Global Research

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie das Dropdown-Menü „Website übersetzen“ im oberen Banner unserer Homepage (Desktop-Version) aktivieren.

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

Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram  und  Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegrammkanal . Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research zu reposten und zu teilen.

***

„Ich bin Ökonom und geopolitischer Analyst und versuche so gut wie möglich die sich immer verändernden „heutigen“/ resp. „morgigen“ Lagen zu analysieren. Mit anderen Worten, die Punkte zu verbinden: die Punkte zwischen Covid, dem Ukrainekrieg, dem Reset, dem sich immer mehr aufdrängenden QR-Code, der geplanten „4. Industriellen Revolution“ von Klaus Schwab. Diese beinhaltet den Plan der Digitalisierung von allem, inklusiv dem menschlichen Gehirn usw. usw.“

„Dieser persönliche QR-Code, der wird dann eben ausgebreitet über oder weiter verwendet über ein App in deinem Cellphone. Und diese App wird natürlich verbunden mit einer Zentrale, da können wir überhaupt nichts machen, die Telefone, diese Mobile Phones, die sind alle bereits so ausgerichtet, dass sie von überall her, selbst wenn man das GPS ausschaltet, wissen sie genau, dass es uns begleitet, auch ohne GPS – das ist mal ganz klar. Dann müsste man es wegschmeißen oder zuhause lassen.“

„Deshalb wissen sie gar nicht, dass sie, bereits vermutlich ihren QR-Code irgendwo im Körper mit sich tragen. Und die es noch nicht tun, die haben es auf ihrem Cellphone. Und da müssen wir irgendetwas dagegen machen.“

Sendung

Kla.TV: Peter König war als Ökonom über 30 Jahre bei der Weltbank tätig und hat Wasserprojekte in den Entwicklungsländern auf verschiedenen Kontinenten realisiert. Es freut mich, Peter König bei Kla.TV begrüßen zu dürfen. Können Sie uns etwas über Ihre heutige Tätigkeit sagen?

Peter König: Erstens: Vielen Dank, dass ich bei Ihnen sein darf und mit Ihnen sprechen darf. Ich bin Ökonom und geopolitischer Analyst und versuche so gut wie möglich die sich immer verändernden „heutigen“/ resp. „morgigen“ Lagen zu analysieren. Mit anderen Worten, die Punkte zu verbinden: die Punkte zwischen Covid, dem Ukrainekrieg, dem Reset, dem sich immer mehr aufdrängenden QR-Code, der geplanten „4. Industriellen Revolution“ von Klaus Schwab. Diese beinhaltet den Plan der Digitalisierung von allem, inklusiv dem menschlichen Gehirn usw. usw. Es gibt also jede Menge Punkte, die man verbinden kann und muss, um zu verstehen, was zur Zeit läuft und was geplant ist. Wir müssen wissen, dass im Prinzip nichts stagnant ist und stagnant bleibt, außer dem großen Ziel im Moment: The Great Reset, UN-Agenda 2030, und die 4. Industrielle Revolution. Das sind verschiedene Beschreibungen für dasselbe Ziel. Das muss man wissen. Die sind vielleicht so gemacht worden, um zu verwirren. Aber im Prinzip ist es dasselbe.

Kla.TV: Wie würden Sie denn die heutige Finanzlage beschreiben? Für den Otto Normalverbraucher ist ja immer noch – ja – so alles einigermaßen im Lot. Es geht ihm ja eigentlich noch ganz gut.

Peter König: Ja, stimmt. Der Otto Normalverbraucher, der in der Schweiz lebt, dem geht’s verhältnismäßig noch ganz gut. Aber auch hier in der Schweiz hat die Armut zugenommen, und zwar beträchtlich. Nur hier in der Schweiz redet man nicht davon. Es ist tabu, arm zu sein. Die offiziellen Ziffern über Arbeitslosigkeit in der Schweiz waren im Mai dieses Jahres bei 2,1%, im April noch 2,3%, während Ende Dezember letzten Jahres war sie fast 5%. Diese Zahlen sind meines Erachtens mächtig manipuliert. Das ist übrigens überall im Westen so. Man müsste auch die Kriterien wissen: Was wird als Arbeitslosigkeit eingestuft und angesehen? Wie wird Tagesarbeit, Teilzeitarbeit beurteilt? Wie werden die verschiedenen „Klassen“ von Arbeiten – Bauarbeit, Büroarbeit, Management- / Elite-Arbeit usw. – wie werden die eingeschlossen in die Statistik? Die sind nicht uniform. Und ich nehme an, ich gehe davon aus, das wird eben auch nicht gesagt – diese Analysen sind zwar vorhanden, das ist ganz klar (in der Statistik) – aber die werden nie publiziert. Und es würde mich gar nicht verwundern, wenn sich eine ganze Menge Leute heute mit Teilarbeit beschäftigen müssen und die als Vollangestellte und als Vollarbeitende eingestuft würden. In 2020 – die letzten Zahlen, die man offen finden kann – waren es offiziell 8,5% der Leute, die arm waren. Wie wird Armut definiert? Eine vierköpfige Familie, die unter 4.000 Franken Einkommen im Monat hat, ist in der Schweiz arm. Dieses Kriterium wird aber in der Schweiz nicht offiziell angewandt. Inoffiziell ja. Aber es gibt, glaube ich, nur im Kanton Genf – seit Kurzem – wurde das als offizielle Zahl benannt. Ich schätze heute – das ist meine Schätzung aufgrund vieler Beobachtungen – schätze ich, dass die Zahl mindestens 50% ist, wenn man eben von der Manipulation absieht.

Kla.TV: Sie sagen, dass wir uns in der Endphase eines dämonischen Plans befinden. Sie setzen dies mit der UN-Agenda 2030, dem sogenannten ‚Great Reset‘ oder eben der ‚4. Industriellen Revolution‘ gleich. Können Sie uns sagen, was Ihrer Meinung nach die Ziele dieses Plans oder eben vom ‚Great Reset‘ sind?

Peter König: Ja, ich möchte ganz kurz vielleicht einleitend sagen: Der gesamte ‚Great Reset‘ – der Ukraine-Krieg ist übrigens ein integraler Teil davon. Nur merkt man es nicht. Er ist typisch ein weiteres, … – ein Menschenteiler. Zwar kann der Krieg nie gerechtfertigt werden, so wenig wie irgendeine Art von Töten. Man kann aber erklären, wie es so weit gekommen ist: Die stete Provokation der NATO, die sich gegen das Versprechen der Alliierten beim Kollaps der Sowjetunion „Not One Inch Further East than Berlin“ – das hat der US-Secretary of State, damals James Baker, gesagt und eigentlich versprochen. Und das hat niemand eingehalten. Dagegen, wenn man auch nur ein halbwärtiges Argument für Putin erwähnt, ist man verpönter und gehasster Putin-Freund. Es gibt sogar Schweizer Offiziere, die das gemacht haben, die in der Ukraine gearbeitet haben, die bei der Nato waren und die Sache klar sehen. Die haben sich so geäußert. Die werden jetzt zensiert. Man muss sich das mal vorstellen. Man nennt das auch „Teilen und Herrschen“. Die Menschen spielen eine mächtige Rolle in der Indoktrination der Bevölkerung mit Lügen, praktisch 24 x 7 und die während der letzten – mehr als zwei Jahre – sind sie sehr erfolgreich gewesen. Die werden buchstäblich mit Milliarden subventioniert, diese Lügen. Das heißt also, die Medien, die ich anspreche.

In Kürze, was der Westen, vor allem das Reich USA, schon immer wollte, ist eine Kontrolle über das größte und reichste Land der Welt. Mit weitaus den meisten Bodenschätzen der Welt. Alles Bodenschätze, die der Westen braucht, nicht zuletzt für ihre Kriegsindustrie. Die komplexen, die kleinen „rare earth“ (seltene Erden), also das sind Metalle, die gebraucht werden vor allem in der Elektronik. Der größte Verbraucher in der Elektronik ist die Kriegsindustrie und natürlich unser westlicher Luxuslebensstil. Um den aufrecht zu erhalten, brauchen wir ebenfalls diese Rohmaterialien, die vorwiegend Russland und China liefern können.

Der‚ Great Reset‘ hat meines Erachtens drei gleichwertige und verheerende, aber verbundene Ziele:

Erstens: Depopulation: Das heißt massive Entvölkerung. Die Eugenisten sind am Werk. Das war schon vor 50 Jahren ein Plan des‚ Club of Rome‘. Und war klar ausgesprochen in ihrem Report „Limit to Growth“ von 1972. Der war auch ein Teil der Unterlage für die ersten Formulierungen für die Europäische Union. Covid-19 war die gezielte und psychologische raffinierte Einschüchterungsmethode mit einem Virus, den man nicht sieht natürlich, der nie als solcher existiert. Ein neuer Virus, der nie identifiziert wurde. Er ist grippeähnlich und hat eine Sterblichkeitsrate, die ungefähr derjenigen der jährlichen Grippe entspricht. Etwa 0,07 bis 0,1 Prozent der Infektionen. Und das betrifft vor allem ältere Personen, die ohnehin bereits unter anderen Co-Morbiditäten leiden. Aber die Angstmacherei hat bewirkt, dass sich meist unter Druck und Erpressung zwischen 60 und 80 % der westlichen Bevölkerung hat „impfen“ lassen. Und ich setze also „Impfen“ in Anführungszeichen, denn es ist ja keine Impfung. Und deshalb nenne ich es eher, sie haben sich vaxxen lassen. Mit einer Substanz, oder verschiedenen Substanzen, die genetisch veränderbare Komponenten mRNA enthalten, plus verschiedene Giftstoffe, die die schweren Krankheiten wie Herzinfarkte, verschiedene Krebsarten, Nierenversagen und so weiter auslösen. Und in vielen Fällen, wie wir das gesehen haben, offensichtlich zum Tod führen. In der Tat sind bis jetzt weit mehr Leute an den Folgen der sogenannten Impfung gestorben, als an den Folgen von Covid. Zudem gibt es nicht eine Impfung, es gibt verschiedene Injektionen mit verschiedenen biochemischen Zusammensetzungen. Und das müssen wir uns vor Augen halten: Es gibt nicht nur eine Impfung, eine Art von Chemikalien, die da eingespritzt werden, sondern verschiedene. Ich glaube, Wissenschaftler haben mal darauf hingewiesen, dass es mindestens fünf verschiedene Arten gibt. Aber vermutlich noch mehr. Und zum Teil werden die auch gezielt eingesetzt in gewissen Ländern und gewissen Gesellschaften. Also Angst ist des Feindes größte und stärkste Waffe, das müssen wir uns immer vor Augen halten.

Zweitens: Also der zweite Grund, der dahinter steckt hinter dieser Trilogie, ist die Verschiebung von privatem und öffentlich-privatem Kapital, also die Kombination von öffentlich und privat, von unten und der Mitte nach oben. Durch künstlich hervorgerufene Wirtschaftskrisen, Bankrotte usw., wird Kapital von unten und von der Mitte nach oben zu einer relativ dünnen Schicht von kontrollsüchtigen, ich würde sie sogar kriminellen Eliten nennen, verschoben. Man kann diese Gruppen auch einen Kult nennen. Und ich denke tatsächlich, die leben nach gewissen Normen eines Kults. In den Kulten werden ja gewisse Gewohnheiten und gewisse Gruppen von Leuten als Kult eingeteilt, weil sie eben diese Normen befolgen müssen, um Erfolg zu haben. Gemäß Forbes, also der ökonomische Analyst, gab es am 5. April diesen Jahres (2022) 2.668 Milliardäre. Ein Elon Musk ist scheinbar Nummer Eins mit 219 Milliarden. Man sieht klar, während die Weltbevölkerung ärmer geworden ist, hat sich der Reichtum der Reichen und vor allem der Superreichen vervielfacht. Der Reichtum von Bill Gates, nur ein Beispiel, hat sich von 96 Milliarden in 2019 auf 129 Milliarden gesteigert im April dieses Jahres (Anmerkung: 2022). Das sind etwa 34 Prozent mehr. Während er teilverantwortlich für diese Plandemie ist – ich nenne sie Plandemie, weil die keine Pandemie, sondern eine geplante Pandemie war – für die er für zig-Tausend Vaxx-Tote verantwortlich ist. Vielleicht gibt es einmal ein Nürnberg 2 der einigermaßen Gerechtigkeit bringen würde, also so ein Prozess. (Anmerkung: Nürnberger Prozess).

Dazu kommen die Finanzgesellschaften wie BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street und auch Fidelity und noch viele andere. Und vor allem die ersten drei BlackRock, Vanguard und State Street, die als Co-Aktionäre miteinander verflochten sind – schätzungsweise kontrollieren sie etwa zwischen US$ 20 und US$ 25 Billionen (1 Billion = 1 mit 12 Nullen). Die haben eine „Leverage Power“ – Hebel Kraft (Anmerkung: Hebelwirkung) von über 100 Billionen US$. Dem entgegen gesetzt entspricht das Welt-Bruttosozialprodukt etwa US$ 95 Billionen, das war am Ende letzten Jahres (Anmerkung: 2021). Und mit dieser Macht können sie buchstäblich jedes Land, jede Regierung, jede Gesellschaft unter Druck setzen und erpressen. Und wir haben das schon gesehen. Wer da nicht mitmacht, wird so genannt, neutralisiert. Es gibt schon einige davon, vor allem in Afrika. Das sind Leute oder Finanzorganisationen – zusammen mit anderen Milliardären – die man mit gutem Gewissen – ich würde sagen, krank nennen kann. Deshalb müssen sie, die über solche Kapitalmächte verfügen, …– das gibt ihnen natürlich Macht über den Menschen, aber eigentlich, – das können wir uns nicht vorstellen, ich wenigstens nicht, – was das einem bringen kann.

Das ist die heutige Lage der Welt und wir sind erst am Anfang der Agenda 2030. Solange die Menschen, die Mehrheit der Menschen, unter sogenannter kognitiver Dissonanz leidet, werden wir weiterhin beherrscht und manipuliert werden, bis es zum nächsten Schritt kommt. Und das hat sich bis jetzt bewahrheitet. Es gibt so viele Leute, Psychologen sagen, dass diese Art von Affektion, also von Krankheit kann man es nennen, die die sogenannte kognitive Dissonanz, etwas vom Schlimmsten psychologisch ist, weil es kaum wegzubringen ist.

Kla.TV: Was ist Ihrer Meinung nach der nächste Schritt dann?

Peter König: Das ist genau der dritte Punkt dieser teuflischen Trilogie, des ,Resets‘. Das ist die totale Digitalisierung. Geld, Mensch, Überwachung und Kontrolle von allem. Aus Menschen werden Transhumans. Das hat Klaus Schwab mal sogar schon in einem Interview und im westschweizerischen Fernsehen in 2016 gesagt. Dazu kommt noch – und deshalb brauchen wir in erster Linie den sogenannten QR-Code. Und QR steht für „Quick Response“, also schnelle Antwort. Und die dazugehörende Technologie, die es erlaubt, von jedem Individuum mindestens – bis jetzt, und das kann erhöht werden – mindestens bis jetzt 30.000 Daten zu speichern. Was und wo du bist, kaufst, wohin du gehst, mit wem du zirkulierst, mit wem du redest, dein Gesundheitsstatus, dein Bankkonto, dein Polizeirapport – alles, alles, alles unentweichlich wird gemächlich und langsam und immer wieder auf diesem QR-Code, den jeder hat, gespeichert.

Das wichtigste Instrument für die Volldigitalisierung ist 5G. Also wo wir schon überall Antennen finden. Und in gewissen Kantonen ist es bereits aktiv. Ich war neulich im Tessin, da hat es an meinem Telefon effektiv bereits 5G angezeigt. Hier in der Genfer Umgebung noch nicht. Und vermutlich kommt es auch bald zu 6G. Denn der einzige Grund, der weitaus größte Hauptgrund dafür ist eben die Digitalisierung von allem und vor allem des Menschen.

Die zentrale Kontrolle – also die Kontrolleure, der Kopf der Elite…, so wie die zentralen Kontrolleure meist aus Algorithmen bestehen… – kennen uns besser, als wir uns selber kennen. Leider kümmert sich kaum jemand um den heimlich über das Finanzsystem eingeschleusten QR-Code. Heute ist er überall. Aber selbst aufgeweckte Leute in der Schweiz und im übrigen Europa sehen offenbar keine Gefahr. Ich habe mit verschiedenen meiner Kollegen, die gleichdenkend darüber sind, geredet. Die finden, es ist nicht schlimm, wenn ab dem 01. Oktober alle Banken – Zahlungen über Banken – über einen QR-Code laufen müssen. Ich finde, das ist eine Katastrophe. Und ich glaube auch – ich habe bis jetzt noch keine festen Beweise – ich glaube auch, dass das die Regierung über die Banken einführen will. Weil: wir hatten ja eine Abstimmung vor ein paar, ich glaube sechs, Jahren über die Einführung der sogenannten Agenda 2020. Das wäre eine Identifikation gemäß Bill Gates – und die wurde abgelehnt.

Also: der QR-Code und der daraus abgeleitete sogenannte VC – also der „Vaccine Code“ oder „Vaccine-Certificate-code“ („Vaccination Certificate“ auf englisch) sind das Gefährlichste, was uns droht, was uns bevorsteht, wenn wir nichts dagegen tun. Denn das bedeutet die totale Überwachung. Und wenn wir da sind, dann ist es sehr, sehr schwierig, da raus zu kommen.

Kla.TV: Aber ich sag mal: Der QR-Code ist ja heute aus dem Alltag nicht mehr wegzudenken. Den haben wir halt überall. Und Sie sehen darin das Gefährlichste, was uns passieren kann. Können Sie uns die Gefahr von diesem QR-Code noch etwas näher beschreiben?

