposition. It seems that the government’s answer to any problems with its citizens is to put them in prison.

There are literally tens of thousands of political prisoners in Egypt right now. We don’t know the exact number because there are no official statistics and this forces lawyers and the very harassed human rights groups to try to painstakingly tabulate the thousands of people who are trapped behind bars.

Over the past few years, we’ve seen Egypt build several new prisons. Just last year Sisi oversaw the opening of the Wadi al-Natrun prison complex. It’s not called a prison complex, it’s called a “rehabilitation center.” This is one of seven or eight new prisons that Sisi himself has dubbed “American-style prisons.”

These prison complexes include within them the courts and judicial buildings, so it makes a conveyor belt from the courthouse to the prison more efficient.

MB: What is the status of this massive group of political prisoners?

SAK: The majority of political prisoners in Egypt are held in what is called “pre-trial detention.” Under Egypt’s penal code, you can be held in prison for two years without ever being convicted of a crime. Nearly everyone held in pre-trial detention faces two identical charges: one is spreading false information and the other is belonging to a terrorist organization or an outlawed organization.

The prison conditions are very dire. If you get sick, you are in big trouble. There have been a lot of deaths from medical negligence, with prisoners dying in custody. Torture and other forms of abuse by security forces is widespread.

We’ve also seen the number of death sentences and executions skyrocket. Under the former President Mubarak, in his final decade in office, there was a de facto moratorium on executions. There were death sentences handed down but people were not being put to death. Now Egypt ranks third in the world in the number of executions.

MB: What about other freedoms, such as freedom of assembly and freedom of the press?

SAK: Basically, the regime sees its citizens as a nuisance or a threat. All forms of protest or public assembly are banned.

Alleged violations carry very stiff prison sentences. We’ve seen mass arrests sweeps happen whenever there’s any kind of public demonstration and we’ve also seen an unprecedented crackdown on civil society, with human rights organizations and economic justice organizations being forced to scale back their operations or basically operate underground.The people who work for them are subject to intimidation and harassment and travel bans and arrests.

We’ve also seen a massive crackdown on press freedom, a nearly complete takeover of the media landscape. Under Mubarak’s government, there was at least some opposition press, including some opposition newspapers and TV stations. But now the government very tightly controls the press through censorship and also through acquisition. The General Intelligence Services, which is the intelligence apparatus of the military, has become the largest media owner of the country. They own newspapers and TV channels. Independent media, such as the one I work for called Mada Masr, operate on the margins in a very, very hostile environment.

Egypt is the third largest jailer of journalists in the world and imprisons more journalists on charges of spreading false news than any other country in the world.

MB: Can you talk about the case of Alaa Abd El-Fattah, who is probably Egypt’s most famous political prisoner?

SAK: Alaa has been behind bars for much of the last decade. He is in prison ostensibly for the crime of “spreading false news,” but he is really in prison for these ideas, for being an icon and a symbol of the 2011 revolution. For the regime, imprisoning him was a way to set an example for everyone else. That’s why there has been so much campaigning to get him out.

He has been in prison under very, very difficult conditions. For two years he wasn’t allowed out of his cell and didn’t even have a mattress to sleep on. He was completely deprived of everything, including books or reading materials of any kind. For the first time, he started expressing suicidal thoughts.

But on April 2 he decided to go on a hunger strike as an act of resistance against his imprisonment. He has been on a hunger strike for seven months now. He started with just water and salt, which is a kind of hunger strike that Egyptians learned from Palestinians. Then in May, he decided to go on a Gandhi-style strike and ingest 100 calories a day–which is a spoonful of honey in some tea. An average adult needs 2,000 calories a day, so it’s very meager.

But he just sent a letter to his family saying that he was going back to a full hunger strike and on November 6, on the eve of the COP meeting, he’s going to stop drinking water. This is extremely serious because the body cannot last without water for more than a few days.

So he is calling on all of us on the outside to organize, because either he will die in prison or he will be released. What he is doing is incredibly brave. He is using his body, the only thing he has agency over, to organize and to push us on the outside to do more.

MB: How do these repressed civil society leaders view the fact that Egypt is playing host to COP27?

SAK: It was very disheartening for a lot of people in Egypt who work for human rights and justice and democracy when Egypt was granted the right to host the conference. But Egyptian civil society has not called on the international community to boycott the COP meeting; they have called for the plight of political prisoners and the lack of human rights to be linked to the climate discussions and not ignored.

They want a spotlight to be placed on the thousands of political prisoners like Alaa, like Abdel Moneim Aboul Foitouh, a former presidential candidate, like Mohamed Oxygen, a blogger, like Marwa Arafa, who is an activist from Alexandria.

Unfortunately, hosting this meeting has given the government a great opportunity to remake its image. It has allowed the government to try to position itself as the voice for the Global South and the negotiator trying to unlock billions of dollars a year in climate financing from the Global North.

Of course the issue of climate reparations to the Global South is very important. It needs to be discussed and taken seriously. But how can you give climate reparations to a country like Egypt when you know the money will mostly be spent on bolstering this repressive, polluting state? As Naomi Klein said in her great article Greenwashing a Police State, the summit is going beyond greenwashing a polluting state to greenwashing a police state.

MB: So what do you think we can expect to see in Sharm el-Sheikh? Will the usual protests that happen at every COP, both inside and outside the official halls, be allowed?