Peter König: Über den QR-Code können wir gar zum Verhungern verurteilt werden. Wieso? Dazu muss der QR-Code – oder sein Nachfolger, wie auch immer das genannt wird – auf eine Art den Menschen eingepflanzt werden. Und das hat ja schon Klaus Schwab damals in diesem kurzen Interview mit dem Schweiz-Französischen Fernsehen in Genf gesagt, und das vor sechs Jahren – hat er gesagt: Bei 2025 bis 2030 werden wir alle einen Chip entweder in unserer Kleidung tragen oder unter der Haut. Na, das war, das ist zwar vielleicht sein Traum, ich hoffe nicht, dass es so weit kommt, aber das hat er bereits angekündigt. Und damit sind wir in einem elektro- …, werden wir zu einem elektromagnetischen Feld. Wir Menschen. Es gibt bereits in Schweden Versuchsgruppen, Volontäre-Versuchsgruppen, die haben so einen Chip in der Hand eingepflanzt, ungefähr die Größe eines Reiskorns. Im Moment sind das eben wie gesagt, nur Volontäre, die da mitwirken. Und die brauchen also diesen Code, also diesen Chip, vorwiegend für digitalen Zahlungsverkehr. Aber da kann natürlich erweitert werden, praktisch unbeschränkt. Nicht wahr?

Und das ist dann die Basis für eben diesen QR-Code, eingepflanzt im menschlichen Körper, und deshalb auch manipulierbar mit 5G oder 6G. Man kann sich also vorstellen, dass jemand, der sich nicht systemgetreu verhält, aus dem Zahlungsverkehr, das heißt Nahrungsmittel kaufen und mehr, ausgeschlossen werden kann. Man kann ihm auch sein digitales Bankkonto blockieren oder sein Guthaben konfiszieren. Das macht der Westen ja bereits, das sehen wir, und zwar bis jetzt vielleicht weniger an Individuen – oder wenigsten noch nicht in Europa oder in der Schweiz – aber angetrieben von den USA findet das bereits statt, in dem eben die Regierung, die amerikanische Regierung gefolgt von der europäischen, von Brüssel und von all den Ländern die sich da anschließen – werden die Verhalten von Ländern – wie im Moment Russland ist das beste Beispiel, aber es gibt jede andere Menge davon – die sogenannt sanktioniert werden. Das heißt also, es werden ihre Guthaben blockiert im Ausland, mit anderen Worten gestohlen, und dazu gehören China, Nordkorea, Iran, Venezuela, Syrien und so viel, usw. Also – aber Russland im Moment am meisten.

Kla.TV: Herr König, Sie haben gesagt, dass einen QR-Code heute mittlerweile jeder hat, wie muss man das verstehen?

Peter König: Ja, also ich geh mal davon aus, dass jeder irgendeinmal eine Rechnung bezahlt hat, auf der ein QR-Code ist. Selbst wenn man den nicht braucht, um die Rechnung zu bezahlen, hat man doch den Namen, also seinen eigenen Namen mit diesem QR-Code in Verbindung gebracht, und die Rechnung bezahlt, denn das ist ein integraler Teil des Einzahlungsscheins, den man über die Bank bezahlt oder am Postschalter bezahlt. Aber noch wichtiger ist, dass wahrscheinlich alle von uns – oder fast alle nehme ich mal an – einen PCR-Test gemacht haben, entweder weil sie reisen wollten oder weil sie irgendwo ein Theater besuchen wollten, oder irgendetwas … In den letzten zwei Jahren konnte man ja kaum in ein Restaurant gehen oder in viele Restaurants konnte man überhaupt nicht gehen hier in der Gegend, ohne entweder geimpft zu sein oder einen QR-Test zu haben. Da hat dann jeder, der irgendetwas brauchte einen PCR-Test, hat einen QR-Code, und zwar einen persönlichen QR-Code. Und dieser persönliche QR-Code, der wird dann eben ausgebreitet über oder weiter verwendet über eine App in deinem Cellphone. Und diese App wird natürlich verbunden mit einer Zentrale, da können wir überhaupt nichts machen, die Telefone, diese Mobile Phones, die sind alle bereits so ausgerichtet, dass sie von überall her, selbst wenn man das GPS ausschaltet, wissen sie genau, dass es uns begleitet, auch ohne GPS – das ist mal ganz klar. Dann müsste man es wegschmeißen oder zuhause lassen. Und das machen die wenigsten.

Aber abgesehen davon: Irgendeinmal braucht man dieses Cellphone wieder und dann ist man mit dem verbunden, und wenn man eben wie gesagt, wir haben vorher von der Einspritzung gesprochen, die Graphenoxid enthält und Graphenoxid ist sehr, sehr elektronisch, elektromagnetisch, das ist die Substanz, die gebraucht wird, wahrscheinlich einer der Substanzen, vielleicht die wichtigste, die gebraucht wird, um uns zu manipulieren mit 5G, wenn das mal eingesetzt wird dafür. Und das muss nicht mehr lange dauern. Ich weiß nicht, wenn das geschieht, aber das kann ohne weiteres…, vielleicht hat es schon begonnen für gewisse Leute.

Und dann, wenn das geschieht, dann haben wir praktisch diese Substanz eines QR-Codes bereits in unserem System eingebaut. So funktioniert das. Und da können wir dagegen nichts machen, wir wissen es gar nicht mehr. Die meisten Leute… – ich nehme an, die wenigsten wissen, dass sie mit einem Impfstoff, sogenannten Impfstoff, geimpft worden sind, der aus Graphenoxid besteht, aus einer hoch magnetisierbaren und elektronisch manipulierbaren Substanz, das wissen die wenigsten. Und deshalb wissen sie gar nicht, dass sie bereits vermutlich ihren QR-Code irgendwo im Körper mit sich tragen. Und die es noch nicht tun, die haben es auf ihrem Cellphone. Und da müssen wir irgendetwas dagegen machen, ich glaube, das wäre, es gibt Leute, es gibt effektiv Leute, die sagen: Wir sollten versuchen, zurück zu gehen, kein Mobile Phone mehr zu brauchen, und Festlinien [= Festnetz-Telefone] zu brauchen und uns von dieser ganzen Elektronik entfernen.

Das ist heutzutage, das wurde so langsam… – das heißt, es ist so gemächlich und so gescheit, klug, wurde das in unser Leben infiltriert, dass wir uns ein Leben, vor allem die jüngeren Leute, die jüngere Generation, ohne dieses Cellphone gar nicht mehr vorstellen können. Die meisten finden diesen QR-Code, wenn ich mit Leuten spreche, vor allem mit Jüngeren, die finden den toll, weil damit bezahlt man mit dem Telefon direkt eine Rechnung im Supermarkt oder im Restaurant, fahren sie einfach drüber und die Rechnung ist bezahlt – die finden das toll. Die haben gar keine Ahnung, was damit bezweckt wird, gar keine Ahnung, die wollen auch nicht zuhören. Wenn ich ihnen das erkläre, dann bin ich ein Spinner. Tut mir leid, das ist leider unsere Welt heute.

Und das wird natürlich voran getrieben mit einer unheimlichen Lügenpropaganda. Wenn sie wissen, wie viel selbst die Schweizer Regierung, die Medien, die Mainstream-Medien in der Schweiz subventionieren, sogenannt subventionieren oder kaufen oder korrumpieren mit Geld, mit wie viel Geld, das ist unglaublich. Ich glaube in der Schweiz ist der Betrag pro Kopf – wir haben ja nur 8,4 Millionen Einwohner – bedeutend höher als in den USA. Also der Betrag. Ich habe mal von einer Zahl von 1,7 Milliarden Franken gehört über eine Periode, ich glaub von zwei bis drei Jahren, die den Medien zur Verfügung gestellt wird, eben damit sie sagen, was die Regierung und sehr wohl wahrscheinlich die WHO zu sagen hat.

Kla.TV: Wäre das so die Umwandlung von „human“ zu „transhuman“, wie es von Klaus Schwab irgendwo mit vorgegeben war oder auch von seinem diabolischen Top-Berater, dem Autor und Historiker Yuval Noah Harari, vorgeschrieben oder angepriesen wird? Harari redet davon, wie in Zukunft „humans“ gehackt werden …?

Peter König: Harari nennt uns Menschen buchstäblich „animals that can be hacked“. Das sind seine Worte, also „Tiere, die gehackt werden können“. „Gehackt“ also im Sinne von „elektronisch infiltriert“ und manipuliert werden können. „Tiere, die gehackt werden können“ sind wir. Ich geh davon aus, dass diese arrogante Art der Unverschämtheit von Harari von Klaus Schwab ausgenützt, wahrscheinlich sogar aufgefordert wurde, um den Menschen Angst zu machen. Erstes Motto der Abwendung, der Resistenz, ist keine Angst haben – NIE. Das habe ich schon gesagt und das wiederhole ich immer wieder. Keine Angst haben. Die Angst ist deren größte Waffe. Das ist das Schlimmste. Mit anderen Worten, viele der bereits Geimpften, also sogenannten Geimpften, die haben Graphenoxid gespritzt gekriegt. Und Graphenoxid funktioniert sehr gut als Material, um elektronisch manipuliert zu werden. Und bereits mit dieser Manipulation wird dann ein gewisser Transhumanismus vorbereitet, schon mit der Einspritzung. Die meisten Leute wissen das gar nicht. Aber daraus kann man dann mit 5G ohne weiteres ferngesteuerte Transhumane machen. Das wäre die totale Versklavung der Überlebenden, und ich sage der Überlebenden, die eben die Reduktion der Weltbevölkerung überlebt haben. Von mir aus gesehen ein nicht mehr lebenswertes Leben, aber wir würden davon vermutlich kaum etwas spüren, denn wir sind im Banne von Artificial Intelligence (AI) [= Künstliche Intelligenz (KI)], Algorithmen oder eben wie Klaus Schwab das genannt hat „Du wirst nichts mehr besitzen, aber glücklich sein.“ Das Ziel des dunklen Cabals oder Kults, wie ich das eben immer nenne, diesen Stand zu erreichen bei 2030, nach Erfüllung, nach Implementation der UN-Agenda 2030 – also es fehlen noch 8 Jahre – oder auch bei der Erfüllung vom ,Great Reset‘, oder der Erfüllung der ,4. Industriellen-Revolution‘. Wie schon vorher genannt, das sind eben Ziele, die sich identisch sind in den drei synonymen Programmen, die Terminologien sind eben verschieden, um uns zu verwirren.

Kla.TV: Ja, sehen Sie eine Möglichkeit, dass diese Ziele der totalen Versklavung noch verhindert werden können?

Peter König: Ja, es fehlt zwar noch einiges um die Menschen wirklich aufzuwecken, um die Großzahl aufzuwecken. Aber es muss dazu kommen. Wir müssen aufwachen. Und ich glaube, ich sehe Ansätze dazu, dass das geschieht. Wie lange die dauern, weiß ich leider nicht. Aber es muss geschehen und es wird kommen. Es ist unmöglich, dass sich die Natur von solchen Leuten – Ich kann sie kaum mehr Leute nennen, das sind ja nicht mehr Humane – einschüchtern lässt.

Also: Bewusstsein auf ein höheres Niveau setzen, um der Manipulation des dunklen Kults zu entgehen. Das ist eine Priorität. Um das zu bewerkstelligen, dürfen wir – deshalb wiederhole ich es, – dürfen wir keine Angst haben. Die Anerkennung der Lüge, der wir vermutlich ein ganzes Leben lang ausgesetzt waren, müssen wir akzeptieren. Denn das ist die Überwindung der sogenannten kognitiven Dissonanz. Und sehr wichtig, sehr wichtig ist, wir dürfen keinen Hass spüren oder ausdrücken gegenüber diesen Tätern. Denn wenn wir das tun – das wollen die im Prinzip, wenn sie uns Angst machen oder uns einschüchtern, dann ist ihr Ziel, Hass zu verursachen. Dann setzen wir uns auf dasselbe tiefe Niveau, wie sie selber sind. Das dürfen wir nicht. Also nach dem Motto – „We shall overcome“ – wir werden die Situation beherrschen – OHNE ANGST, ich wiederhole nochmal, OHNE ANGST, dem Licht entgegenleben und in Frieden für die Menschheit entscheiden. Und so können wir uns – ich bin überzeugt – retten.

Kla.TV: Ja, Peter König, Vielen Dank für das Interview. Vielen Dank für die Zeit die Sie sich genommen haben. Und ja, wir werden zusammen überwinden. Vielen Dank.

Peter König: Nichts zu danken. Ich bin Ihnen dankbar, dass Sie mich auf Ihrem Programm haben sprechen lassen und hoffentlich erreicht diese Mitteilung einige, die bereit sind, da mitzumachen, – auch geistig mitzumachen. Vielen Dank.

*

Hinweis für die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie oben oder unten auf die Teilen-Schaltflächen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram Channel. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research zu reposten und zu teilen.

Peter König ist Ökonom, geopolitischer Analyst und war über 30 Jahre bei der Weltbank tätig. Im Interview mit Kla.TV spricht Herr König über die aktuelle Finanzlage in der Schweiz, über den ,Great Reset‘ und in diesem Zusammenhang über die Kontrolle jedes Einzelnen. Dabei erläutert er, was es mit dem QR-Code auf sich hat.

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

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

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

***

The Syrian conflict is in a stalemate, and wasn’t even mentioned on US President Biden’s recent Middle East trip.  The proxy war in Syria features the US, NATO, EU, Turkey, Iran and Russia all playing roles which vary from conflicting, to competing, and complementing.

While the international media is focused on events in Ukraine, the Syrian people are suffering from the aftermath of war, US-EU sanctions, and an economy near collapse.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Dr. Ahmad Alderzi, the noted microbiologist and political activist.  The questions range from Aleppo, to Turkey, to the Kurds, to Qatar, and Iran to delve into the backstory of what is the current situation on the ground in Syria.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  The Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has recently paid a visit to Aleppo for the first time in almost a decade.  Meanwhile, Turkish President Erdogan is threatening to start a military operation in northern Syria.  In your opinion, does Al-Assad’s visit to Aleppo constitute a political message to Erdogan?

Ahmad Alderzi (AA):  Al-Assad’s visit to Aleppo took place in highly grave and complicated international and territorial circumstances for Syria. It was intended to carry a set of local, territorial, and international messages. Locally, it was intended to imply the return of the pre-war policies, in which Aleppo constituted a central concern for the president, Al-Assad, that made it claim its ordinary position as the most important economic city in Syria, and that the aftermath of the war policies, that prevented Aleppo and its industrial men from reclaiming their positions have come to an end. It also denoted that the next phase will witness a dramatic change concerning how to deal with the doomed city and that suitable circumstances and conditions for this return will be achieved, which made the people of Aleppo grasp that message and rush, as they are full of hope, to receive him.

Territorially, the message to Erdogan’s Turkey, which is still working on taking over Aleppo again, is clear; any new attempt to reoccupy Aleppo should witness a different way of military dealing, based on the positions of the Russian and Iranian allies, who firmly stood together with it against any new Turkish military movement.

Internationally, the sent message to the United States and the European Union, is that Syria’s position towards them will not change and that the Aleppo region, through which the Arab gas pipeline was supposed to pass in 2010, will not let the Israeli gas pipeline pass through it as well.

SS:  The international coalition in eastern Syria warns the Kurds against any talks with the Syrian government and the Russians, meanwhile, it does not prevent Erdogan from launching a military operation against the Kurdish militias.   In your opinion, what would the Kurds do to protect themselves?

AA:  The Kurdish leaders are confused as they shifted from the phase of being caressed, where temptations and promises were given by the international powers in case they aligned with them, to the phase of the biggest loser in the international and territorial conflict. They turned to be the weakest party in the international and territorial conflict having their choices reduced dramatically, where they found themselves obliged to align with either the west or the east, either Russia, China, Iran, India, Shanghai, and the Brics system, or with the US, who disappointed and conspired against them, and the European Union states who give up to Turkey, who is a NATO member, for invading the north in exchange for aligning with them in NATO. The last and only safe choice to remain was heading towards Damascus, with the assistance of the Russians and the Iranians, with a different mentality, in return for agreed rights by all parties. However, this is the sole way to protect themselves following the bitter experience they had with the Americans and the Turks.

SS:  A photo that went viral on social media showed cleaning and restoring the Qatari embassy in Damascus.  Will Qatar reopen its embassy in Damascus?

AA:  What Qatar is doing, the restoration of the embassy, does not deviate from the stick and carrot policy. After all, it does not deviate from the US higher policies in exchange for getting American protection and a regional role much larger than its actual size. It’s a clear message that Damascus’ choice about aligning either with the currently hegemonic international order or with the upcoming international one is what would identify the future of Syria and its political system. That is, aligning with Washington would open the doors for reconstruction, restoration of role, and economic prosperity for Damascus; that is what the carrot policy of restoring the embassy represents. As for the stick policy, it would be represented by the Qatari position in the Human Rights Council, which called for opening an investigation and holding the Syrian officials on trial for violating human rights.

SS:  The Iranian foreign minister was in Turkey in an attempt to restore the ties between Ankara and Damascus.   Following this visit, he headed to Damascus and met President Bashar Al-Assad.  In your opinion, will this attempt be fruitful, and is there any progress?

AA:  The Iranian attempts of restoring the ties between Ankara and Damascus set out based on the Iranian policy concerns about what is being hatched over against it internationally and regionally on the one hand, and to protect its allies and partners in a highly dangerous and complicated area from conspiracies on the other hand. This requires screwing up what is being planned by the regional powers; more importantly, working on neutralizing Turkey, which has all the cards that can destabilize the region nationally, religiously, and on the sectarian level, from the direct involvement in the American-Zionist project. However, judgments cannot be passed on this attempt now, they require building trust bridges between the two parties, Turkey’s confession of the unity of the Syrian territory and withdrawing from the areas it occupied, and disbanding terrorist organizations that it harbored, trained, and protected. This requires the Turkish leadership to be aware and realize that its exits from and around the inside and outside can only be achieved by moving towards cooperation policies, as an alternative to rough and violent control attempts.

SS:  Recently in the UN session, Russia vetoed extending the humanitarian aid corridors to Idlib. In your opinion, how will that have an effect on the last area controlled by the terrorists in Syria?

AA:  It’s early to judge the effect of the Russian position in the security council on the future of the terrorist groups. It has nothing to do with them, rather, it has to do with the American sponsor of these groups. The Russian and Chinese vetoes are just one step in a long course to turn the threats into cumulated opportunities on the course of changing the current international order. Therefore, the resolution duration was reduced to only six months, to monitor American promises of dealing differently with the legitimate Syrian government, and we have no choice but to wait to know the trends of international politics and their impact on Syria.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

Special Price: $5.00

Click to order

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

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

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

***

Guest: Renate Holzeisen is an attorney at law and economist in Italy.

This session is about a report on a remarkable Cautelar order (urgent proceedings due to imminent irreparable damage) of an Italian judge on COVID-19 injection (inaudita altera parte). The Florence Regional Court overturned the suspension of a psychologist (who was subject to mandatory vaccination) on excellent grounds.

The judge explicitly identifies the mRNA injections as experimental substances that, according to current data, are not likely to break the chains of infection. 

The actual trial is set for September.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

Introduction

We are in an era of Pax Americana where peace supposedly exists under the hegemony of the global superpower, the United States. But the years of American leadership have rather brought more wars, hostilities and chaos than one can remember. Rampant state surveillance, military alliances (against an imagined threat and enemy), international law violations, war crimes, etc. define the current state of nature.

The US, self-proclaimed bastion of democracy and freedom, deprives its citizens of their individual rights and personal freedom. Is this the future we want for our kids and grandkids? Decide on the future by acting on the present.

On Global Research, it is our intention to continue to relentlessly promote independent and authoritative voices that speak out on issues which are deliberately neglected or distorted by the corporate media.

To deliver on this intention, we need your help. Please support us: donate or become a member now by clicking below.

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Thanks for supporting independent media.

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel.

Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

.

.

.

.

The follow text is the Preface to the Japanese print Edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book entitled: 

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset” which is currently in E-Book format.

***

My thanks to the Publisher and to the translator Tatsuo Iwana.

Today at the time of writing my thoughts are with the people of Japan. The COVID-19 crisis is destroying people’s lives. My responsibility as an author is to reveal the truth, break the tide of media disinformation and reach out Worldwide to as many people as possible.

This book is the result of more than two years of detailed research on the causes and  consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. I am much indebted to the publisher and translator for their commitment and support throughout this endeavor. 

The results of my research, backed up by reports by prominent scientists and medical doctors, confirm that the COVID-19 policy mandates put forth by national governments worldwide, including the mRNA vaccine, are totally invalid.  

In this preface, I will focus briefly on 

• The chronology of the COVID-19 crisis with reference to Japan,
• The mRNA vaccine mandate launched by Japan’s Ministry of Health in February 2021,
• The 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics. 

COVID-19 Chronology  

On January 30th, 2020 (Geneva Time), the Director General of the WHO Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared a Global Health Emergency based on 83 PCR positive cases outside of China. A ridiculously low number.

These 83 cases categorized as “COVID-19 confirmed cases” were used as a justification to launch the WHO’s Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). (For more details, see chapters I and II). 

Prior to the WHO’s historic decision, (former) Prime Minister Shinzo Abe [who passed away in July 2022] had already expressed concern regarding the novel corona virus.

A Novel Corona Response Headquarter (NCRH) chaired by the Prime Minister was created.

On the day prior to the WHO announcement, at an NHRH meeting held at the Diet Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated: 

“… There are currently eight patients confirmed … In addition, among those who returned to Japan yesterday, three tested positive in the screening. Currently these individuals are hospitalized …  Two of them show no symptoms. Taking into consideration the fact that individuals have tested positive for the virus despite exhibiting no symptoms, it is necessary for us to phase up our responses including quarantine measures.” (emphasis added)¹

These ridiculously low numbers did not under any circumstances provide evidence of an epidemic. The quarantine measures were not required nor justified. 

Moreover and this is fundamental, the methodology used to generate the so-called “positive cases” was the polymerase chain reaction (PCR test) which was subsequently acknowledged as misleading and invalid by both the WHO and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (See Chapter III, Appendix to Chapter III for details)

In subsequent developments, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR test) methodology coupled with other rapid tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 were activated in all major regions of Japan.

Test, Test, Test

This process of extensive testing using the PCR test indelibly contributed to hiking up the numbers of so-called “COVID-19 confirmed cases” reaching 300,000 “cumulative cases” in Japan in December 2020. It also contributed to spearheading the fear campaign. The latest figures recorded in early March 2022 at the time of writing were of the order of 5,5 million “cumulative cases”.² 

I have spent months on end examining the PCR test and its results and can state unequivocally that these estimates are erroneous and misleading. They have no scientific basis. (See details in Chapter III) 

What this implies is that all the COVID-19 policy mandates applied by the Japanese authorities since the outset of the pandemic in March 2020, allegedly to curb the progression of the infectious disease are invalid. These include the various state of emergency measures, the temporary closure of schools, the face mask, social distancing, the suspension of large-scale social gatherings, etc.  

These measures were facilitated by a draft amendment “to the Special Measures Act to Counter New Types of Influenza of 2012” which allowed for the extension of emergency measures to “an influenza outbreak which would include COVID-19”.

“Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s abrupt request for all schools in Japan to temporarily close down and his call to cancel large events have been called into question as they have no legal basis. Revising the existing special measures law would … give these requests legal ground.” (emphasis added)³

Ironically, this amendment adopted by the Diet on March 13, 2020 implied the recognition (by the government) that SARS-CoV-2 was not a dangerous “killer virus” as portrayed by the media, it was categorized as having similar features to seasonal influenza. According the WHO’s definition of SARS-CoV-2:

“The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and tiredness. … These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but only have very mild symptoms. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing hospital treatment. Around 1 out of every 5 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing.”⁴ (See Chapter III) 

The WHO definition of COVID-19 “similar to seasonal influenza” did not hit the headlines of the Japanese media. Had it been revealed, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s emergency measures would no doubt have been questioned and opposed by the Japanese people.

Moreover, according to the WHO, the number of “Covid-19 confirmed case” in Japan recorded on March 16, 2020 was 266. *See WHO Japan 

Meanwhile, the fear campaign was used to provide legitimacy to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s emergency measures.

This amendment to the Special Measures Act was hastily adopted by the Diet, one day after the March 11, 2020 (Geneva time) lockdown instructions transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations.⁵ It provided a timely and convenient “green light” to Shinzo Abe to adopt a series of drastic economic measures including the lockdown and confinement of the labor force allegedly as a means to combating the spread of a dangerous virus SARS-CoV-2. 

What was the outcome of these forceful lockdown procedures implemented by Shinzo Abe? 

Two months later (May 28, 2020), Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at a meeting of the Ministerial Council acknowledged (quoting the May Monthly Economic Report) that:

“The Japanese economy is worsening rapidly in an extremely severe situation, due to the Novel Coronavirus.”

Furthermore, concerning short-term prospects, the Report states that, “an extremely severe situation is expected to remain due to the influence of the infectious disease for the time being….”  (emphasis added)⁶

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had casually placed the blame on “V the Virus”.

A microscopic virus does not have a “human hand”. It cannot influence economic and financial variables. 

The alleged spread of the virus (based on faulty estimates of the PCR test) cannot be held responsible for the engineered slump of the Japanese economy instrumented by the Shinzo Abe government. 

This “severe economic situation” (which is still ongoing) is the result of the COVID policy mandates first instigated by the Abe government in March 2020. 

Recent reports confirm that these ongoing economic measures have undermined civil society, disrupted social relations not to mention  the very structures of family life in Japan, while also triggering a wave of suicides, particularly among adolescents and young children. (This issue is analyzed in Chapter VI)

The mRNA Vaccine

At the time of writing, mass protests against the COVID-19 mandates are ongoing in several countries largely focusing on the impacts of the mRNA vaccine inoculations. 

In Japan, the mRNA vaccine was launched in February 2021 as a means to protect the Japanese people against a non-existent “killer virus”. More than 206 million doses have already been administered. Was the Japanese population informed regarding the dangers of the mRNA vaccine?  

In December 2021, Japan’s Ministry of Health authorized booster shots of  Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, pointing to the “low rate of side effects such as myocarditis”. This assessment (which quotes UK data) is mistaken. Moreover, the booster shots will have a devastating impact on immunity.⁷

According to Japan’s Ministry of Heath’s earlier advisory:

“The Government recommends that people get vaccinated because the benefits of vaccination are greater than the risk of side reactions.” (emphasis added)

The foregoing statement is misleading and incorrect.

At the time of writing, the Fumio Kishida government has reversed its earlier stance. It has taken the initiative to order the labeling of COVID vaccines:

“to warn of dangerous and potentially deadly side effects such as myocarditis. In addition, the country is reaffirming its commitment to adverse event reporting requirements to ensure all possible side effects are documented.⁸

Moreover, Japan’s Ministry of Heath, while recommending the vaccine, issued an advisory to the effect that the Covid-19 vaccine “is not compulsory or mandatory”.

“No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.” (emphasis added)⁹

Hopefully this provision constitutes a first step towards the cancellation of the COVID-19 vaccine programme.

Vaccine-Related Deaths and Adverse Events

The evidence points to a worldwide upward trend of vaccine-related mortality and morbidity which is fully corroborated.

This official data is available. Prominent medical doctors and scientists have called for the immediate repeal worldwide of the COVID-19 vaccine programme. (See Chapter VII)

Also of relevance is the confidential report by Pfizer which was released under a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure. Pfizer acknowledges in its own confidential report that the vaccine is dangerous and unsafe. (See Chapter VII)

It is also important that people in Japan take cognizance of the fact that Pfizer has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice. (For details, see Chapter VII)

The 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics

The world’s leading athletes arrived in Tokyo in August 2021 to participate in the rescheduled Tokyo Summer Olympics.  Quarantine and testing services were established for the athletes. These procedures were totally unnecessary. 

The people of Japan as well as foreign visitors were refused access to the Olympic events in derogation of their fundamental rights. Everybody in Japan viewed the Olympic Games on TV. These far-reaching decisions were presented to public opinion as a means to saving lives and combating the spread of the virus.

The decision to postpone the 2020 Summer Olympic Games coupled with the subsequent decision to conduct the Olympic games without spectators in August 2021 were based (as outlined above) on erroneous estimates of “COVID-19 confirmed cases” using the RT-PCR test.

The PCR methodology applied to estimate the progression of the virus, was declared invalid by the WHO on January 20th, 2021, more than six months prior to the August Tokyo Olympic Games. (See Chapter III and Appendix to Chapter III).  Moreover, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a directive on July 21, 2021 calling for the withdrawal of the PCR test effective December 31, 2021. (See Chapter III) 

The conduct of the Olympic Games in August 2021 without spectators was totally unnecessary. There was no scientific basis for preventing the Japanese people from attending the Tokyo Olympics. 

The financial losses resulting from these failed policy decisions are beyond description.

Michel Chossudovsky,

Montreal,  March, 2022

Endnotes

1 Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, January 30, 2020. Novel Coronavirus Response Headquarters. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/98_abe/actions/202001/_00034.html

2 WHO, n.d. Japan: WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/jp

3 The Mainichi, March 5, 2020. Revised influenza law to allow Japan PM to declare state of emergency over coronavirus. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200305/p2a/00m/0fp/011000c

4 WHO, March 8, 2020. Media Statement: Knowing the risks for COVID-19. https://www.who.int/indonesia/news/detail/08-03-2020-knowing-the-risk-for-covid-19

5 Kyodo News, March 13, 2020. Japan’s Diet gives Abe power to declare emergency amid viral fears. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/03/57cfa56d5ecc-urgent-japans-diet-gives-abe-power-to-declare-emergency-amid-viral-fears.html

6 Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, May 28, 2020. Ministerial Council on the Monthly Economic Report and Other Relative Issues. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/98_abe/actions/202005/_00027.html

7 Osamu Tsukimori, December 15, 2021. Health ministry formally approves Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for a booster shot. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/15/national/science-health/health-ministry-backs-moderna-vaccine-booster/

8 Amy Mek, December 10, 2021. Alert: Japan Places Myocarditis Warning on ‘Vaccines’ – Requires Informed Consent. https://rairfoundation.com/alert-japan-places-myocarditis-warning-on-vaccines-requires-informed-consent/

9 Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, n.d. COVID-19 Vaccines. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/covid-19/vaccine.html 

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

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

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

***

In this Whistleblower Newsroom editorial, host Kristina Borjesson discusses the illegal actions to which Assange has, and continues to be, subjected to by three nations—the US, UK and Sweden, working to fulfill the American government’s aim to get him to the US to face espionage charges.

The illegal pursuit of Assange was triggered by, most prominently, the Wikileaks release of “Collateral Murder,” a video depicting a war crime in progress: US military gunfire from an Apache helicopter mowing down eleven civilians, including two Reuters journalists.

Borjesson points out that this war crime was a crime within the larger crime of the illegal Iraq war, both of which paved the way for the criminal persecution of Assange.

*

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 Whistleblower Newsroom.

Featured image: Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison in 2019 (Source: WSWS)

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

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

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

***

During the 2020 presidential election, President Biden officially set the record for the most votes cast for a presidential candidate in US history. Although many questioned the legality of the election, the numbers were official.

Biden, one of the longest-serving career politicians in US history, finally took the office he had been eyeing for nearly 50 years. He got 81,284,000 votes, far surpassing Obama’s record of 69,498,516 votes in 2008.

However, ever since, the incumbent’s popularity has consistently been one of the lowest ever for a sitting US president. Although initially denied by the neoliberal mass media, Biden’s unpopularity has become so obvious even they had to admit it, including their flagship, the infamous CNN.

According to the latest CNN poll conducted by SSRS, Biden has reached the lowest ratings in his political career. The poll indicates public opinion is by far the worst it has been since 2009. According to the controversial news network, approximately 70% of Americans think President Biden isn’t paying attention to the country’s most pressing issues. His approval rating is 38%, with disapproval standing at 62%. His ratings for running the economy and handling inflation are 30% and 25% respectively, notably lower than the official overall approval rating. Soaring costs of living are the primary concern for most US citizens, with 75% deeming inflation the gravest problem. Just last summer, that figure stood at 43%.

Biden’s unpopularity is spilling over to the DNC itself. CNN claims that even among Democrats, Biden’s approval fell by 13% since late April (86% to 73% in July). The numbers are even worse when broken down. Biden’s DNC approval rating for handling the economy stands at 62% (9% lower than in April, when it stood at 71%). Regarding inflation, it’s even worse, with 51% of Democrats approving, while 47% disapprove. Among people of color, less than half (45%) are content with Biden’s overall performance (down from 54% in April). According to the poll, this includes a 6% and 9% decline among Blacks and Hispanics respectively. Approval ratings for handling the economy and inflation are now in the negative among Blacks, with 52% and 65% disapproval, respectively. Considering the Blacks have been among Biden’s strongest backers, these numbers are pretty indicative of the president’s performance.

At present, only 12% of Americans strongly support Biden, while 43% strongly disapprove. Among Democrats, only 28% strongly approve, while 84% of Republicans strongly disapprove. The public’s views of the economy and the state of the country overall are “deeply negative and worsening”, CNN claims. Since April, the percentage of those saying “things are going badly for the country” now stands at a mindboggling 79%, the highest since February 2009, and just 4% shy of the all-time worst (November 2008). Most alarmingly for the DNC, this shift largely comes from Democrat voters themselves, with only 38% now saying things are going well in the country. This figure was 61% in April. Concurrently, there’s been a similar drop among people of color, from 41% saying things were going well in April to just 27% in July.

Overall, only 18% of Americans think the economy is in good shape, while 82% say it’s poor, with 41% describing it as “very poor,” which is 11% more than in April and nearly double since December 2021. While economists warn of a looming recession, most Americans think it’s already happening. The CNN poll finds that 64% think the economy is going through a recession. This also includes 56% of Democrats, 63% of independents and 76% of Republicans. When asked to name the biggest economic problem facing their family today, 75% of Americans named costs of living and inflation, including 38% who singled out inflation and rising costs generally, with 29% mentioning gas prices, while 18% mentioned food costs. All of those figures have increased sharply since last summer.

While the public’s attention has shifted sharply to inflation, few think Biden’s focus has followed, with 68% saying he hasn’t paid attention to the country’s most important problems, up from 58% who said so last November. Among Democrats, 57% say he has the right priorities, down nearly 20 points from 75% last fall. Among people of color, just 35% say he has the right priorities, and among those younger than 35, only 23% say the President has the right focus. The ratings for handling immigration (39%) and Ukraine (46%) might be better than those regarding the economy, but are still in the negative.

The survey also indicates both the president’s and vice president’s personal ratings have suffered. Just before their inauguration, 59% and 51% held favorable opinions of Biden and Kamala Harris, respectively. Now, those figures stand at 36% and 32%. With midterm elections just months away and no indication whatsoever that Biden’s standing with the public will improve, the incumbent’s unpopularity is extremely likely to affect the DNC’s midterms performance.