SAK: I think what we are going to see in Sharm el-Sheik is a carefully managed theater. We all know the problems with the UN Climate Summits. There are a lot of negotiations and climate diplomacy, but rarely do they amount to anything concrete and binding. But they do serve as an important place for networking and convergence for different groups in the climate justice movement, an opportunity for them to come together to organize. It has also been a time for these groups to show their opposition to the inaction by those in power, with creative, vigorous protests both inside and outside the conference.

This will not be the case this year. Sharm El-Sheikh is a resort in Sinai that literally has a wall around it. It can and will be very tightly controlled. From what we understand, there is a special space that has been designated for protests that has been built out near a highway, far away from the conference center and any signs of life. So how effective will it be to hold protests there?

This is why people like Greta Thunberg are not going. Many activists have problems with the structure of the COP itself but it is even worse in Egypt where the ability to use it as a convergence space for dissent will be effectively shut down.

But more importantly, the members of Egyptian civil society, including the allies and environmental groups that are critical of the government, will not be allowed to attend. In a departure from UN rules, those groups that manage to participate will have been vetted and approved by the government and will have to be very careful about how they operate. Other Egyptians who should be there are unfortunately in prison or are subject to various forms of repression and harassment.

MB: Should foreigners also worry about the Egyptian government surveilling them?

SAK: The entire conference will be very highly surveilled. The government created this app that you can download to use as a guide for the conference. But to do that, you have to put in your full name, phone number, email address, passport number and nationality, and you have to enable location tracking. Amnesty International technology specialists have reviewed the app and flagged all these concerns about surveillance and how the app can use the camera and microphone and location data and bluetooth.

MB: What environmental issues related to Egypt will the government allow to be discussed, and what will be off limits?

SAK: Environmental issues that will be allowed are issues such as trash collection, recycling, renewable energy and climate finance, which is a big issue for Egypt and for the Global South.

Environmental issues that implicate the government and military will not be tolerated. Take the issue of coal–something the environmental community is very critical of. That will be off limits because coal imports, much of it coming from the United States, have risen over the past several years, driven by the strong demand from the cement sector. Egypt’s largest importer of coal is also the largest cement producer, and that’s the El-Arish Cement Company that was built in 2016 by none other than the Egyptian military.

We’ve seen massive amounts of cement poured into Egypt’s natural environment over the past several years. The government has built nearly 1,000 bridges and tunnels, destroying acres and acres of green space and cutting down thousands of trees. They have gone on a crazy construction spree, building a slew of new neighborhoods and cities, including a new administrative capital in the desert just outside of Cairo. But no criticism of these projects has been or will be tolerated.

Then there is dirty energy production. Egypt, Africa’s second largest gas producer, is scaling up its oil and gas production and exports, which will mean further profits for the military and intelligence sectors involved in this. These projects that are harmful to the environment but profitable for the military will be off the agenda.

The Egyptian military is entrenched in every part of the Egyptian state. Military owned enterprises produce everything from fertilizers to baby food to cement. They operate hotels; they are the largest owner of land in Egypt. So any kind of industrial pollution or environmental harm from areas such as construction, tourism, development and agribusiness will not be tolerated at COP.

MB: We have heard that the crackdown on Egyptians in anticipation of this global gathering has already begun. Is that true?

SAK: Yes, we’ve already seen an intensified crackdown and a massive arrest sweep in the run-up to the climate summit. There are arbitrary stop and searches, and random security checkpoints. They open your facebook and whatsapp and they look through it. If they find content that they find problematic, they arrest you.

Hundreds of people have been arrested, by some counts 500-600. They have been arrested from their homes, off the streets, from their workplaces.

And these searches and arrests are not restricted just to Egyptians. The other day there was an Indian climate activist, Ajit Rajagopal, was arrested shortly after setting off on an 8-day walk from Cairo to Sharm el-Sheikh as part of a global campaign to raise awareness about the climate crisis.

He was detained in Cairo, questioned for hours and held overnight. He called an Egyptian lawyer friend, who came to the police station to help him. They detained the lawyer as well, and held him overnight.

There have been calls for protests on November 11, or 11/11. Do you think people in Egypt will come out on the streets?

It is unclear where these protest calls started but I think it was started by people outside Egypt. I would be surprised if people come out on the streets given the level of repression we’ve been seeing these days but you never know.

The security apparatus was very surprised in September 2019 when a former military contractor turned whistleblower exposed videos showing army corruption. These videos went viral. The whistleblower called for protests but he was outside Egypt in self-imposed exile in Spain.

There were some protests, not very big but significant. And what was the government response? Massive arrests, the most massive sweep since Sisi came to power with over 4,000 people detained. They arrested all kinds of people–everyone who had been arrested before and a lot of other people. With that kind of repression, it’s hard to say if mobilizing people to go to the streets is the right thing to do.

The government is also particularly paranoid because the economic situation is so bad. The Egyptian currency has lost 30 percent of its value since the beginning of the year, precipitated by a variety of factors, including the war in Ukraine, since Egypt was getting so much of its wheat from Ukraine. Inflation is out of control. People are getting poorer and poorer. So that, combined with these calls for protests, have prompted the preemptive crackdown.

So I don’t know if people will defy the government and go out into the streets. But I gave up trying to predict anything in Egypt a long time ago. You just never know what is going to happen.