The popularity of governments across the political West has diminished sharply in 2022. With Emmanuel Macron facing a hostile Parliament, Boris Johnson’s premiership hanging in the balance, Germany’s government on the verge of collapse and the Italian government effectively collapsed already, the political crisis in the West might soon turn into an overall one, affecting every aspect of the imperialist power pole. On the other hand, the multipolar world is not just stable, but it’s working towards greater integration.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

More and more information about foreign mercenaries who were captured in the East of Ukraine is shared by the media.

Testimony of Alexander Drueke

My name is Alexander Drueke. I’m a U.S. citizen from Alabama.

On June 9th, I was captured outside Kharkov. (Scroll down for transcript)

On July 15th, the death of one of the foreign citizens who was imprisoned on the territory of the DPR was announced. It was a British citizen, Paul Urey, born in 1977. He suffered from numerous diseases, including Type 1 Diabetes, as well as severe kidney and lung diseases. Paul Urey suddenly died of cardiac distress.

According to the official representatives of the DPR, Paul was provided with all possible medical care, including insulin. Paul was also given the opportunity to call his relatives and any organizations that he considered appropriate to contact in order to speed up his release or which could provide him with additional expensive special medications.

The South Front Team addressed the official representatives of the DPR with a request to provide information about the fate of other foreign citizens imprisoned in the Republic. We asked for details about conditions of their detention, health status and their legal status.

Today we received a reply by mail that the DPR is ready to provide the requested information on foreign prisoners. The SF team was provided with video recordings and background on several foreign mercenaries who were captured.

Starting today, we are publishing a series of articles about foreign mercenaries in custody in the DPR.

My name is Alexander Drueke. I’m a U.S. citizen from Alabama.

On June 9th, I was captured outside Kharkof. And I’ve been held in captivity since then. During my captivity I’ve been treated very well. I have food and water. I have access to legal help and medical care if needed. But, of course, I would much rather be back home with my family.

So, I’m appealing to the U.S. government to find a way to give me back home. I understand that there have been prisoner exchanges between Ukraine and Russia. And, so, that may be a possible option to get me home. I’m not sure what other options there might be, but if there are any options available, that the U.S. government could make happen or influence happen, then I would greatly appreciate them doing everything that they could to make that happen.

I have been allowed to reach out to officials with the U.S. government during my captivity and I haven’t got any kind of concrete answers on what steps they are taking to secure my release. If any, but I would just again ask that the U.S. government do everything that they can to trying give me released. So, I can go back home and be with my family. Thank you.

Alexander Drueke, born in 1982, is a native of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He has a higher education in management.

Being a US Army reservist, Drueke took part in the Iraq campaign with the 942 transport company. He served directly in the combat zone in Iraq for several years. At the time of the campaign, he held the rank of the US Army sergeant. Further, he has moved up through the military ranks. During his service in Iraq, Drueke was awarded several times by the United States, and also got a special life pension.

Then, until 2022, he allegedly worked as a salesman in various companies in the United States.

In February 2022, being influenced by US anti-Russian propaganda, he decided to take part in military operations in Ukraine on the side of Kiev. Having enough financial capacities, he bought military equipment at his own expense, including a helmet, body armor, tactical boots, etc.

On April 15, 2022, he arrived on the territory of Ukraine. He crossed the border without hindrance, telling the border guards that he was entering Ukraine with the “purpose of helping the Ukrainian people.”

Then Alexander Drueke got in touch with representatives of the so-called Ukrainian Foreign Legion through the Internet. He was informed that he had to arrive at the Yavoriv railway station in the Lviv region, where the notorious military training ground used for the formation and combat coordination of foreign mercenaries is located.

Having arrived in Yavoriv, Drueke signed a contract with the Ukrainian Foreign Legion to serve in its ranks on a fee basis. He was enrolled in a unit which only included foreigners. Most of his colleagues did not have any military experience, which later led to a lack of proper military discipline in the unit.

The training of the unit was entrusted to the fighters themselves. In the training camp, Alexander Drueke struck up a friendship with three other mercenaries from the US.

In a week, he and his friends were disillusioned with the unit’s training system and their command. They believed that the Ukrainian Foreign Legion is a large and professional unit but their aspirations radically diverged from reality. As a result, they broke their contracts and left the Foreign Legion at the end of April 2022.

Through their personal contacts in Ukraine, they found another unit of the Armed Forces of Ukraine located in the city of Rivne. They signed new contracts with this unit. They were given personal weapons (AK-74, 5.45 x 39 caliber), which Alexander learned to handle from videos on YouTube.

The service in the second unit allegedly also did not suit Alexander and his two friends. The group of mercenaries tried to find another professional unit where their combat skills could be fully applied.

They did it in a month. At the beginning of June 2022, the mercenaries were invited to a sabotage and reconnaissance group of foreigners, which operated in the Kharkiv direction.

They arrived in Kharkiv on June 8, 2022, where they were met by citizens of Germany and France who were members of the tactical force team “Baguette”.

The Baguette group consisted of about 12 military personnel, of which about half were French citizens, former or active servicemen of the French Foreign Legion or other units of the Ministry of Defense and the Armed Forces of France. Except Alexander Drueke and his two friends, there were 3 others US citizens in the group.

On arrival at the location of the group, each of them was given a CZ807 assault rifle, 7 magazines of 30 rounds and a hand grenade. Aleksander’s partner was also given an RPG-7 with one grenade for the launcher, and Alexander was given two more grenades for the RPG-7. Earlier, during their short-term service in the Ukrainian Foreign Legion, they were trained in the handling of these weapons.

On the evening of June 8, 2022, a briefing was held. They were informed that the next day they had to move to a combat position for reconnaissance and mining operations.

On June 9, 2022, the group of 8 foreign soldiers, accompanied by soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, left on a mission. On the spot, Ukrainian servicemen mined the area, and foreigners were tasked to conduct reconnaissance using UAVs. In case of enemy forces detection, they had to ambush them in order to destroy their military equipment.

During the operation, Drueke’s partner detected a Russian tank, which he fired at with his RPG-7.

In response, Russian soldiers opened fire with small arms at the position of the foreign mercenaries. Alexander and his colleague retreated into the forest area, where they hid for a couple of hours until the battle subsided. After that, they decided to dig their RPG-7 and the two remaining grenades. Being armed, they moved to the side where the cars in which they arrived were parked.

However, only one of the three cars remained, and that one was already inspected by the Russian servicemen.

Alexander and his partner tried to leave the battlefield on their own and left in the direction of the location of their group. Having no maps and not knowing the area, they wandered for 6 hours. As a result, they came to a settlement that was under the control of the Russian military, where they were captured.

*

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

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

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

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

***

The US financial sector has long looted other countries.  A number of participants have described the process.  First a country is enticed with bribes to the leaders to take out loans that cannot be serviced or repaid.  Then in comes the IMF. Austerity is imposed on the population.  Public services and employment are cut to free resources for debt service, and public assets are sold to repay the loan.  Living standards fall, and US corporations take over the country’s economy.

As foreign governments, having experienced or witnessed the economic carnage and fearing accountability, are less willing to be bribed into indebting their countries, American finance is now applying this technique to Americans. Contrary to the narrative in the financial press, the Federal Reserve is not raising interest rates in order to fight inflation.  It is ludicrous to think that a three-quarters of one percent rise in a very low interest rate is going to have any impact on a 9.1% rate of consumer inflation or that speculation that the Federal Reserve has in mind another three-quarters of one percent possibly followed by one half of one percent comprise an anti-inflation policy.  If all these increases occur, it still leaves the interest rate below the inflation rate.

Moreover, as I have previously explained, the inflation is not monetary.  The higher prices are the result of supply disruptions caused by Washington’s Covid lockdowns and Russian sanctions.  Production was stopped and supply chains are broken.  

The Federal Reserve’s rise in interest rates is just a continuation of its policy of concentrating income and wealth in the hands of the One Percent.  Quantitative Easing was the cloak for the Federal Reserve to print $8.2 trillion in new money which was directed or found its way into the prices of stocks and bonds, thus enriching the small number who own most of these financial instruments.  Having maxed out this avenue of wealth concentration, the Federal Reserve is now raising interest rates in order to drive up mortgage costs to aspiring home owners.  The Federal Reserve is driving individuals out of the housing market in order to free up properties for “private equity” firms to purchase homes for their rental values.  That private equity firms see rental income from the existing stock of houses as the best investment opportunity tells us that the US economy has played out.  When investment goes into existing assets, not into producing new assets, the economy ceases to grow.

The Obama regimes policy of bailing out the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 crash while foreclosing on their victims, reduced American homeownership from 70% to 63 percent. The Urban Institute predicts further declines. Today homeowners’ equity has declined from 85% after World War II to one-third, leaving two-thirds of homeowner equity in the hands of creditors.  This makes it completely clear that a financialized economy indebts the people for the sake of rentier income to the One Percent.  Indeed, the financialized economy created by the Federal Reserve has reimposed a class system akin to the landed British aristocracy that was overthrown.  Indeed, we have an economically far worst class system.  The landed British aristocrats produced food that fed the nation.  The American class system produces interest and fees for the financial system.

As Michael Hudson has shown us, a no-growth economy is the end result of a financialized economy.  A financialized economy is one in which consumer income is diverted by debt expansion away from the purchase of new goods and services into debt service and fees–interest on mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, student loan debt.  With such a large share of household income spent on debt service, little is left for driving the economy forward.

If American economists were capable of escaping from their neoliberal junk economics, they would realize that “the world’s largest economy” they attribute to the United States is total fiction.  The fact is that the United States does not have an economy.  Corporations driven by Wall Street located American manufacturing in Asia so that the One Percent could benefit from higher profits from lower labor costs, while the deserted city and states had to sell their income streams, such as Chicago’s parking meter revenues for 75 years, to foreigners for one lump sum payment to solve one year’s budget crisis.  

The offshoring of American production, carried out under the cloak of “globalism,” destroyed the American economy and the tax bases of cities and states.  While the real economy declines, the Democrat Party, seeking permanent power, has imposed a policy of open borders for immigrant-invaders.  How are these millions of peoples to support themselves in an economy whose manufacturing has been moved abroad?  How can a population, deserted by American corporations, that is experiencing debt deflation absorb the costs of support and social infrastructure for tens of millions of third world immigrant-invaders?

You will never hear it from the whores in the financial press, but the United States is on the precipice of economic and social collapse.  And what are the fools in Washington doing?  The idiots are ginning up wars with Russia, China, and Iran.  

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

The calls and text messages are relentless. On the other end are doctors and scientists at the top levels of the NIH, FDA and CDC. They are variously frustrated, exasperated and alarmed about the direction of the agencies to which they have devoted their careers.

“It’s like a horror movie I’m being forced to watch and I can’t close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”

That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.

That doctor is hardly alone.

At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.)

The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”

Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science.

The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.

Nowhere has this problem been clearer—or the stakes higher—than on official public health policy regarding children and Covid.

First, they demanded that young children be masked in schools. On this score, the agencies were wrong. Compelling studies later found schools that masked children had no different rates of transmission. And for social and linguistic development, children need to see the faces of others.

Next came school closures. The agencies were wrong—and catastrophically so. Poor and minority children suffered learning loss with an 11-point drop in math scores alone and a 20% drop in math pass rates. There are dozens of statistics of this kind.

Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust.

One CDC scientist told us about her shame and frustration about what happened to American children during the pandemic: “CDC failed to balance the risks of Covid with other risks that come from closing schools,” she said. “Learning loss, mental health exacerbations were obvious early on and those worsened as the guidance insisted on keeping schools virtual. CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children.”

An official at the FDA put it this way: “I can’t tell you how many people at the FDA have told me, ‘I don’t like any of this, but I just need to make it to my retirement.’”

Right now, internal critics of these agencies are focused on one issue above all: Why did the FDA and the CDC issue strong blanket recommendations for Covid vaccines in children?

Three weeks ago, the CDC vigorously recommended mRNA Covid vaccines for 20 million children under five years of age. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, declared that the mRNA Covid vaccines should be given to everyone six months or older because they are safe and effective.

The trouble is that this sweeping recommendation was based on extremely weak, inconclusive data provided by Pfizer and Moderna.

Start with Pfizer. Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. In the subgroup of children aged six months to two years, the trial found that the vaccine could result in a 99% lower chance of infection—but that they also could have a 370% increased chance of being infected. In other words, Pfizer reported a range of vaccine efficacy so wide that no conclusion could be inferred. No reputable medical journal would accept such sloppy and incomplete results with such a small sample size. More to the point, these results should have given pause to those who are in charge of public health.

Referring to Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy in healthy young children, one high-level CDC official—whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data—joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit.”

Moderna’s results—they conducted a study on 6,388 children with two doses—were not much better. Against asymptomatic infections, they claimed a very weak vaccine efficacy of just 4% in children aged six months to two years. They also claimed an efficacy of 23% in children between two and six years old—but neither result was statistically significant. Against symptomatic infections, Moderna’s vaccine did show efficacy that was statistically significant, but the efficacy was low: 50% in children aged six months to two years, and 42% in children between two and six years old.

Then there’s the matter of how long a vaccine gives protection. We know from data in adults that it’s generally a matter of months. But we have no such data for young children.

“It seems criminal that we put out the recommendation to give mRNA Covid vaccines to babies without good data. We really don’t know what the risks are yet. So why push it so hard?” a CDC physician added. A high-level FDA official felt the same way: “The public has no idea how bad this data really is. It would not pass muster for any other authorization.”

And yet, the FDA and the CDC pushed it through. That slap in the face of science may explain why only 2% of parents of children under age five have chosen to get the Covid vaccine, and 40% of parents in rural areas say their pediatricians did not recommend the Covid vaccine for their child.

This isn’t the first time that Covid vaccines recommendations based on scant evidence have been pushed through these agencies.

Most recently, back in May, the lack of clinical evidence for booster shots in young people created a stir at the FDA. The White House promoted it hard even before FDA regulators had seen any data. Once they saw the data, they weren’t impressed. It showed no clear benefit against severe disease for people under 40.

The FDA’s two top vaccine regulators—Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause—quit the agency last year over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters in young people. After their departure they wrote scathing commentaries explaining why the data did not support a broad booster authorization, arguing in the Washington Post that “the push for boosters for everyone could actually prolong the pandemic,” citing concerns that boosting based on an outdated variant could be counterproductive.

“It felt like we were a political tool” a CDC scientist told us about the issue. That insider went on to explain that he got vaccinated early but chose not to get boosted based on the data. Ironically, that person was unable to go on a trip with a group of parents because proof of being boosted was required. “I asked for someone to show me the data. They said the policy was based on the CDC recommendation.”

As one NIH scientist told us: “There’s a silence, an unwillingness for agency scientists to say anything. Even though they know that some of what’s being said out of the agency is absurd.”

That was a theme we heard over and over again—people felt like they couldn’t speak freely, even internally within their agencies. “You get labeled based on what you say. If you talk about it you will suffer, I’m convinced,” an FDA staffer told us. Another person at that agency added: “If you speak honestly, you get treated differently.”

And so they remain quiet, speaking to each other in private or in text groups on Signal.

One subject these doctors and scientists feel passionately about but feel they cannot bring up is natural immunity. Why, they wonder, are we insisting on immunizing children who already have some immunity to the disease due to having contracted Covid?

As of February, 75% of children in the U.S. already had natural immunity from prior infection. It could easily be over 90% of children today given how ubiquitous Omicron has been since then. The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity and a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons. Many countries have long credited natural immunity towards vaccine mandates. But not the U.S.

In this, the leaders of these American health agencies made the U.S. an international outlier in how it treats children. Sweden never offered vaccination to children under 12. Finland limits Covid vaccines to children under 12 who are at high risk. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health has appropriately stated that “some children may benefit” but “previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection.” Denmark announced on June 22 that its recommendation to vaccinate any children under age 16 was a mistake. “The vaccinations were not predominantly recommended for the child’s sake but to ensure pandemic control,” said Søren Brostrøm, head of the Danish Ministry of Health.

It is statistically impossible for everyone who works inside of our health agencies to have 100% agreement about such a new and knotty subject. The fact that there is no public dissent or debate can only be explained by the fact that they are—or at least feel that they are—being muzzled.

It is an ancient, moral requirement of our profession to speak up when we believe questionable treatments are being proposed. It is also good for the public. Imagine, for example, a world in which those scientists who suggested that masking for children and school lockdowns were worse for public health were not smeared but instead debated?

The official public health response to Covid has undermined the public’s belief in public health itself. This is a terrible outcome with potentially disastrous consequences. For one thing, because of these sloppy and politicized policies, we run the risk of parents rejecting routine vaccines for their children—ones we know are safe, effective and life-saving.

The leaders of the CDC, the FDA and the NIH should welcome internal discussion—even dissension—based on the evidence. Silencing physicians is not “following the science.” Less absolutism and more humility by the men and women running our public health agencies would go a long way in rebuilding public trust.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Marty Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the author of The Price We Pay, and a medical advisor to Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. 

Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg is an epidemiologist affiliated with The Florida Department of Health who has published research on Covid-19 in schools in the CDC’s journal MMWR.

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

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

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

***

The following text are selections from an incisive report by London’s Daily Mail which reveals the fraud and political complicity behind the Covid crisis which has literally paralyzed the institutions of civil society in more than 190 countries, in the course of more than two years.

The report focusses on how US government agencies led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, et al. were instrumental in the closure of schools across America. This action constitutes a crime against humanity and a crime against our children.

This article by the Daily Mail confirms what the independent media (including Global Research) has been publishing from the very outset of this crisis.

What this article suggests is that the instruments of censorship and so-called “fact checking” are in crisis.