*

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.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What to Expect from COP27 in Egypt’s Police State: An Interview with Sharif Abdel Kouddous
  • Tags: ,

Last Month’s Most Popular Articles

November 4th, 2022 by Global Research News

People Dying in Their Sleep Linked to Vaccines, Explains Dr. Peter McCullough, Cardiologist

Dr. Jennifer Margulis, October 25, 2022

The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset

F. William Engdahl, October 31, 2022

Many People Fully Vaccinated for COVID Are Now Going Blind

Ethan Huff, October 24, 2022

Vaccine Narrative Collapses as Harvard Study Shows Jab More Dangerous than COVID

Jonas Vesterberg, October 9, 2022

PfizerGate: Official Government Reports prove Hundreds of Thousands of People Are Dying Every Single Week Due to COVID-19 Vaccination

The Expose, October 9, 2022

Israeli Report: “The mRNA Experimental Vaccine from Pfizer Killed “About 40 Times More (Elderly) People Than the Disease Itself Would Have Killed” During a Recent Five-week Vaccination Period”

Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, October 7, 2022

Some of Us Don’t Think the Russian Invasion Was “Aggression.” Here’s Why.

Mike Whitney, October 24, 2022

Dr. Michael Yeadon on the Covid Crisis: The Most Important Single Message I’ve Ever Written

Dr. Mike Yeadon, October 31, 2022

The US-Nazi Connection Since World War II: From Inspiring the Third Reich to Supporting the Neo-Nazis of Ukraine

Timothy Alexander Guzman, October 20, 2022

The Rise and Fall of the Great Reset — Professor Arthur Noble

Prof. Arthur Noble, October 19, 2022

Putin’s Winter Offensive

Mike Whitney, October 24, 2022

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

James A. Lucas, October 31, 2022

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide: Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer “Confidential Report”

Dr. Naomi Wolf, November 1, 2022

US Rejection of Moscow’s Offer for Peace Talks Is Utterly Inexcusable

Caitlin Johnstone, October 13, 2022

Biden Signs Executive Order Designed to Unleash “Transhumanist Hell” on America and the World

Leo Hohmann, October 17, 2022

U.S. Act of War against the European Union: President Biden Ordered the Terror Attack against Nord Stream. High Treason against the People of Europe

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 3, 2022

The War in Ukraine: Made in Washington Not Moscow

Mike Whitney, October 24, 2022

Colossal Financial Pyramid: BlackRock and The WEF “Great Reset”

F. William Engdahl, October 9, 2022

“Preemptive Nuclear War”: The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. A Third World War Threatens the Future of Humanity

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 29, 2022

The ‘War of Terror’ May be About to Hit Europe

Pepe Escobar, October 25, 2022

Twelve Lessons to be Learned from the Ethiopian Conflict

November 4th, 2022 by Andrew Korybko

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 global systemic transition within which the New Cold War is being waged played a major role in catalyzing the Ethiopian Conflict due to the Golden Billion’s self-interested geostrategic reasons in provoking what could have been the greatest African tragedy since the Congo Wars. All of Africa is expected to become a similar proxy battleground in this struggle over the direction of that aforesaid transition, but the example of Ethiopia’s victory might help avert some of the worst upcoming crises.

The Ethiopian Conflict finally ended with a peace agreement on 2 November between the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) and the TPLF, which had been fighting one another for almost exactly two years up until that point. Everything that transpired across that time taught the world some very important things that can hopefully be put to use for preemptively averting or decisively reacting to future such conflicts. Here are the twelve most important lessons to be learned from the Ethiopian Conflict:

1. Deeply Embedded Elite Become Embittered Whenever Their Privileges Are Threatened

The TPLF had deeply embedded itself into the very fabric of the post-Civil War Ethiopian state and thus became embittered when Prime Minister Abiy Ahmedattempted to reduce their privileges as part of his far-reaching reforms. He envisaged restoring meritocracy in order to give his multimillennial nation’s historically diverse people true equality within their federal system, yet this was vehemently opposed by the former ruling party, so much so that they decided to go to war to protect their privileges.

2. Ethnic Federalism Can Be Exploited For Separatist Ends

The Ethiopian Constitution’s clause enshrining the right to secession for every nation, nationality, and people was included in the law of the land partly for the purpose of emphasizing the voluntary unity of these diverse elements, each of which could leave if their rights weren’t respected. The TPLF exploited this clause together with the federal system’s creation of the Tigray Region to promote their self-interested separatist cause, which was illegitimate since the Tigrayans’ rights weren’t ever threatened.

3. Information Warfare Fuels The Flames Of Ethno-Separatism

The only way in which the TPLF stood any chance of “justifying” their self-interested separatist cause to the same Tigrayans who they claimed to represent was to manipulate their perceptions through information warfare aimed at making them fear that their rights were at risk of being threatened. To that end, they also relied on their extensive network of foreign civil society, media, and state supporters, each of which had ulterior motives for contributing to this campaign.

4. External Actors Exploit Domestic Tensions To Promote Their Interests In The New Cold War

The US-led West’s Golden Billion saw an irresistible opportunity to exploit the TPLF’s self-interested separatist cause for the purpose of promoting their interests in the New Cold War. In the Ethiopian context, they sought to punish that country for its policy of principled neutrality in refusing to take their side over China’s, which at that time was their top opponent in the jointly BRICS– and SCO-led Global South prior to the latestphase of the Ukrainian Conflict that made Russia their number one enemy.