The truth is being revealed. Our thanks to the Daily Mail for having brought this report to our attention.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 19, 2022

To read the full text of the Daily Mail article, click here

***

Two of America’s top health agencies are reportedly hemorrhaging staff as poor decision-making, described by staff as ‘bad science,’ has led to low morale.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are both suffering staff shortages, according to Dr. Marty Makary, a top public-health expert at Johns Hopkins University, writes at Common Sense, the Substack run by former New York Times columnist, Bari Weiss.

Major decisions made by the agencies that hurt morale included support for masking in schools, school closures during the pandemic and the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children four and under.

Both agencies, along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been mired in controversy throughout the pandemic for inconsistent messaging and for decision-making that didn’t seem to line up with available science.

‘They have no leadership right now. Suddenly, there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,’ an anonymous NIH scientist told Common Sense.

Schools became a battleground of the COVID-19 pandemic in America.

When the virus stormed the world in 2020, many officials immediately shut things down – schools, retail stores, entertainment venues, restaurants – out of a fear of the unknown.

Initial data showed children suffered limited risk when they contracted the virus, though, and that it was mainly the elderly and severely immunocompromised that bore the virus’s burden.

Despite the evidence, the CDC still recommended schools stay closed until the end of the 2019-2020 school year.

…

COVID tsar Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly warned that lifting mask mandates from children was ‘risky,’ while simultaneously saying it was time to return back to normal. That was in February.

On July 13, Fauci flip-flopped again, recommending that masks still be work in indoor public gatherings while telling Americans they shouldn’t let the BA.5 COVID-19 variant ‘disrupt our lives.’

Makary, however, warned masks may’ve harmed kids’ social and emotional development as they couldn’t properly read human emotions or the facial expressions of covered faces.

The decision that seemed to raise the most commotion was the authorization of COVID-19 jabs for children aged six months to five years old.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky signed off on those vaccines in June, after a panel of advisors to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 12 to 0 in favor of COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months on June 18.

…

‘The public has no idea how bad this data really is. It would not pass muster for any other authorization,’ an FDA official said.

Amid the many controversies the agency was facing at the time, the CDC announced in April that it would reevaluate its structure and processes in the hopes of developing better processes to communicate with Americans.

It is unclear what changes, if any, were made as a result of the evaluation.

Click here to read the full article on Daily Mail Online.

*

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

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

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

***

Notice the following under “INTENDED USE”:

“Positive results indicate the presence of viral antigens, but clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” (emphasis mine)

*

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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

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

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

***

This book looks at the philosophy, politics and history of many different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals. In recent times Enlightenment ideas have been characterised as cold, hard science, while Romanticism has been perceived as the ‘caring’ philosophy.

However, Romanticist emotions lead to self-absorption, escapism and diversion, yet during the Enlightenment, emotion was not only a very important part of Enlightenment philosophy but was the basis of the philosophes’ ideas for combating injustice in society. Throughout the last two centuries, any Enlightenment movements that tried to highlight the plight of the poor or unite the working class (Sentimentalism, Realism, Social Realism, Socialism) have been excluded, swamped or submerged by Romanticist movements that ultimately pose no threat to the status quo.

In other words, just as the Right tries to remake the Left in its own image (to disarm it), the Romanticists try to remake the Enlightenment in theirs (catharsis without progressive social change), thus, maintaining a ‘culture of slavery’.

…

Through developing an awareness of the socio-political fault lines in today’s culture, cultural practitioners can create a new democratic spirit with an emphasis on the value of ordinary people, while at the same time making an important contribution to the fight against poverty, oppression, and injustice.

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction
What’s the matter with Romanticism?

Chapter 1 – Philosophy
Re-Examining Emotion and Justice in Enlightenment Ideals

Chapter 2 – Politics
Romanticism as a Tool for Elite Agendas

Chapter 3 – Art
Art Movements and the People’s Movement

Chapter 4 – Music
The Conversion of Music into a Mass Narcotic

Chapter 5 – Opera
Opera in Crisis: Can It be Made Relevant Again?

Chapter 6 – Dance
Diversity in Dance Today

Chapter 7 – Poetry
The Dialectics of Rhyme

Chapter 8 – Literature
Literature Serving Human Liberty

Chapter 9 – Theatre
Popular Theatre as Cultural Resistance

Chapter 10 – Architecture
Neoliberalism, Climate Change and Architecture

Chapter 11 – Cinema
Individual and Collective Struggles in Cinema

Chapter 12 – Television
Game of Thrones: Olde-Style Catharsis or Bloody Good Counsel?

Chapter 13 – Culture
The Culture of Slavery v the Culture of Resistance

Conclusion
The Power of Romanticism today: 21st Century Irrationalism

Bibliography

Index

*

Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin

Publisher: Gaelart Publishing

ISBN: 978-1-3999-1964-7

Design: Ieva Grbacjana (https://igrbacjana.com/)

Cover photography: Philip O’Neill (https://www.philiponeillphotography.com/)

Cover painting: Sapere Aude! by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin (http://gaelart.net/)

Back cover: Pallas and the Centaur (Public domain / Wikimedia Commons)

Printer: Paceprint (https://paceprint.ie/)

See this for more details.

*

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.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. Currently working on a book entitled Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery. It looks at philosophy, politics and the history of 10 different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals.

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

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

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

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

***

Today is Dominion Day!

Please do not forget the heroes of Canada that stand for your freedoms and are presently paying the price for your rights!

Say No to the Tyranny!

Below is an interview with Pat King, leader of  Canada’s Truckers Freedom Convoy. He was imprisoned on the orders of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

The COVID-19 Crisis and “The Seventh Wave”: Our Politicians Are Fraudulent, Complicit and Incompetent

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux, July 18, 2022

The  historic March 11, 2020 lockdown triggered economic and social chaos Worldwide. It was an act of “economic warfare”: a war against humanity. This diabolical agenda has undermined the sovereignty of nation states. It has contributed  to a wave of bankruptcies. It has impoverished people Worldwide. It has led to a spiralling dollar denominated global debt.

US-Israel Joint Declaration. Mossad False Flag on the Way? “Alleged Plan by Iran to Assassinate U.S. Officials”

By Gavin OReilly, July 18, 2022

Wednesday’s report by corporate media outlet Yahoo News, outlining alleged plans by Iran to assassinate senior US officials, including former President Donald Trump, in retaliation for the January 2020 drone strike killing of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp’s elite Quds Force unit, should come as little surprise to onlookers.

How Pfizer Profited From the Pandemic

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 18, 2022

According to Kaiser Health News (KHN), the COVID-19 pandemic has been a real boon to Pfizer. Not only has it yielded “outsize benefits” in terms of profits, but it has also “given the drugmaker unusual weight in determining U.S. health policy.”

Catastrophic COVID Experience in New Zealand. The Derogation of Human Rights and “The Basic Principles of Medicine”. The Protest Movement

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, July 18, 2022

If there is a silver lining to the catastrophic Covid experience for us here in New Zealand it is the very clear and indisputable exposure of the political establishment.  The green clean smiling benevolent face of the New Zealand government is nothing more than a mask – yes, a mask – behind which is harsh dictatorial mien of a government that feels no need to answer to the needs of the people it purports to govern.

The West Against Russia: The Strategy Is Being Played Out in Ukraine. “Socio-Economic Suicide” in the EU. Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig and GEOFOR, July 18, 2022

The EU want sanctions on Russia to stop. The sanctions are foremost hurting the EU, but not Russia. On the basis of these sanctions, the planned One World Order (OWO), currently represented by the World Economic Forum (WEF), is using these sanctions, or rather Russia’s reaction to the sanctions, as a justification for causing massive energy and food shortages throughout the west, and to some extent also the Global South.

Ukraine Peace Talks in the Cards?

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 18, 2022

The influential Russian daily Izvestia wrote on Wednesday that the settlement over the “grain corridor” across the Black Sea can create the ambience for resumption of peace talks between Kiev and Moscow.

‘DOD Must End Vaccine Mandate,’ Says Army Doctor Suspended for Writing Exemptions

By Dr. Samuel Sigoloff and Pam Long, July 18, 2022

In an interview with Pam Long, U.S. Army veteran and frequent contributor to The Defender, Dr. Samuel Sigoloff — an osteopath board-certified in family medicine and an active-duty major with the Army suspended for writing COVID-19 vaccine exemptions for service members — explained why he believes the mandates must end.

Does the World Economic Forum Measure Up to Nicaragua?

By Stephen Sefton, July 18, 2022

Few people now doubt that contemporary events worldwide point to a fast accelerating decline of North American and European countries as world leaders in practically any sphere of human activity. The collapse across the world in acceptance of US or European Union moral and political authority is clear from the refusal of most majority world countries to support US-led sanctions attacking the Russian Federation.

Is It Time for Canada to Apologize to Libya?

By Yves Engler, July 18, 2022

Canada said their war in Libya was to defend human rights and enable democracy. But, NATO’s 2011 assault has unleashed a decade of instability and violence as well as deteriorating social and economic indicators. And they still haven’t held presidential elections.

Will the US Supreme Court Make It Illegal to Boycott Israel?

By Azadeh Shahshahani and Dr. Assal Rad, July 18, 2022

With major implications for freedom of speech in the US, it is worth re-examining the historical use of boycott as a tool of resistance by anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist grassroots movements for justice, and the case of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement called for by Palestinians.

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

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

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

***

Wednesday’s report by corporate media outlet Yahoo News, outlining alleged plans by Iran to assassinate senior US officials, including former President Donald Trump, in retaliation for the January 2020 drone strike killing of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp’s elite Quds Force unit, should come as little surprise to onlookers.

Indeed, following the assassination of the Iranian General, the Islamic Republic responded by firing a barrage of ballistic missiles at the US Ain al-Asad airbase in neighbouring Iraq, leaving 110 US servicemen with ‘traumatic brain injuries’ according to The White House, a euphemism for deaths according to Tehran.

Iranian President Ebrahim Raeisi also reiterated in January of this year that unless Trump and then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are handed over for trial – an admittedly highly-unlikely scenario – that Tehran would pursue revenge through other means, leaving no doubt as to the lengths that the Islamic Republic is prepared to go in order to avenge its’ foremost military commander.

The timing of Wednesday’s ‘leak’ however, cannot be described as anything less than suspicious.

On the same day, US President Joe Biden marked his first official visit to the Middle East when he touched down in Israel, with Tel Aviv being a long-time opponent of Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution saw the US and UK-backed Shah Pahlavi overthrown and replaced with the anti-Western and anti-Zionist Ayatollah Khomeini.

The seemingly main theme of Biden’s fleeting visit to the Zionist state was the containment of Iran within the region, with the US leader and Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid signing a joint strategic declaration affirming that the Washington would use ‘all elements of its national power’ to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, in spite of the production of such weapons being strictly prohibited in the Islamic Republic owing to a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khameni.

This markedly more belligerent tone that Biden has taken towards Iran as a result of his Israeli visit, and the ‘leaking’ of the alleged Iranian assassination plot on the same day, would suggest that the current US administration is now on a trajectory where conflict with Iran may become a distinct possibility, and that the aforementioned intelligence report may, in fact, be foreshadowing a false flag operation intended to create that very scenario.

Indeed, the involvement of Israeli intelligence in false flag operations intended to lead the United States into wars on behalf of the Zionist State has a recent enough history.

On the morning of September 11^th, 2001, as planes crashed into the World Trade Centre, a New Jersey housewife noticed another worrying sight from her apartment window.

Three young men, kneeling on the roof of a removals van in the apartment block’s car park, appeared to be in a celebratory mood in spite of the utter chaos unfolding in front of them, dancing and high-fiving each other and even taking photos as the Towers collapsed.

Reporting this incident as well the vehicle’s registration number to the authorities, the van would be stopped by armed police later that afternoon, with 5 men, aged between 22 and 27, detained.

To the puzzlement of authorities, the men turned out to be Israeli citizens, with the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, announcing upon his arrest “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

In what would arouse suspicion even further from the arresting, $4,700 in cash was discovered on one of the men and two foreign passports were found on another. Box cutters similar to those used by the 9/11 hijackers were also found in the van, as well as traces of explosives.

Having obtained a warrant to search the premises of the men’s employer, Urban Moving System, the FBI would question the firm’s owner, Dominick Suter, also an Israeli citizen, who would initially cooperate with their inquiries before hastily leaving the United States three days later without carrying out a planned follow-up interview.

After 71 days in custody, and following an intervention from the then-Bush administration, the five men, who would become known as the Dancing Israelis, were released and deported back to Israel, where they would later confirm in an interview that they were intelligence operatives, part of a larger Mossad spy ring exposed after 9/11, sent to ‘document the event’.

Indeed, that very event would prove highly beneficial to Israeli interests, with 9/11 being used as the pretext to launch the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq that Tel Aviv had stringently lobbied for, the 2011 Syrian regime change operation also supported by Israel, and now, with the possibility that Mossad may stage a false flag operation in the US involving the assassination of senior US officials, a potential devastating war with Iran.

*

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

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

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

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

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

***

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a real boon to Pfizer. Not only has it doubled Pfizer’s annual revenue, it has also given the drugmaker unique weight in determining U.S. health policy — something that concerns even staunch vaccine-pushers like Dr. Paul Offit

Pfizer’s revenue in 2021 was $81.3 billion — approximately double that of 2020 — and the COVID shot accounted for $36.78 billion of that 

Pfizer’s COVID jab dominates 70% of the U.S. and European markets, and Paxlovid, its COVID drug, has become a standard treatment choice in hospitals. This despite findings showing the shot doesn’t prevent infection or transmission, and that Paxlovid causes severe rebound and supercharges mutations

The U.S. had thrown away 82.2 million expired COVID jab doses as of mid-May 2022, yet the Biden administration ordered another 105 million doses at the end of June 2022 for a fall booster campaign that will cost taxpayers $3.2 billion

Pfizer’s contracts are almost exclusively slanted in Pfizer’s favor. They’re guaranteed payment while having no financial liability for injuries and deaths, and it appears this indemnification applies even if they were to be found guilty of fraud

*

According to Kaiser Health News (KHN),¹ the COVID-19 pandemic has been a real boon to Pfizer. Not only has it yielded “outsize benefits” in terms of profits, but it has also “given the drugmaker unusual weight in determining U.S. health policy.”

“Based on internal research, the company’s executives have frequently announced the next stage in the fight against the pandemic before government officials have had time to study the issue, annoying many experts in the medical field and leaving some patients unsure whom to trust,” KHN reporter Arthur Allen writes, adding:²

“When last year Bourla suggested that a booster shot would soon be needed, U.S. public health officials later followed, giving the impression that Pfizer was calling the tune.

Some public health experts and scientists worry these decisions were hasty, noting, for example, that although boosters with the mRNA shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech improve antibody protection initially, it generally doesn’t last.

Since January, Bourla has been saying that U.S. adults will probably all need annual booster shots, and senior FDA officials have indicated since April that they agree … The company’s power worries some vaccinologists, who see its growing influence in a realm of medical decision-making traditionally led by independent experts …

When President Biden in September 2021 offered boosters to Americans — not long after [Pfizer CEO Albert] Bourla had recommended them — Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia … wondered, ‘Where’s the evidence you are at risk of serious disease when confronted with COVID if you are vaccinated and under 50?’

Policies on booster recommendations for different groups are complex and shifting, Offit said, but the CDC, rather than Bourla and Pfizer, should be making them. ‘We’re being pushed along,’ he said. ‘The pharmaceutical companies are acting like public health agencies.’”

The fact that a vaccine-pusher like Offit — infamous for claiming a baby can safely tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once³ — is questioning and pushing back against Pfizer’s influence over health policy reveals just how brazen, unethical and potentially dangerous that is.

Massive Profits Made From Useless Products

According to Allen, Pfizer’s revenue in 2021 was $81.3 billion⁴ — approximately double that of 2020 — and the COVID shot accounted for $36.78 billion⁵ of that. For comparison, Lipitor, Pfizer’s previous top selling statin, generates roughly $2 billion a year,⁶ while their strep vaccine, Prevnar 13 rakes in $6 billion a year.⁷

Its mRNA gene transfer injection against COVID now dominates 70% of the U.S. and European markets, and Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID drug, has become a standard treatment choice in hospitals. This, despite researchers finding Paxlovid (molnupiravir) causes severe rebound and supercharges mutations.

In a rational scenario, that finding would have put a stop to its use, but no. In an official health advisory⁸ to the public, issued May 24, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first warns that Paxlovid is associated with “recurrence of COVID-19 or ‘COVID-19 rebound,’” and then in the very next sentence stresses in bold print a narrative supporting its use and enriching Pfizer with instructions saying:

“Paxlovid continues to be recommended for early- stage treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 among persons at high risk for progression to severe disease.”

Allen also notes that, during an investor call, a Pfizer official highlighted reports of Paxlovid’s failure, but spun it into “good news” for investors, as patients may require multiple courses!⁹Obviously the objective has long ago shifted from helping humans to raping them for as much profit as possible.

Similarly, while Pfizer’s COVID jab clearly doesn’t prevent infection or spread, and Americans are rejecting the shots in growing numbers — 82.2 million doses had expired and were chucked in the trash as of mid-May 2022¹⁰ — the U.S. government still went ahead and ordered another 105 million doses at the end of June 2022.

These are intended for a fall booster campaign, at a cost to taxpayers of $3.2 billion.¹¹ The U.S. is actually paying about 50% more for each of these new jab boosters this time around — $30.47 per dose compared to $19.50 per dose paid for the first 100 million doses.

The U.S. government has also promised to purchase another 20 million courses of Paxlovid, at an eye-watering cost of $530 per five-day course. Basically, Pfizer is being financially rewarded for producing products that are useless at best and dangerous at worst, and we’re all paying for it. In case you’re curious, that is another $10.6 billion transferred from U.S. taxpayers to Pfizer.