5. Humanitarian Imperialism Is The Latest Form Of Hybrid Warfare

The weaponization of humanitarian issues – whether objectively existing, completely fabricated, or a combination thereof – for advancing political goals at another country’s expense via economic (sanctions) and/or military (“Responsibility to Protect”) means/threats can be described as humanitarian imperialism. This latest form of Hybrid Warfare came to characterize the Ethiopian Conflict more than anything else and will thus be studied very closely by scholars across the coming years.

6. Grassroots Movements Organically Rise To Confront Fake News & Neo-Imperialism

Activists at home and abroad organically came together to create the #NoMore grassroots movement in response to the fake news that was spewed to facilitate the neo-imperialist agenda of those foreign forces meddling in the Ethiopian Conflict. Their common anti-imperialist cause is inclusive enough to involve anyone in the world with similar principles, which thus resulted in revitalizing these hitherto dormant movements and therefore bringing hope other oppressed people across the Global South.

7. Existential Threats Posed By Foreign Divide-And-Rule Plots Can Strengthen National Unity

Identity-driven tensions predate the Ethiopian Conflict, but their exacerbation and subsequent exploitation by foreign forces served to bring Ethiopia’s diverse people closer together than ever before. This unexpected outcome was due to the #NoMore movement making everyone aware of how their preexisting problems were being manipulated to threaten their state’s existence. That prompted all previously feuding but sincerely patriotic forces to unite in defending their beloved country.

8. Strong Synergy Between Civil Society & The Security Services Preserves Domestic Stability

The only reason that Ethiopia remained domestically stable outside of its conflict-afflicted regions is because of the strong synergy between civil society and the security services, without which this historically diverse country would certainly have been “Balkanized” by now. People of all identities from all walks of life rallied behind the ENDF as their shield for protecting the existence of the Ethiopian state that all sincerely patriotic forces have a stake in preserving.

9. National Crises Provide Clarity About A Country’s True Friends & Foes

Ethiopia discovered who its friends and foes truly were during the last two years of its national crisis. Those Western states that previously claimed to support democracy and human rights ended up being the ones violating Ethiopia’s national model of democracy and its people’s human rights by proxy, while states across the Global South like Russia, China, Iran, and Turkiye united in supporting their victimized peer. Reconciliation with the first category is possible, but no one will ever forget what happened.

10. Well-Intended Regional Mediation Efforts Can Lead To Unexpected Breakthroughs

The African Union-mediated peace process that culminated in South Africa led to unexpected breakthroughs precisely because those involved in it had positive intentions instead of ulterior motives like those Western countries that sought to meddle in these talks. “African Solutions to African Problems” is now more than just a slogan since it just achieved its most important deliverable, peace in Ethiopia, which will in turn provide a practical framework for resolving other African crises.

11. Difficult Compromises Are Required For Peace, Stability, and Unity

The 12-point joint statement released by the GOE and the TPLF contains what can objectively be described as some difficult compromises by both parties on sensitive issues involving administrative, informational, judicial, political, and security affairs. These were required though in order to achieve peace, return stability to the country, and thus preserve national unity. It’s impossible to please everyone on both sides, yet they should all appreciate the difficult decisions made for the greater good.

12. The Ethiopian Conflict Is A Lesson For All Of Africa

Ethiopia’s victory over the neo-imperialist forces that waged their Hybrid War of Terror against it as punishment for this country’s pragmatic policy of principled neutrality in the New Cold War will inspire other African states to follow its lead instead of deterring them like its defeat would have done. Furthermore, those disgruntled domestic forces similar in spirit to the TPLF will be deterred from destabilizing their country in collusion with foreign forces instead of being inspired had the TPLF won.

*

The global systemic transition within which the New Cold War is being waged played a major role in catalyzing the Ethiopian Conflict due to the Golden Billion’s self-interested geostrategic reasons in provoking what could have been the greatest African tragedy since the Congo Wars. All of Africa is expected to become a similar proxy battleground in this struggle over the direction of that aforesaid transition, but the example of Ethiopia’s victory might help avert some of the worst upcoming crises.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Twelve Lessons to be Learned from the Ethiopian Conflict
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

After over two decades of keeping Serbia in a semi-colonial state, the European Union seems to finally admit that it sees the Southeast European country precisely as such – a semi-colony. For approximately 20 years, Brussels played the carrot and stick cards with Belgrade, forcing it to renounce important segments of its sovereignty in return for access to EU funds and markets.

The neoliberal economic framework that the EU insisted on devastated the country’s hybrid market socialist economy and ruined domestic economic power, paving the way for the dominance of foreign investors and turning the country into yet another source of cheap labor for Western corporate interests. However, even while implementing such policies, disastrous for any country’s economic (or any other form of) sovereignty, it created an image of growth.

And yet, the waning economic power of Brussels, resulting primarily from its suicidal subservience to Washington DC’s Barbarossa-like push against Russia, is starting to affect the “carrot” portion of the EU’s policy toward Serbia. Frustrated by the country’s refusal to conform with the political West’s clinically Russophobic frenzy, the bureaucratic empire is now resorting to using the “stick”. With little to nothing left to offer, the EU is now threatening to scale back the benefits it gave Serbia in the last two decades to punish the country for its non-compliance in regards to the bloc’s anti-Russian sanctions and policies. To make matters worse, Brussels insists that Belgrade should still continue renouncing parts of its sovereignty while the EU is rolling back the apparent benefits it previously gave in return.

What does Serbia get from all this? A geopolitically worthless shoulder tap that will not help the country in any conceivable way. On the contrary, it may very well ruin its centuries-old relationship with Russia, a country exerting no pressure on Serbia while helping it preserve what’s left of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. For the political West, now effectively operating under a “you’re either with us or against us” foreign policy framework, Serbia’s neutrality is seen as nothing short of hostile. Belgrade is forced to beg to stay neutral in the Ukraine crisis, but to no avail, it seems. Anything less than full compliance is unacceptable to the imperialist power pole. To show just how much, the EU now considers Serbia’s membership ambitions effectively dead, as the negotiations to join the bloc have become a mere formality, having been stalled for years.

Brussels now thinks Serbia should not be conditioned by the termination of accession negotiations, since “joining the EU is as realistic as going to Mars,” as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung put it. The analogy is quite indicative of how the bloc sees Serbia’s future and should serve as an eye-opener in Belgrade. Coupled with recent allegations that Serbia is “trying to destabilize the EU at the behest of Russia”, it’s clear that despite how much sovereignty it renounces, how far it’s ready to go against its national interests, the country will never be good enough to join the bloc. The question remains then, what’s the point? Why would Serbia even want to join the EU? It seems the Serbian populace is well aware of this and it’s not so keen on joining either.

The EU now realizes that stopping membership negotiations would effectively mean nothing to the Serbian people. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung thinks that “the warnings about the possible freezing of accession negotiations are a blunt sword against Belgrade,” as the negotiations have been stagnant for years. “Their termination would not leave an impression on the Serbian population, which is critical of the EU anyway. In addition, even among the advocates of the EU in Belgrade, almost no one believes that joining the EU is realistic. Equally, Serbia could be threatened with a ban on access to Mars,” the report states.

However, it’s a different story when it comes to abolishing visa-free travel for Serbian citizens, a topic first mentioned by the European Commissioner for Internal Affairs Ylva Johansson. “It would greatly affect the Serbian economy, as well as the predominantly urban population that travels, as well as the authorities. It is the most lethal weapon in Brussels’ arsenal,” the German paper commented. “If visas were introduced again, that sense of isolation would be like a nightmare again, which first ended when the visas were abolished in 2009. Anger due to a return to the dark times would certainly be directed against the Serbian government,” the report adds.

The previously veiled threats by Brussels seem to have become quite direct at this point, since the EU isn’t just planning to get the “carrot” out of the equation (it effectively did already), but will also not hesitate using the “stick” now. What’s more, the move is openly aimed against Serbia’s political stability, as the EU expects to cause widespread discontent which, in turn, would result in exerting additional pressure on the Serbian government. Belgrade certainly could comply and start distancing itself from Moscow. It might even feign this while coordinating with Russia by implementing policies that would affect quite literally nothing.

For instance, it could impose sanctions on Russian sea shipping (Serbia is landlocked) or ban access to Russian airline companies, which can’t reach Serbia anyway, as the country is surrounded by EU members which already did that. But the question remains, where does it stop? Will the political West ever be content enough to stop blackmailing and threatening the country? It might be politically unwise for the Serbian government to answer that (rhetorical) question, but it certainly isn’t for the Serbian people.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU’s “Carrot and Stick” Policy Toward Serbia Ends, Brussels “Drops Carrot” from Equation
  • Tags: ,

81 Years Ago: Battle of Moscow, Soviet Counterattack

November 4th, 2022 by Shane Quinn

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 October 28, 2021

 

Read Part I:

History of World War II: 80 Years Ago, The Battle of Moscow

By Shane Quinn, October 21, 2021

 

As the Battle of Moscow began eight decades ago on 2 October 1941, the weeks directly preceding and following this date did not seem to augur well for the Soviet Army. Kiev, the USSR’s third largest city, fell two weeks before on 19 September to a vast German pincers movement, and the Red Army lost a staggering 665,000 troops in the process.

Titled Operation Typhoon, the German plan for the capture of Moscow called for a two-stage battle. In the first phase German Army Group Centre, comprising of almost two million men (1), would execute a three-pronged attack; with the German 9th Army and Panzer Group 3 advancing to the north between the towns of Vyazma and Rzhev, both 140 miles west of Moscow.

The German 4th Army, and Panzer Group 4, would drive forward along the Roslavl-Moscow road in the centre; and Heinz Guderian’s Panzer Group 2, now called the 2nd Panzer Army, would attack to the south between Bryansk and Orel to the city of Tula, 110 miles southward of Moscow. Operation Typhoon’s second phase envisaged the final advance on the Russian capital, conducted by two armoured encircling thrusts from the north-west and the south-east.

The weather and terrain suited the Wehrmacht, for the time being. In the first three weeks of October 1941, the Germans captured another 663,000 Soviet soldiers and destroyed 1,200 tanks. Including casualties and prisoners taken, total Red Army losses in the opening stage of October amounted to a million troops (2). In a four week period from 19 September 1941, the Soviets had altogether lost more than 1.6 million men.

Even these terrible reverses did not prove insurmountable to a state whose populace, in 1941, amounted to around 193 million (3), as opposed to a population in Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe of about 110 million.

On 15 October 1941, Joseph Stalin ordered the majority of Soviet government officials to leave Moscow. They relocated 560 miles further east to the city of Kuibyshev on the Volga river. This indicates that the Soviet leadership was not confident that Moscow could be held. Stalin gloomily informed Harry Hopkins, president Franklin Roosevelt’s personal emissary, that if Moscow was lost “all of Russia west of the Volga would have to be abandoned” (4). Nevertheless, Stalin remained in Moscow, believing that his continued presence there would maintain morale and prevent widespread unrest among Muscovites, clearly the correct decision.