Future Boosters Won’t Undergo Human Clinical Trials

After you likely thought it couldn’t ever get any worse, KHN also touches on, but doesn’t delve into, the fact that Pfizer suggested they skip human trials as they move forward with jabs that are reformulated for newer variants. If this strikes you as crazy, you’d be right. It’s sheer madness, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a clearly captured agency — has already surreptitiously agreed to this egregious miscarriage of science.

How this wicked scheme, known as the “Future Framework,”¹² was adopted by the FDA without formal vote is explained by Toby Rogers, Ph.D. — a political economist whose research focus is on regulatory capture and Big Pharma corruption¹³ — in the video above. He also explained it in a June 29, 2022, Substack article:¹⁴

“Yesterday [June 28], the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee approved a bivalent COVID-19 shot with the Wuhan strain and the Omicron variant … Wait, hold up, I thought the FDA was voting on the Future Framework yesterday?

The policy question was whether reformulated COVID-19 shots would be treated as new molecular entities (which they are) in which case they should be subject to formal review or whether reformulated shots would be treated as ‘biologically similar’ to existing Covid-19 shots and be allowed to skip clinical trials altogether.

Apparently the FDA did not have the votes to just pass this as a policy question. If you ask anyone whether reformulated mRNA represents a new molecular entity, well of course it is, so that would require formal regulatory review.

What the FDA did instead was to smuggle the policy question in disguised as a vote about reformulated ‘boosters’ for the fall.

In essence, the FDA just started doing the Future Framework (picking variants willy nilly, skipping clinical trials) and essentially dared the committee members to turn down a booster dose — knowing that all of the VRBPAC members are hand-picked because they’ve never met a vaccine they did not like.

So of course only two people on the committee had the courage to turn down a booster dose — even though it was based on this preposterous process (that was never formally adopted) where there was literally no data at all … By stealth, the FDA replaced a system based on evidence with a system based entirely on belief.”

Countries Held to Ransom

In 2021, secret details of Pfizer’s contracts came to light, showing they are essentially holding countries hostage to nonnegotiable demands for payment in full AND freedom from liability.¹⁵

In late February 2021, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported¹⁶ that Pfizer was demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 jab.

Several countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru, agreed to this demand, putting up bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings as collateral. In short, theses governments are guaranteeing Pfizer will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it, so the company won’t lose a dime if its COVID shot injures people.

Shockingly, these terms are binding even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice!

In October that same year, Public Citizen published the secret contracts^17,18 between Pfizer and Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, the European Commission, Peru, the U.S. and the U.K., further revealing the extent to which these countries handed power over to Pfizer. In almost all scenarios, Pfizer’s interests come first.

For example, government purchasers must acknowledge that the effectiveness and safety of the shots are completely unknown, all while indemnifying Pfizer against any and all financial liability. This is the ultimate corporate maleficence, using their leverage to force the kill shot down these countries’ throats and avoiding any personal responsibility for damages.

Even if Pfizer eventually is convicted of fraud in the U.S. and loses all its liability protection from the COVID jabs because of it, that judgment would not impact these foreign contracts. These countries sold their souls to Pfizer and have absolutely no recourse but to pay even if the shots kill everyone.

The contracts for at least four countries also secure Pfizer’s intellectual property rights even if the company is found to have stolen intellectual property rights of others. In such case, the government purchaser becomes the liable party. As explained by Public Citizen:¹⁹

“For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill. Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses.

Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.”

Equally shocking is that countries are forced to follow through on their vaccine orders even if other drugs or treatments emerge that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19.²⁰ Is it any wonder, then, that governments around the world have suppressed the use of safe and effective outpatient drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?

If these drugs were allowed to be used and could be proven to work, the COVID injections would be completely unnecessary and their emergency use authorization would disappear, yet governments are on the hook for hundreds of millions of doses.

Pfizer Has ‘Habitual Offender’ Track Record

The fact that Pfizer has behaved like a criminal who works out a cover story for a planned murder before committing it is not surprising, considering its history. Pfizer, has been sued in multiple venues over unethical behavior, including unethical drug testing and illegal marketing practices.²¹

In his 2010 paper,²² “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.”

Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. They are recurrent criminal felons. None of these convictions has deterred their nefarious behavior.

In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,²³and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million,²⁴ as well as $75 million to settle charges relating to its testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children.

As reported by the Independent²⁵ at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic. For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.

Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.

The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug. What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place. Pfizer’s rap sheet also includes bribery, environmental violations, labor and worker safety violations and more.²⁶

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Now, despite Pfizer being one of the least ethical drug companies, we’re told to trust them with our very lives, and the lives of our precious children. They’re going to put out booster shots this fall that have undergone absolutely no testing whatsoever, and we’re to simply throw caution to the wind because Pfizer — which has no liability whatsoever — says so.

In 2014, Pfizer faced a surge of lawsuits that accused it of hiding known side effects of its anticholesterol drug Lipitor.²⁷ They got off scot-free that time, as a federal judge dismissed thousands of cases alleging the drug caused Type 2 diabetes.^28,29 But at least they had liability and could be sued.

When it comes to the COVID jabs, injured patients and family members of those killed by it won’t even have the ability to sue for damages, as governments around the world have indemnified them completely, and it looks as though they might not even be liable even if they’re found guilty of fraud. But we will have to see what the courts rule on that one. Still, that any nation would agree to a contract like that is just mindboggling.

Meanwhile, mounting evidence shows the COVID shots destroy immune function over time, and Pfizer’s own trial data reveal deaths and serious adverse events numbering in the tens of thousands.

It’s hard to tell who’s more deserving of punishment — Pfizer or the equally captured federal agencies, the FDA and the CDC, that go along with them and do nothing to protect the lives of the youngest members of our society. Clearly, it’s up to us to protect ourselves and our loved ones, because wolves in sheep’s clothing are ruling the roost — they’re making all the decisions, and captured agencies are simply doing their bidding.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

Abstract 

The mission of scientific research is currently contaminated with distortions that undermine its credibility and compromise its fruitfulness.

The main question is: are scientific projects, fundraising activities, papers and scientific findings interrelated? Does innovation need the frenzy of activities that leads to the overproduction of scientific papers? Or are we simply witnessing one of the worst consequences of globalisation, with desperate researchers forced to publish for survival rather than to pursue the advance of knowledge?

This paper examines the environment of scientific research with its current rules and operating mechanisms.

Overproduction of papers is examined in light of the indefinite growth paradigm, which was invented by economists and politicians to ensure big business to some large multinational enterprises.

No natural phenomenon shows a monotonically increasing trend. Indefinite growth and indiscriminate productivity are deceptive chimeras, and those who let themselves be overwhelmed by it risk falling seriously ill.

It is time to significantly reduce the production of often useless (if not harmful) scientific articles, and to give science back its status of process and scientists their professional dignity.

The anomalies I will refer to include:

i) an abnormally high and frenetic production of scientific articles (where are quality and innovation?),

ii) a wide mass of studies of little relevance that seem to respond solely to the publish or perish blackmail;

iii) unheard-of but proven cases of plagiarism and fraud.

Creative work, such as that of researchers and professors, should not be guided and controlled by market rules. 

I  argue that what scientific research bodies and universities need is a work environment inspired by ideals of plurality, solidarity and eclecticism.

Contributing to the advancement of knowledge remains an extraordinary intellectual and ethical adventure. However, subjection to market rules creates distortions, with risks and consequences for all humanity.

Introduction

Science is a Sacred Cow is the title of a 1950 book by chemist and entomologist Anthony Standen [1]. The author argues that some scientists and teachers have «inflated egos» (certain of their superior wisdom and virtue) or «a fabulous collective ego, as inflated as a skilfully blown piece of bubble gum». This irreverent book was widely reviewed and even praised by Albert Einstein.

A 1950 editorial note in Life (an American magazine) states: «With tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, [Standen] suggests that a group that takes itself so seriously deserves some serious skepticism».

Standen, in fact, asserted that the scientists he was referring to are mostly dull and pompous and now and then they should be laughed at. Unfortunately, he argued the general public stood in awe of them, even when they talked Latinised nonsense.

Already in 1950, then, a breach was opened in the compactness of science as a granitic and inviolable corpus of knowledge that aims to preserve and increase itself. Nowadays, moreover, scientists are often turned into media personalities. While they increasingly crowd the news (e.g., television, newspapers, social media), it is unclear whether they are asked to provide solutions to social problems, thereby replacing politicians, or if politicians empower scientists with reporting facts that legitimize policies imposed on populations. In either case, said science would appear to overcome doubt and precaution, which are at the heart of the scientific method and deontology. Science is not a producer of certainties led by unblemished and fearless professionals (namely, researchers, scientists). Does it make sense for scientific research bodies, particularly academics, to influence policy on contingent social and political issues? Should scientific research not be disconnected from political and commercial purposes? Reflections and second thoughts on this fundamental and fantastic profession are definitely urgent.

Many shadows and only a few lights mark the current path of science, as emphatically evidenced over the last years. In the last three decades, we have witnessed the following epistemological changes concerning science:

• from a scientific method adopted to guide managers and management (formal debut in 1911, with The Principles of Scientific Management by Frederick W. Taylor [2]) to the mercantile management of science,
• from science addressing politics to politics incorporating science,
• from science intended as a mission for public interest to science subjected to market rules for profit. 

While we are facing an unprecedented situation, the trend of scientific paper overproduction was born a long time ago. Scientists are under enormous pressure in order to manufacture papers that are mostly useless to the progress of humanity, since the current working conditions, reminding that of assembly line, allow neither reflection nor intuition. Considerations on socio-political and ethical aspects of scientific research are sadly commonly neglected, so that it is not ethics that establishes the priorities and determines the limits.

This paper examines the dark side of science, which operates by distorting and sometimes also perverting the genuine advance of knowledge. Gianfranco Pacchioni, author of “The Overproduction of Truth” [3], argues that, under the weight of its immense productivity, modern science is heading for a collapse. In their recent paper titled “Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science”, J. S. G. Chu and J. A. Evans [4] wrote:

«In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations» (Web of Science dataset used, analysing papers published between 1960 and 2014 inclusive).

Does it make sense for public scientific research bodies, particularly universities, to follow these trends and the influence of contingent social and political issues? Does it make sense that public scientific research bodies are subjected to market rules? Considerations on socio-political and ethical aspects of scientific research are commonly neglected, although scientific results strictly depend upon the vision that any scientist has of him/herself, of the natural and social world and of his/her profession with related repercussions and, particularly, social responsibility.

Starting a bibliographical research on a given scientific topic can be discouraging, since some thousands documents can be detected by the database employed. A refined selection of documents is nearly always possible, of course, but the overload remains and a critical investigation is necessary aimed at understanding why the reason for the massive increase of scientific articles over the last thirty years. Are we dealing with an increment in scientific sensitivity? A significantly greater number of researchers, than in the past, is currently engaged? If so, to what end? Or, has the internet simplified and intensified the connection between people, providing a huge growth of relevant scientific results arising from international collaborations?

Over the last three decades we have witnessed a constant and rapid increase in the number of scientific papers published in highly specialized and peer-reviewed journals around the world. This fact can be observed and evaluated according to different perspectives. One can appreciate this growth associating the number of scientific papers to the quality, variety and abundance of the recent scientific thought, thereby arguing that many papers are the obvious and linear consequence of many innovative scientific ideas that impact on social activities and the quality of life. On the other hand, one could ask oneself how the scientific environment, with its peculiar working mechanism and rules, has recently changed. A recent paper [5] examined the growth rate of science publication between 1907 and 2007, recording significant differences in various scientific fields (natural sciences, social sciences, engineering, and so on) and a general difficulty of analysis mainly due to the variety of communication forms (conference proceedings, full articles, short communications, monographies, reviews, and so on) and to databases organisation.

Visiting the backstage of research laboratories may reserve a few surprises to non-experts. Sadly, today scientists are forced to multiply their capacity to publish in order to obtain prestige, power, ordinary research funds and jobs (including tenures, promotions, grants, etc.) for themselves and their collaborators.

Scientific articles are currently used as a tool to regulate temporary employment (a huge skilled and underpaid workforce), recruitment and career progression. In this sense, one is setting up a generation of scientists that are enslaved to the papers they must churn out, i.e. whose institutional aim is shifted from scientific research to publication.

Current science is subservient to politics and used to build domain strategies. “Publish or perish” is the locution coined to describe the pressure in universities and other research institutions to rapidly and continually publish papers to sustain or develop careers, recruiting and funding.

Categorising, ranking, evaluating and, above all, counting publications has become the dominant international way of managing scientific research topics, funding and researchers. This is a sterile and manipulative exercise. Single researchers, as well as the corresponding affiliating institutions, are evaluated by the administrators on the basis of the number of papers produced per year. Furthermore, additional credit points are allocated to those scientists who bring funding to their institution, which penalises those who do not. While a researcher can be unable to generate any original scientific ideas, they can progress their careers by regularly producing papers and finding funds. Here, the key question is: findings or funding? Funding for research findings is an obvious recipe, but innovation requires serenity and lucidity beyond huge amounts of funding. Scientists are distracted from in-depth study by the necessity to get funded, which is bad for innovation, because it distracts from reflection, from the courtship of intuition. In lucky cases, papers quickly produced in an assembly line are mannerist products, mere applications of codified disciplines diligently written by professionals of science, obedient to the diktat of the moment. In the many unlucky cases, however, the papers are merely useless repetitive exercises written by who is pressed to do so to survive.

According to Benjamin Disraeli «A University should be a place of light, of liberty, and of learning»; instead, it has become a place dominated by market interests and overwhelmed by waste, blackmail, and exploitation of temporary workers. In my opinion, we are witnessing an epochal and very dangerous systematic distortion, whose main aspects can be summarised through the following points aimed at distinguishing among:

• outstanding scientific research based on an insight that reveals what was previously in the shadows,
• ordinary and diligent collection of data easily interpretable within established scientific paradigms (concepts, theories, models, practices),
• errors in data collection (experimental design step), in measurements, and/or interpretation (modelling step) due to ignorance, naivety or hurry,
• real deceptions based on false data, or biased elaboration of data, and other aberrations [6]. 

Attention: distortion is going to turn into a drift, so a serious shift towards slowness and decency, with a recovery of the sense of public institution disconnected from accounting logic and profit, is urgent. 

The criteria/policies of the scientific journals: writing a scientific paper

Scientific overproduction is strictly correlated with the hypertrophic proliferation of specialized journals.

The glut of scientific reports from scientists – tyrannised by their affiliated institutions and, therefore, driven by the need and the urgency to publish –has allowed journals to proliferate dramatically (a oncogenic-like phenomenon) and to assume behaviours that are as arbitrary as they are tyrannical. Scientific overproduction allows specialised journals to choose and discard.

A range of criteria are adopted, such as, scientific quality (methodological rigor, statistical adequacy in data treatment, innovation, and so on) in the showcase and others in the backstage. Beyond the papers’ intrinsic quality, which remains difficult to evaluate, journals are committed to creating the most diverse acceptance barriers by imposing extremely heavy conditions on authors. Formatting a paper according to a journal’s specific guidelines and completing a submission on its website can be very demanding. Instructions for authors on how to prepare a manuscript for submission includes a series of editorial follies whose purpose would appear to be finding formal reasons to reject articles. Here is a sample of these instructions:

• running title: an abstract of the paper title, with limited number of words allowed,
• structured abstract: a mini-article subdivided into micro-paragraphs, with limited number of words allowed,
• graphical abstract: a relevant image visually showing the content of the work,
• audio summary: the abstract of the abstract, acoustically showing the content of the work, with limited number of words allowed,
• phonetic spelling of name and surname of the principal investigator in view of the audio summary (the summary is also singing or only read?),
• cover letter: an extended version of the abstract addressed to the editor of the journal to highlight the merits (field of investigation covered, novelties, aims, etc.) of the paper,
• requests to each author to disclose private information, more or less pertinent to the paper, but specially related to funding (such as public engagements),
• request to specify the particular type of contribution to the paper by each author,
• stringent rules for tables, figures, captions, text (with limited number of words allowed), references (system of citation imposed), all of which to be strictly observed in view of submission without any guarantees of acceptance: a leap in the void that costs plenty of work and energy, to be repeated elsewhere in case of rejection. 

Homologating work formats and the themes of scientific research means to flatten the differences in the worldviews of individual scientists, which represses their creativity. What seems absurd is that journals require rigid and mandatory adherence to a standard editorial format for the preparation of the text to be submitted. Also, the list of references must be drawn up in accordance with editorial guidelines. Much time is lost in drafting a text according to editorial standards. In the event of rejection, the author has to start anew to match the guidelines of a different journal. Could the substance or content not be distinguished from the form in the first instance?

Furthermore, authors of scientific papers ignore the identity of reviewers, but reviewers generally know both the author’s identity and affiliation – this is one of the unacceptable distortions of this odd social environment. When will scientists be allowed to operate in double blind conditions to ensure real parity as well as disinterested and unbiased evaluation?

In short, only the largest research groups, supported by multiple contributions from different subjects who bring together various type of skills, are able to face the demands of most journals; and this is one the primary methods of paper selection. Hence, only those who can count on strong support can stay in the publication rat-race; while only those who have access to financing can engage runners (researchers) and equipment (places, libraries, instruments, reagents, PC, subscriptions, etc.) suitable to enter the race. To survive in this jungle of rules, standards and formalities, then, a scientist is forced to become a fund manager, an accountant, a clerk typist, an IT specialist as well as a dynamic and smart networker whose aim is to tour the world to collect information, consent and alliances at various conferences and academic gatherings.