While the Wehrmacht closed on Moscow, the Red Army’s resistance appeared to be weakening. On 19 October 1941 the Germans took the abandoned town of Mozhaysk, 65 miles west of Moscow. The following day, Stalin declared martial law as the capital was placed under full military control.

Red Army ski troops in Moscow. Still from documentary Moscow Strikes Back, 1942 (Licensed under CC0)

On 23 October 1941 the Germans crossed the Narva river, and were only 40 miles from Moscow (5). During the next day, however, the famous Russian rainfall (rasputitsa) arrived almost providentially. The Germans were expecting rains to come but the ferocity of it was a shock to them. The unpaved roads and paths quickly turned into rivers of thick, congealed mud. This meant that no wheeled vehicle could move for consecutive days, and the larger panzers advanced at a snail’s pace. The wider-tracked Russian T-34 tanks were more suited to such conditions.

British scholar Evan Mawdsley wrote,

“The defence of Moscow was certainly helped by changes in the weather” and “Unlike the Germans, the Russians had a working railway system behind their front line. Soviet planes were operating from prepared airfields, while the Luftwaffe now had to make do with improvised muddy landing strips”. (6)

By 24 October 1941 as the rains came, the German invasion was four months old (17 weeks) and in serious difficulty. Adolf Hitler had previously expected to conquer the Soviet Union in less than half of that time (8 weeks). When France collapsed the Nazi leader told his military advisers Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl that “a campaign against Russia would be child’s play” (7). Field Marshal Keitel, often accused of being a lackey, disagreed and he was opposed to attacking the USSR.

The German High Command (OKH) predicted in mid-December 1940 that “the Soviet Union would be defeated in a campaign not exceeding 8-10 weeks”. Such views were strongly shared by the American and British authorities. Why did these predictions prove so wrong?

We can get to the heart of the matter, by briefly examining German blunders regarding grand strategy and, with it, the most important reason: Hitler’s directive of 21 August 1941, that led to a crucial six week postponement in the march on Moscow (21 August-2 October). This came against the wishes of the Wehrmacht’s leadership, who desperately wanted the advance towards Moscow to continue. By the last week of August, Army Group Centre was 185 miles from Moscow, not a great distance by any means. (8)

The capital city was the USSR’s most important metropolis, its power centre and communications line (9). Had it fallen in the autumn of 1941, the repercussions would most probably have been fatal for the Soviets.

English historian Andrew Roberts observed, “Moscow was the nodal point of Russia’s north–south transport hub, was the administrative and political capital, was vital for Russian morale and was an important industrial centre in its own right” (10). As a transportation and administrative hub, Moscow performed a central role in the Red Army’s ability to supply other parts of its front. On 21 August 1941 at his Wolfsschanze headquarters in the East Prussian forests, Hitler put aside one critical objective (Moscow), and substituted it with five targets of lesser importance.

Hitler expounded that they would instead pursue “the capture of the Crimea” and “the industrial and coal mining area of the Donets” along with “the cutting off of Russian oil supplies from the Caucasus” and “the investment of Leningrad and the linking up with the Finns”. When on 22 August Hitler’s orders were forwarded to Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, commanding Army Group Centre and a very experienced officer, he telephoned General Franz Halder and said it was “unfortunate, above all because it placed the attack to the east in question… I want to smash the enemy army and the bulk of this army is opposite my front!” (11)

Von Bock, a monarchist who did not like the Nazis, continued that diverting forces away from the attack on Moscow “will jeopardize the execution of the main operation, namely the destruction of the Russian armed forces before winter”. Halder, a key planner in Operation Barbarossa’s original design, agreed with him. Two days later on 24 August 1941 von Bock reiterated, “They apparently do not wish to exploit under any circumstances the opportunity decisively to defeat the Russians before winter!” (12)

One can note the normally dour von Bock’s use of exclamation marks, as he believes the chance for victory has been taken away from him. Insult was added to injury, as von Bock was compelled to release four of his five panzer corps, and three infantry corps, for the southward and northwards assaults on the Ukraine and Leningrad. Halder felt that Hitler’s directive of 21 August “was decisive to the outcome of this campaign”. (13)

For reasons of megalomania, Hitler had overruled his military commanders on a pivotal military issue. American historians Samuel W. Mitcham and Gene Mueller summarised that Hitler’s 21 August directive “was one of the greatest mistakes of the war” (14). It came on top of the opening strategic errors of 22 June 1941, when the Wehrmacht attacked all of the western USSR simultaneously, ultimately weakening the Nazi blow. Fortunately, the Third Reich’s leadership was strategically inept.

In late August 1941, the German Armed Forces High Command (OKW) were contemplating that the war in the east would drag on until 1942 (15). An early knockout strike had not materialised, and the Soviet Army was fighting with tenacity; while the Russians possessed military hardware of a high standard, like the Katyusha rocket launcher (Stalin’s Organ) and the T-34 tank, which came as a real surprise to the Germans. (16)

An OKW memorandum from 27 August ran, “if it proves impossible to realise this objective completely [the USSR’s destruction] during 1941, the continuation of the eastern campaign has top priority for 1942” (17). Hitler approved the memo, which suggests that he was starting to think the invasion may not be successfully concluded in 1941. Hitler certainly believed this by November of that year.

The Soviet cause was given a major lift when, on 10 October 1941, Stalin officially granted General Georgy Zhukov the leadership over the majority of Red Army divisions (the Western Front and Reserve Front) for the capital’s defence. The 44-year-old Zhukov was an extremely able, energetic, self-confident and ruthless commander, just the sort of man that was needed.

Zhukov pursued a policy of initiating incessant counterattacks, and then withdrawing at the final moment. These tactics succeeded in wearing down the belated German march on Moscow (18). More than any other soldier in the war, Zhukov would play a leading part in the Nazis’ demise. Andrei Gromyko, a prominent Soviet diplomat, wrote that Zhukov was “the jewel in the crown of the Soviet people’s greatest victory”. (19)

At the beginning of November 1941 victory was not yet assured, for the rains disappeared and frost set in. The ground had hardened enough for the panzers to begin rolling again. These colder temperatures were uncomfortable for the German troops, who incredibly were still not supplied with sufficient winter clothing, but the temperature hovered around zero for now and was not unbearable.

In preceding weeks, the Kremlin received intelligence reports from their spy in Tokyo, Dr. Richard Sorge, and also from Soviet agencies, which stated that Imperial Japan was not preparing an immediate attack on the eastern USSR. This time Stalin believed the intelligence accounts and, in the first fortnight of November 1941, he transferred 21 fresh divisions from Siberia and Central Asia to the Moscow front. (20)

The Germans had no such reserve of men to call upon. On the night of 11 November 1941, the temperature dropped suddenly to minus 20 degrees Celsius. Frostbite cases were becoming common among German soldiers, but the Wehrmacht resumed advancing from 15 November. A week later, on 22 November the medieval town of Klin fell, 52 miles north-west of Moscow. (21)

The following day, Panzer Group 4 took Solnechnogorsk, 38 miles from Moscow. On 27 November the 7th Panzer Division established a bridgehead across the Moscow-Volga Canal. Also during 27 November, the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich captured the town of Istra, just 31 miles west of Moscow.

German professor Jörg Ganzenmüller wrote that Hitler now formulated “a special order”, which was sent to SS major Otto Skorzeny of the Das Reich division. Hitler demanded that Skorzeny and his men occupy the locks of the reservoir on the Moscow-Volga canal, and then open the locks so as to “drown” Moscow by turning it into a massive artificial lake (22). These orders were obviously never carried out, due to Skorzeny’s unit being unable to advance much further.

In late November 1941, it was apparent that the German offensive would likely fail. As of 26 November, the Germans had lost 743,112 men on the Eastern front (23). This number does not include frostbite casualties and other soldiers absent due to illness.

Because of ongoing Russian resistance and their fresh resources – which in both cases had been much greater than the Germans anticipated – General Guderian’s panzers had failed to reach the city of Tula, just over 100 miles south of Moscow. Panzer Group 3, which captured the line of the Moscow-Volga Canal on 28 November, could attack no further; and while a division from Panzer Group 4 had proceeded to within 18 miles of Moscow, continued progress for them proved impossible.

On 2 December 1941, a motorcycle reconnaissance unit of the 2nd Panzer Division reached the suburb of Khimki, five miles from Moscow and nine miles from the Kremlin. Isolated, it did not remain for long in this forward position (24). That was as close as the Germans ever got to the spires of Moscow.

On the night of 4 December, the temperature plummeted again to minus 31 degrees Celsius. Twenty four hours later, it sank to minus 36 degrees (25). It was clear that Operation Barbarossa had failed and worse was in store for the Germans. If they could not accomplish the USSR’s overthrow in 1941, they could hardly expect to do so in a weaker condition in 1942.

The writing was on the wall on 5 December 1941, as the Soviet Army counterattacked the static and precariously positioned Germans, by striking Panzer Group 3 near the Moscow-Volga Canal, along with the German 9th Army at the city of Kalinin. The next day, 6 December, General Zhukov’s divisions launched an assault on the 2nd Panzer Army south of Moscow, with both sides suffering serious losses. Yet Zhukov prevailed by forcing the 2nd Panzer Army to retreat over 50 miles.

Field Marshal von Bock, irate at these setbacks, wrote in his diary, “Last August, the road to Moscow was open; we could have entered the Bolshevik capital in triumph and in summery weather. The high military leadership of the Fatherland made a terrible mistake, when it forced my Army Group to adopt a position of defence last August. Now all of us are paying for that mistake”. (26)

In winter weather, the Soviets were a superior fighting force in comparison to the enemy. Soviet divisions were better equipped and had much more experience of adverse conditions. Stalin said shortly after the Red Army subdued Finland in March 1940, “It is not true that the army’s fighting capacity decreases in wintertime. All the Russian Army’s major victories were won in wintertime… We are a northern country”. (27)

With the Soviets continually counterattacking, one must give the Germans substantial credit for managing somehow to avoid a total collapse, which is what had befallen Napoleon’s army in Russia in late 1812. Hitler refused to allow a general retreat, as he ordered on 16 December 1941 that each German soldier display “fanatical resistance”.