The indefinite growth paradigm

Until we continue to think obsessively in terms of growth – economic, scientific, etc. – we will have to compare the academic condition to oncological diseases growing worldwide. The fact that scientists are falling into such a cognitive trap is beyond paradoxical. The growth paradigm was invented by economists and politicians to enhance production and (mostly unnecessary) consumptions. Biologically indefinite growth is nonsense and is, at best, an anticipation of death. The paradigm of indefinite growth, much vaunted in economic and political terms, is mere deception: no natural phenomenon is indefinitely increasing (as far as it is known today), since each is characterised by:

• a latency phase,
• a growth phase,
• a stability phase,
• a decline phase until extinction. 

With regard to biological phenomena, the larger and more complex the living organism, the more rapidly it decays and dies out. Then, imposing to the society’s members the indefinite growth paradigm as a virtuous reference (as a desirable horizon) implies inducing oncogenic thoughts and, thus, overt cancer. This is a vulgar deceit, also useful to sell antineoplastic drugs, maybe as a consequence of some concluding remarks drawn as a result of fraudulent clinical trials [7].

Indefinite growth and indiscriminate productivity are deceptive chimeras, manipulative and harmful paradigms: those who fall for it and let themselves be overwhelmed risk falling seriously ill. Moreover, increasing the rhythm of publications is like progressively exceeding the consumption of sweets: it is an addiction! The craving of papers follows the same rules as the craving of sweets or cocoa: it is an illness, a psychological dependence dopamine-mediated. Sadly, many people are prone to be deceived by the myth of competition, probably because it intercepts survival mechanisms to which each one is ancestrally trained beyond logic, culture or ethics. The divisive logic that makes us believe that everyone survives at the expense of the sacrifice of others (due to a shortage of resources, for example) is powerful and those who are interested in and stress people (including researchers) to unbalance the markets know this very well. Let us now continue to examine those basilar aspects of science together to the currently distorted ones. 

The analogy between scientific and cellular overproduction

Now, let us pause and reflect. The 2014 document by the World Cancer Report [8] gives a comprehensive overview on worldwide disease. It emerges that cancers figure among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with approximately 14 million new cases and 8.2 million cancer related deaths in 2012.

Moreover, the number of new cases is expected to rise by about 70% over the next two decades. These data show that humanity is living in an antibiological way, that implies thinking and behaving in a dysfunctional way to the vital mechanisms. Let us examine some causes of this. Why wonder about the constant increase of oncological diseases in the world when scientists are currently producing impressive masses of scientific articles – published on a constantly increasing impressive masses of journals – for purposes unrelated to the real progress of science and humanity? Any behaviour characterised by a hypertrophic base is the result of people acting in a society characterised by an unhealthy, compulsive and often senseless tendency to the overproduction (scientific, industrial, crafts, and so on), such as cancer cells in an altered metabolism. And all this because it was built a society based on the sale of objects and on craving for profit. The keyword is, in fact, alteration: we are witnessing the decline of a category exhausted by competition in the struggle for survival that ignores (at least partially) that it is being manipulated to be silenced. Scientists currently are:

• obsessively focused on trivial details to give technical meaning to a publication of a certain scientific field,
• jailed in sterile competitions with their peers to grab a keynote or a lecture in a congress, for a grant, for a funding, for a contract, and so on,
• kidnapped by captious intellectual speculations around details that distract from the search for new ways, new models, new concepts, new explanations of phenomena under study,
• possessed by the narcissistic demon to predominate in their field of expertise. 

But, where do we want to go? This situation is particularly serious and significant for scientists who are university professors, because they neglect their teaching commitments to devote him/herself full time to scientific research, fundraising and publication activities that allow them to justify their presence within the University and, therefore, their salary. In her 1990 book, Page Smith [9] claims that:

• the well-known publish or perish dictum and blackmail generates useless research and articles, while leading professors away from their students in the pursuit of tenure,
• academic fundamentalism, the refusal of professors to acknowledge ideas that do not fit their own agenda, is on the rise,
• universities are becoming increasingly dependent on government and big business as these entities award more research grants. 

There is confusion between the publication as a means of communication and dissemination of novel knowledge from publishing as an act for its own sake.

The scientific overproduction (as well as the one recordable in other sectors) is similar to a cellular hyper-proliferation.

For each thing exists a state of balance (a normo-trophic state), one of deficiency (a hypo-trophic state) and one of excess (a hypertrophic state). Excess as well as deficiency are debilitating states and bring with them only destruction enlivening competition for survival, what activates the metabolic pathways of distress (increasing free radical production and specific hormones levels, as that of cortisol and epinephrine) until the appearance of tumours to chronic inflammation and immune disorders. As well-known [10], in fact, cortisol suppresses immune function and also many types of cancer are recognised having a dis-immune origin.

Several diseases that are defined by chronic inflammation result in significantly increased risks of cancer, such as colon cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis [11, 12]. Cortisol has a direct effect on shrinking the thymus and inhibiting white blood cell production and activity. Cortisol suppresses the ability of white blood cells to secrete chemical messengers (interleukins and interferons), so the different varieties of immune-system cells become unable to communicate with each other in a way that would allow them to more effectively fight off infections. Moreover, cortisol can actually act as a signal towards many immune-system cells to simply shut off and stop working (that is, the cells die). In this murky atmosphere of competition and protagonism, in which the race for survival is masked by search of excellence, specialised journals wallow at low cost on the work of scientists stressed and forced into a senseless assembly line (of Tayloristic taste) against all logic and decency.

Cancer cells are full of bioactivity and vigour, but they kill the organisms within which they develop. So it is, in my view at this moment, the world of scientific research and papers. The overproduction of unnecessary, mannerist and repetitive papers is an unequivocal sign of ethical and cognitive decline, and of lack of creativity. This is the current dark side of science: not simply kinky but distinctly dark, noxious. How many scientists are aware of this? How many scientists are interested in this? How many scientists are aware of their real task and mission on the Earth? How many scientists are aware of being working inside a misleading network which aims to marginal objectives, typically mercantile, with respect to that of the progress of humanity? How many scientists have the time and the courage to reflect on these issues?  

The peer-review scam

The instrument to which the scientific community delegated – naively – the custody of the scientific quality is compromised, as documented by the paper [13] appeared on Nature in 2014. Already in 2006, Donald Gillies [14] argued against what he named a Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), moreover explaining that such a tool was introduced in 1986 in the UK by Margaret Thatcher and continued by Tony Blair, thus revealing a political interest connected to. Afterwards, peer review was introduced in other countries and it is now worldwide accepted and used to make decisions for publications in specialised journals. Peer review is the assessment process at the heart of current science: unfortunately, distortions of the process contaminates the sector [13, 15] and we cannot be sure that the quality of the articles is guarded by the peer reviewers hired free of charge from journals between expert researchers.

John Bohannon – a biologist and science journalist based at Harvard University – in his 2013 article published on Science [16] shows the result of his investigation. In September 2013, he submitted a fake scientific article to a large number of fee-charging open-access publishers, revealing that less than 40% were living up to their promise of rigorously peer-reviewing what is published. This approach was criticised by some commentators as well as by some publishers of fee-charging journals, who complained that his sting only targeted one type of open-access journal and no subscription-based journals, damaging the reputation of the open access movement.

As stated by Donald Gillies [14]: «Thus a great deal of taxpayers money will be spent on an exercise whose likely effect is to make research output worse rather than better. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this, namely that RAEs should be abolished rather than introduced».

Richard R. Ernst, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1991, wrote [17]: «And as an ultimate plea, the personal wish of the author remains to send all bibliometrics and its diligent servants to the darkest omnivore black hole that is known in the entire universe, in order to liberate academia forever from this pestilence. And there is indeed an alternative: Very simply, start reading papers instead of merely rating them by counting citations». 

Science/technology vs process/product

Confusion between science and technology is going to kill the content, the mission and the investigation method of science. Science is a process that can, sometimes, give rise to a product: confusing process and product can damage humanity survival and wellness so as its progress. Moreover, making scientific research is different from simple accumulation of data according to a given reference scientific model: the aim of science is to produce new interpreting models of the phenomenal reality by the way of development of a new conceptualisation. Other is technical application of scientific principles or simple strategy to augment the number of papers on the basis of which are decided funding criteria as various indicators of scientific activities.

Current researchers are simple slaves of papers, obsessed by the need of publication to achieve the characteristics to compete for international or national specific funding.

It is time to stop this perverse chain that confuses the evolution of scientific thought with the products derived from it overtime as operating and applicative consequences.

The rush to publish produces artefacts of good (errors) or of bad (fraud) faith and increases the power of the specialised journals (constantly increasing). David M. Markowitz and Jeffrey T. Hancock of the Cornell University (USA), in their paper titled “Linguistic Traces of a Scientific Fraud: The Case of Diederik Stapel” [18] wrote «This research supports recent findings that language cues vary systematically with deception, and that deception can be revealed in fraudulent scientific discourse».

The incidence of fraud in scientific publications is such that it has even urged linguists to work to succeed in revealing the deceptive article from the details of the linguistic fabric. On the other hand, R. Grant Steen and co-workers published an article titled “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” [19]; authors wrote: «The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behaviour of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for ‘‘new’’ offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work».

The evolution of scientific thought – as a process – is sacrificed on the altar of the product, productivity and profit, because researchers are delegated fund raising for the maintenance of membership. The movement of research funding is regulated by the projects and the testimony of the research work is entrusted to publications: for these reasons, the research products most frequently expressed are scientific articles and patents. This is acceptable in the context of an intellectual and ethical honesty that knows moments of bewilderment.

The experimenter expectancy effects

The Rosenthal effect is the name for a theory which posits that the expectations of an experimenter concerning the results of an experiment may have an unconscious effect which directs the results of said experiment toward the expectation of the experimenter [20]. In too many cases, current scientific research is built on the confirmation of something. Karl Raimund Popper: «It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions… A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it» [21].

The Rosenthal (or experimenter/expectancy) effect is recognised as physiological in scientific research (as in other fields), but the rush (or really the urgency) to publish pushes to get results mostly classifiable into existing and consolidated models. The Rosenthal effect is much more active in scientists, also because they struggle every day on the same things (related to their expertise), sometimes losing lucidity. Moreover, scientists are guided by the burning hope to obtain something relevant to stand out and emerge (and this easily produces artefacts or junk) or to avoid to be fired. The equivocal use and abuse of the scientific method and its results has led over time to the coining of the term scientism, which is the alarming reflection of situations determined by arbitrary decisions, assumed as a function of theorems passed off as scientifically founded but, in reality, mere fruit of opinions. Scientists are not geniuses or superheroes, but fallible human beings with their beliefs and prejudices: it is therefore useless and harmful to overestimate their abilities and above all to stress them with hurry, competition and precariousness. All this if you want an equity society for interpersonal harmony and psychophysical health.

If, instead, one wants a society of alarmism and emergencies built on the problems and behaviours determined by fears, then it is useful to label and demonise as antiscientific everything that adverse the despotic technocratic power exercised through sanitary and technological control of people. 

Compulsive assessment to stimulate sense of competition

With the obsession for the rankings one can create competition to tire and distract scientists with the struggle for survival. Scientists are evaluated by their affiliation institution, journals are ranked with bibliometric criteria and indexes. The obsessive idea of being involved in a dichotomy between loser and winner distorts the research path of scientists. The use of bibliometric indicators as the impact factor is also criticised [22]. Obsession for international ranking of journals and universities is aimed at disseminating malevolence and to discriminate, not to ensure quality, as someone likes to believe or induces others to believe. Competition is a cliché, a myth, a trap for the mind.

Society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy and finance in general and free enterprise in particular. It is time to stress cooperation, not competition. Competition is a toxic driving force to stimulate commitment in people: it forces them to identify any medium to survive to pressing requests, thus artefacts of any type may arise to pollute the society. The idea of competition is drummed into us at school. From sports to exam quizzes, it’s about competing with others. Instead of guiding pupils to do their best, one pushes to convince them to do better than other pupils do. It is all good for us, we are told, it gives us an incentive to improve and it fits us for the wider world of work. Competition leads to unified network science that deprives the scientific path of the contributions deriving from the slowness and space granted to inertia prodromal to intuition. Obviously, laboratories are full of competent, passionate, and motivated researchers, we are now focusing on the functioning mechanism of their work, of market tendencies, not of individuals (often crushed by the insane pressures of their employers).

Funding activities and scientific discoveries relationship

Huge amount of funds runs around scientific research, and this can induce reflections: are we assisting a useful intellectual exercise or to a specific form of business astutely masked by a microscope? The big concentration of fund distributed with the label of the pure or applied scientific research gives rise to lobby communities (centres of power) and this compromise the correct selection of either topics, methods or researchers all over the world, thus creating a restricted number of scientific groups able to control and monitor the funds distribution so as the specialised journals policies. Karl R. Popper: «It is a myth that the success of science in our time is mainly due to the huge amounts of money that have been spent on big machines. What really makes science grow is new ideas, including false ideas» [23]. Moreover, scientific research is not simply a field of application of the human intellect, in fact, as Albert Einstein wrote: «The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift». The rush to publish is in contrast with the calm and clarity that are needed to find out something really new and useful for humanity. There are no exceptions to this rule. 

Cui prodest?

Just a simple but crucial question: «Cui prodest?». Who benefits from such an overproduction of scientific papers? To science as a process of knowledge production? To the many public and private scientific institutions? To the publishers? To the governments? Many answers are possible. Surely, it benefits the publishers and all those interested in acquiring personal power (nurturing their CV) acting as editors, guest-editors, and being members of editorial boards. And also the big volume of publications related to conference proceedings is involved in the business of science. The leaders of the research institutions are happy to use the publications to direct selections for hiring and career’s advancements. Moreover, publications are discriminant – in appearance – in regulating fluxes of funding paid by public or private financers of scientific research.

That of the scientist is a creative job, mainly based on imagination and intuition, i.e. irrational mental activities. Science is built on conceptualisation and on modelling (few journals are strictly focused on these basic aspects of science), an overproduction of experiments and calculations simply planned to publish is useless, expensive, and also often harmful for society, particularly as to the biomedical sector of scientific investigation [7], but not only.

Quality and quantity are variables inversely proportional. William Ellery Channing:

«It is not the quantity but the quality of knowledge which determines the mind’s dignity».

To avoid misunderstandings, inverse proportion is when one value increases, as the other decreases. The big growth of the quantity of scientific papers is strictly related to the collapse of the scientific quality –that rising by creativity for innovation producing new ideas for old interrogatives or problems – even in absence of frauds. On the other hand, even bibliometric indices are only summary records related to the volumes of consultation, nothing connected to quality. Karl R. Popper:

«It is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth» [24].

Searching for the confirmation of something substantially known, or which is believed to be known, is different from searching for something new, but the second does not guarantee funding neither big amounts of papers, which are, on the other side, strictly correlated according to a simple arithmetic principle.

Moreover, the perverse mechanism for assessing the quality of the research based on counts of articles must be stopped, thus allowing scientists to conduct their investigations without the rush to publish any intermediate (often rough or incorrect) result.

We live with the misfortune of scientists captured by the compulsive urge to perform measurements in order to quickly record publishable data. The imprisonment of these scientists is sanctioned by the priorities established by the entities (often government) recruiting them to procure funds and ensure the international prestige mode that allows access to hosts prominent in the world rankings of research institutions. Pure madness and crimes against humanity unaware. No scientist should be subjected to the stressor to discover something on an established scheduled time: this is bullying, since it is a nonsense approach to this profession, and those responsible for the mechanism must be prosecuted legally. In a world that produces problems and promotes catastrophes, flourishes a science screwed on itself, built on distorted paradigms and guided by deviant incentives. The scientist who cultivates solutions to the horrors of the world is moved from his/her authentic mission to increase knowledge and works only on the distortions artificially imposed on the planet by dominant lobbies interested in conserving and increasing their power by subjugation. Here is who it is convenient for.

Conclusions

Planning the degrowth of human activities to reprogram the social regulation allowing to restart on the paradigm of cooperation (instead of insisting on sale of objects, competition, and cannibalism predatory) and leaving that of unlimited growth is dramatically urgent: concepts and example must come from the holders of knowledge, scientists in the first place.

Knowledge and human beings are not commodities: distorting and bending the work of scientists for profit is a crime against humanity.

Stopping the production of useless, expensive and sometimes harmful scientific papers is very urgent to restore dignity to scientists allowing them to engage in activities of study not finalised to the financing of their institutions but only to conceptualise and model natural phenomena of interest for humanity. Only human consciousness is steadily growing, albeit very slowly.

It is essential and urgent untying public research institutions by cash needs and budget, so that the researchers can study and experiment without wasting their time on porter, clerk and accountancy jobs. In doing so, moreover, they would eliminate the tensions and conflicts caused by competition for funding and need to publish at any cost to prove that they deserve them.

Today’s scientists confuse, or pretend to confuse for convenience, a measurement with a discovery, the diligent accumulation of data with innovation.

Henri Poincaré:

«Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house».

Nowadays, data science is often intended as a method to extract information from a cluster of data (the facts to which Henri Poincaré refers), nevertheless, a general abuse of data (and of output coming from data analysis) is identifiable in current science. Asking to testify one’s work as a researcher to the sound of publications is to perpetrate a deception against defenceless humanity and against those who would like to operate honestly and publish only meaningful and ethical-based results of their scientific path.