By the end of December 1941, the Russians had advanced 100 to 150 miles across a broad front (28). The Red Army did not achieve a truly decisive breakthrough and the fighting would continue into 1942, and indeed well beyond that.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 97

2 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 107

3 S. P. Turin, Some Observations on the Population of Soviet Russia at the Census of January 17th, 1939, published by Wiley for the Royal Statistical Society, p. 1 of 3, Jstor

4 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 399

5 Ibid., p. 400

6 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 108-109

7 Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis (Penguin, 1st edition, 25 Oct. 2001) Chapter 7, Zenith of Power

8 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Gene Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders: Officers of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine and the Waffen-SS (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd Edition, 15 Oct. 2012) p. 37

9 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 395

10 Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Harper, 17 May 2011) p. 168

11 Ibid., p. 169

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., p. 168

14 Mitcham, Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders, p. 37

15 Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, “Hitler’s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The ‘Battle of Moscow’, Turning Point of World War II”, Global Research, 12 December 2018

16 Ibid.

17 Kershaw, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, Chapter 9, Showdown

18 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013) p. 138

19 Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989) p. 216

20 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 400

21 Richard Kirchubel, Peter Dennis (Illustrator), Operation Barbarossa (3): Army Group Center (Osprey Publishing, Illustrated edition, 21 Aug. 2007) p. 85 

22 Jörg Ganzenmüller, “Hunger as a weapon”, Zeit Online, 24 May 2011

23 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 401

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Jonathan Trigg, Death on the Don: The Destruction of Germany’s Allies in the Eastern Front, 1941-1944 (Spellmount, 1 Jan. 2014) Chapter 4, The death of the Ostheer, Winter 1941-42

27 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 107-108

28 Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov, p. 145

Featured image: Barricades in a Moscow street, October 1941 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Political Polarization in Brazil Reaching Point of No Return

November 3rd, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

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

***

The days following Lula’s victory are being marked by protests across Brazil. People took to the streets to express disapproval against the election of the leftist candidate and demand intervention by the military. Boycotts to the national economy are being operated by groups linked to agribusiness, such as truck drivers involved in the transport of agricultural goods. Bolsonaro’s supporters believe the elections were manipulated and expect the process to be entirely annulled.

Political tensions in Brazil are increasing day by day. The reaction of Bolsonaro voters quickly escaped the control of the authorities. Truck drivers began to occupy the country’s key highways, preventing the supply of large cities. Then, the main capitals began to have their streets filled with crowds wearing shirts with the colors of the Brazilian flag, who, singing the national anthem and making patriotic salutes, demand that Lula’s election be revoked.

On November 2, the situation began to get even more tense. Due to the fact that it is a national holiday, an even greater number of people attended the protests. The focus became the concentration of masses in front of the main military units of the country. Protesters are calling for intervention by the armed forces to reverse the election result or take control over the government.

In fact, the demonstrations were favored by Bolsonaro’s inertia in the face of his defeat. The incumbent president ignored the Brazilian tradition according to which the defeated presidential candidate must call the winner immediately after the announcement of the result, to congratulate him. Bolsonaro not only remained silent for two days, but he also went public on November 1 to say that he would not congratulate Lula, which further exacerbated political polarization among voters.

Faced with the pro-Bolsonaro escalation and the absence of effective actions by the authorities to regain control over the multitudes, social life began to be affected. The main universities in the country suspended their activities, as well as several institutions located in rural areas, which are the most affected by the occupation of roads promoted by truck drivers. In response, social movements linked to Lula’s Party, such as the MTST (an organization of homeless workers), began a call for their militants to “liberate” the roads, acting as true parallel militias.

Mutual violence began to take on worrying contours after an attack by a pro-Lula driver in the city of Mirassol, São Paulo state. The motorist intentionally drove his car running over at least sixteen pro-Bolsonaro protesters, injuring even women and children. Other acts of violence have been reported in many regions, pointing to a pre-civil conflict scenario in Brazil.

Due to the chaos, Brazil took the news around the world, becoming a trending topic on social networks. Unsubstantiated rumors about possible military moves to annul the elections or operate a coup d’état began to circulate on the internet, generating even more collective anxiety and friction among Brazilian citizens. Bolsonaro went public again on November 2 to ask truck drivers to liberate the roads, in order to guarantee supply to the cities. However, he stressed the importance of continuing the protests peacefully.

Indeed, the problem of political polarization in Brazil is not something new. Experts have commented on this topic for a long time and warned of serious consequences if social pacification is not achieved quickly. During the electoral campaign there were several episodes of explicit violence, including murders, on both sides. This type of scenario intensifies the ideological tendencies of the population and prevents any kind of rational analysis of the country’s political status quo.

In fact, for decades Brazil has had its domestic arena dominated by wings that correspond to the interests of foreign elites. On the one hand, liberal conservatives, pro-Republicans and radical Zionists; on the other, progressives, environmentalists and pro-Democrats. Bolsonaro represents the first group – not by chance, having received support from Trump and Netanyahu in 2018 -, while Lula represents the second one – which is why he is now endorsed by the EU, Soros-backed NGOs, and Biden’s administration.

Both sides serve external interests and do not present concrete proposals for Brazil. Polarization, in this sense, serves precisely to keep the people ideologically inflamed and prevent candidates with projects focused on national development, and not on external alignment, from gaining popularity.

Regardless of what happens with the protests, the polarization will not end now. Certainly, the disruptive hatred among Brazilian voters will continue to intensify in the coming years, as will the popular yearning for the end of regular institutions and for a coup d’état. The Brazilian military seems committed to democracy and ignores calls for intervention made by the rightists. However, if the crisis of legitimacy reaches a point of no return and leads Brazil to absolute chaos, it is possible that a more interventionist political thought will actually begin to penetrate the military circles in the near future.

*

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