The vast majority of scientific papers contain simple data collection and commentaries: measurement results are accumulated and are then framed within consolidated reference theories and interpreted and commented on according to purposes that are primarily contingent on reaching a publication supporting careers, recruiting and funding. Even barbers, tailors, surveyors, salesmen, plumbers, and carpenters should strenuously publish in accredited international journals the diligent results of their daily work. And, moreover, all commercial receipts should be published in the (perhaps nascent?) international research journal “Tickets and Invoices” (founded today by myself for the joyful occasion), that would not disappoint the readers for the importance and variety of its articles. In the same way, a bartender could publish periodic reports on his current business resulting from statistical processing of his/her tax receipts and paid bills in the international journal “Tickets and Invoices”: if s/he does not do so, it is only because fashion is not still launched and because s/he is afraid that such a paper could end up in the hands of the tax authorities and get him/her into troubles. However, according to this type of society based on deception, competition and profit, I presume that whoever will found the international and trendy abovementioned journal “Tickets and Invoices” will have great success and overbooking of papers.

What we are arguing about has remote origins, it is not simply the mirror of a current decadent society which does not spare even the sector of scientific research, commodified and exploited. Enrico Fermi (the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics) wrote:

• «There are only two possible conclusions: if the result confirms the hypotheses, then you have just made a measure; if the result is contrary to the assumptions, then you have made a discovery»,
• «The profession of the researcher must return to his tradition of research for the love of discovering new truths. Because in all directions we are surrounded by the unknown and the vocation of the man of science is to move forward the frontiers of our knowledge in all directions, not only in those that promise more immediate compensations or applause».

Let it be clear once and for all: the overabundance of scientific papers is the indisputable and evident sign of scientific mediocrity, careerism, lobbyism, and exhibitionism. Accumulation of data (from measurements or surveys) is different from scientific speculation for innovation. But overproduction requires an overabundance of data (very easy to acquire, nowadays), better if also suitable for frightening, surprising or amusing depending on the social needs to be faced.

Science is simply collapsing on itself, being the victim of a manipulative governance that spreads competition and a paradigm of indefinite growth (inexistent) to divert the course of the discoveries by tiring the scientist and placing them in the rank of manager, accountant, clerk, cashier, and often handyman too. Stephen R. Covey: «Management works in the system; leadership works on the system», and a scientist is a leader, not a manager and not a janitor.

Slaves of the papers, wake up yourself! Work to innovate, not to repeat a worn-out gregarious protocol. You are currently simple clerks and accountants of a research institution whose main goal is the research of funds, rather than of scientific novelties for increasing knowledge. When humanity will show an ethical-based interest for knowledge we will assist to a new age of science that will bring generous fruits in terms of innovation with significant relapses on health and wellness.

Who animates from behind the scenes the phenomenon of disturbing proliferation of scientific articles to tire and manipulate scientists by stopping humanity’s progress? A humongous production of scientific articles is not necessarily a sign of originality, neither of ingenuity nor of creativity nor of commitment, since in many cases the experimental work and that of drafting the text is subdivided among many people organised in assembly lines for the production in series, exactly as happens for objects leaving industrial chains (Tayloristic assembly line). Not surprisingly, the issues addressed by the most productive and funded research groups are almost always highly repetitive and unfold over decades working mostly with the “variations on the theme” approach (jargon that I borrow from the language of music).

The products of scientific research are not necessarily scientific results, even less significant.

The products of scientific research cannot be subjected to metric evaluations of any kind.

Scientific articles cannot be counted either placed in rankings: these are only senseless operations of bad taste for the exercise of power and to manipulate the attention towards certain topics of scientific investigation (as those of biomedical or energetic fields).

Finally, no scientist should be subjected to the stressor to discover something on an established scheduled time: this is bullying, since it is a cruel approach to this profession, and must be legally pursued.

In this connection, the format in which current scientific research is organised and harnessed all over the world is a nonsense aimed at getting tired and overstressed scientists within the stimulus of competition for survival. Creative work, such as that of the researcher and university professor, cannot be guided and controlled by mercantile and clerical principles. The time of the pirates is not over yet, deception and robbery still guide the current society; however, by eliminating competition, expectations, the command-control paradigm and profit from the equation of scientific research, it can foster openness to the growth mentality [25], proactive confrontation for the common good and lateral thinking for creativity. What scientific research bodies and universities need is an ethical-based workplace guided by ideals of plurality, solidarity, inclusion and eclecticism unrelated by profits.

*

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.

Enrico Prenesti graduated in chemistry at University of Turin (Italy). In 1994 he completed his Ph.D. in Chemical Sciences and in 1999 he became a university researcher in Analytical Chemistry. He is now an Associate Professor of Environmental and Cultural Heritage Chemistry at the Department of Chemistry of the University of Turin. His research field covers equilibrium chemistry, analytical chemistry, food chemistry, environmental chemistry, and cultural heritage chemistry. He is the author of about 100 scientific papers mostly published in international journals. In addition to his academic work, he is an Ontological Life Coach and a composer. He writes essays and holds conferences and seminars on the topics of chemistry and biochemistry applied to health and wellness and on personal growth and development.

Notes

[1] A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, E. P. Dutton, 1950

[2] F. W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers, 1911

[3] G. Pacchioni, The Overproduction of Truth: Passion, Competition, and Integrity in Modern Science, Oxford University Press, 2018

[4] J. S. G. Chu, J. A. Evans, Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 118(41), 1-5, 2021

[5] P. O. Larsen, M. von Ins, The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index, Scientometrics 84, 575–603, 2010

[6] D. Fanelli, How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One, 4(5):e5738, 2009

[7] E. S. Reich, Cancer trial errors revealed, Nature, 469, 139-140, 2011

[8] World Cancer Report 2014 from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Editors: Bernard W. Stewart and Christopher P. Wild

[9] P. Smith, Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America, Penguin Books, 1990

[10] S. Talbott, The Cortisol Connection: Why Stress Makes You Fat and Ruins Your Health and What You Can Do About It, Hunter House, 2007

[11] A. Ekbom, C. Helmick, M. Zack, et al., Ulcerative Colitis and Colorectal Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 323, 1228-1233, 1990

[12] J. A. Eaden, K. R. Abrams, J. F. Mayberry, The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis, Gut 48, 526-535, 2001

[13] C. Ferguson, A. Marcus, I. Oransky, The peer-review scam, Nature, 515, 480-482, 2014

[14] D. Gillies, Why Research Assessment Exercises Are a Bad Thing, Post-autistic economics review, 37, 2-9, 2006

[15] R. Smith, Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, J. of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178-182, 2006

[16] J. Bohannon, Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science, 342, 60-65, 2013

[17] R. R. Ernst, The Follies of Citation Indices and Academic Ranking Lists A Brief Commentary to ‘Bibliometrics as Weapons of Mass Citation’, Chimia, 64, 90-90, 2010

[18] D. M. Markowitz, J. T. Hancock, Linguistic Traces of a Scientific Fraud: The Case of Diederik Stapel, Plos One, 9(8), e105937, 2014

[19] R. G. Steen, A. Casadevall, F. C. Fang, Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?, Plos One, 8(7), e68397, 2013

[20] R. Rosenthal, D. B., Rubin A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166-169, 1982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.166

[21] K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge Classics, 1963

[22] P. O. Seglen, Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314, 498-502, 1997

[23] K. R. Popper, as quoted by Adam Gopnik, writing about his meeting with Karl Popper at home, in “The Porcupine: A Pilgrimage to Popper”, in The New Yorker, 2002

[24] K. R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discover, Hutchison of London, 1959

[25] C. S. Dweck, Mindset, The New Psychology of Success, New York Ballantine, 2008

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

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

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

***

If there is a silver lining to the catastrophic Covid experience for us here in New Zealand it is the very clear and indisputable exposure of the political establishment.  The green clean smiling benevolent face of the New Zealand government is nothing more than a mask – yes, a mask – behind which is harsh dictatorial mien of a government that feels no need to answer to the needs of the people it purports to govern.

During the brief but compelling and compellingly beautiful gathering of the people at Parliament earlier this year, repeated calls for governmental officials simply to meet and simply to discuss issues of import, such as their imposed mandates and societal apartheid that resulted from them, went blithely and purposefully unheeded. Not one single politician from the Prime Minister’s office on down fulfilled their good-faith political obligations by engaging with those from whom they derive their political power.

Furthermore, on the eve of the brutal and unnecessary invasion of Parliament grounds to clear the protesters, it became clear that those in office never had a wish to engage. I was a member of a small task force who the afternoon before, at 1:30 PM to be precise, had gathered in Wellington to negotiate a settlement of the impasse. The police representative who was to join us cancelled at the last minute.

Later that same afternoon I sat as an observer at a meeting of the Human Rights Commission as a number of petitioners presented evidence of the harm against fundamental human rights, evidence of police abuses and other poignant testimony about the harsh consequences of the mandates. An honest Human Rights Commissioner would have taken up the mantle of protecting those whose rights had been violated and would be violated further by violence. He didn’t.

These past two and a half years have seen those who were, during that first harsh lockdown, lauded and thanked for being ‘essential workers’ terminated from their roles as physicians, nurses, midwives and other health-care practitioners for deciding personally and for their own reasons of health and conscience that a hastily concocted genetic inoculation masquerading as a vaccine was not for them.

As a psychiatrist who worked within the system in the general Wellington region and saw firsthand the tenuous nature of mental health services – services characterised by endemic staff shortages, variable levels of skill, and a form of management style emanating from the top which I can only describe as peculiarly vicious, corrupt and inept – the termination of much-needed and highly competent colleagues was a strange, sad and ironic testament to irrationality and a cold heedlessness of the public weal.

I remember working as a psychiatrist during the first lockdown, making home visits, volunteering time at a local primary care facility when I was on leave, and generally carrying on as one would expect a doctor to do: it was no big deal and I bristled at the division of society into ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’.  This division, however, was a template for the later division of New Zealand into a veritable apartheid society comprised of the jabbed and the unjabbed or, psychologically speaking, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’, remnants of which we may see among those who mask and those who don’t.

I note, in looking at the past, that no-one in government provided any actual evidence that could justify the extraordinary measures imposed upon the entire country: lockdowns, distancing or masks. Nor have they provided any evidence to justify their demand that all healthcare workers be inoculated to be able to work face to face with clients. Nor, of course have they been able to justify, nor can they justify or explain rationally, the imposition of an inoculation that circumvented the laborious and necessary trials over time, and that have already produced an astonishing legacy  of adverse events, including death. There is not nor can there ever be a substitute for time in the testing and approval of a medical intervention. Heaven knows what will transpire among the inoculated in the years to come.

Physicians who have from the beginning set about to explore the treatment of those who were afflicted by Covid found themselves in very lonely terrain, and worse. The New Zealand government, its Ministry of Health, and allied organisations such as the Medical Council, never once encouraged prevention or treatment. When I brought the issue of treatment up at my local hospital, I was referred to a specialist who told me, simply, that there was no evidence that any treatment worked. When I took the effort to send him quite a lot of substantive evidence, he was silent.

Over these past two and a half years the foundational principles of Medicine have been obliterated by our official organisations and our Ministry of Health: the principles of informed consent, individualised treatment and doing no harm. When physicians attempted to act in accordance with these principles they were hounded, derided and officially sanctioned, losing their licences and their jobs.  When physicians attempted to discuss natural immunity, the irrationality of attempting to eliminate a respiratory virus, the necessity of early treatment; when physicians attempted to engage with public officials to discuss pertinent matters of science and medicine – they were persecuted and rebuffed.

As of today there are nearly thirty thousand doctors in the Medical Council’s register. Of those thirty thousand a pittance have joined with New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out for Science (NZDSOS) to stand up for these foundational principles of our profession.  I am certain that if a mere ten percent of practicing physicians in New Zealand publicly affirmed the basic principles of Medicine we would not be living through the hell of the tyranny imposed by the government in the name of what they call ‘Medicine’ but which every physician understands is merely an Orwellian caricature.

Our government’s Medicine is a world where suffering patients go untreated, where a one-size-fits-all jab that neither prevents infection nor transmission of the pathogen for which it was engineered is safe as water, where informed consent is unnecessary and where masks, despite their inefficacy, should be worn to safeguard health despite the absurdity of how they have instructed people to use them, and despite the consquences of eliminating personal identity and depriving people of their quintessentially human features and means of emotional and expressive communication.

I am repeatedly asked how so many people can participate in cruelties and absurdities, how so many people can be persuaded to overlook what their eyes and ears and hearts tell them, how so many people can go along with what is so obviously destructive to us all.  The comprehensive answer might require a long essay or a book to elucidate. But here I will offer an abbreviated response.

Psychological operations like Covid work successfully by creating shock and awe, instilling fear, and inducing a response akin to something that is supernatural, that draws upon our emotionally regressive attitudes towards the miraculous, which transcends the laws of common sense or reason. The origins story of Covid and the incessant and inescapable drumbeat of deceptive case counts and death by the mainstream media worked wonders on a mainly gullible and trusting population. The inclusion of ‘supernatural’ elements, clearly seen by any analysis of the ridiculousness of the rituals of masking, are purposeful, for it is these supernatural elements that grip us unconsciously.  Masking is itself a propaganda tour de force; and propaganda is, at bottom, an act of violence.

I will conclude my ruminations with two quotations, which may help to frame my remarks.  The first is from Freud who, in his work on group psychology, wrote:

“ … in a group the individual is brought under conditions which allow him to throw off the repressions of his unconscious instinctual impulses. The apparently new characteristics which he then displays are in fact the manifestations of this unconscious, in which all that is evil in the human mind is contained as a predisposition.”

The second is from Goldhagen, who, referring to perpetrators of antisemitic cruelties in Hitler’s Willing Executioners, wrote:

“ … any explanation that fails to acknowledge the actors’ capacity to know and to judge, namely to understand and to have views about the significance and morality of their actions … cannot possibly succeed in telling us much about why the perpetrators acted as they did.”

The State, as all collections of Power tend, would like nothing better than absolute control over a faceless and masked citizenry of submissive digital peasants marching in lockstep to their pronouncements.

Many people, perhaps the great majority, relatively ignorant of history and politics, are primarily occupied with ekeing out an existence amidst the harsh realities of daily living. Trusting in government, they will accept the pronouncements of mainstream media and authorities as Gospel.

There is another group who see quite clearly through the captivating irrationalities and the Siren song of propaganda, and who willingly participate in falsehoods and cruelties not only to save their skins but also to derive pleasure and profit at the expense of others.

And then there are those who speak out.

We, as inherently free and autonomous individuals, are blessed with the responsibility of choice.

*

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

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.

Featured image is from Mises Wire

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

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

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

Peter Konig’s Interview

***

GEOFOR: Greetings, since our last conversation, the conflict between Russia and the West has only continued to gain momentum. How far do you think this proxy war in the Ukraine can go? Is there a chance that the situation will improve?

Peter Koenig: Thank you, for having me again for an interview.

This is a million-dollar question.

Especially when we consider that Russia, by far the world’s largest and resource-richest country, was for over hundred years in the crosshairs of the western empire, led by the US and since WWII also by NATO, to be overtaken or to become a “colony”, similar to or worse than western Europe, the European Union (EU), has become a colony of Washington’s and NATO.

It is worth a distinction though, between the people of Europe and the  governments of western Europe, i.e. the EU member countries and the European Commission (EC), the latter consisting of unelected members.

The EC currently headed by the hawkish EC President, Ursula von der Leyen (unelected), former Minister of Defense of Germany, and close ally of Klaus Schwab. In fact, she is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. It is unlikely that Ms. Von der Leyen would deviate from the WEF’s globalist agenda. And it looks like part of this globalist agenda is “regime change” in Russia.

On behalf of Washington, it’s driven by NATO and the EU.

Let me make this clear: the EU and EC are not representative of the 450 million people of the EU.  The European Parliament that is supposed to represent the interests of the people has practically no voice. Most people, educated people, inquired about Russia, have a positive opinion about Russia. They want peaceful relations. While perhaps not agreeing with the Ukraine war, they understand what may have led up to it.

The EU want sanctions on Russia to stop. The sanctions are foremost hurting the EU, but not Russia. On the basis of these sanctions, the planned One World Order (OWO), currently represented by the World Economic Forum (WEF), is using these sanctions, or rather Russia’s reaction to the sanctions, as a justification for causing massive energy and food shortages throughout the west, and to some extent also the Global South.

They want to cause suffering and death. This is a gigantic western agenda of mass starvation, possibly mass death – fitting well into the Great Reset’s population reduction program. Having said this, it is difficult to imagine that the west will let go, and pursue a Peace Agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

That would in fact, be easy.

All Ukraine would have to do is to adhere to the Minsk II Agreement (February 2015), which was sponsored by France, President Hollande, and Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel; by the very countries which are now coming down strongest, following US sanctions on Russia.

Let’s just for a moment look at NATO’s Madrid Summit 22-point Declaration, released on 29 June 2022. Item 2 is a statement of utter hypocrisy and item 3 reflects an outright hatred against Russia:

2. We are united in our commitment to democracy, individual liberty, human rights, and the rule of law.  We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.  We are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.

3. We condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms.  It gravely undermines international security and stability.  It is a blatant violation of international law.  Russia’s appalling cruelty has caused immense human suffering and massive displacements, disproportionately affecting women and children.  Russia bears full responsibility for this humanitarian catastrophe.  Russia must enable safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access.  Allies are working with relevant stakeholders in the international community to hold accountable all those responsible for war crimes, including conflict-related sexual violence.  Russia has also intentionally exacerbated a food and energy crisis, affecting billions of people around the world, including through its military actions.  Allies are working closely to support international efforts to enable exports of Ukrainian grain and to alleviate the global food crisis.  We will continue to counter Russia’s lies and reject its irresponsible rhetoric.  Russia must immediately stop this war and withdraw from Ukraine.  Belarus must end its complicity in this war.

Then, point 4, starts with a love declaration for Ukraine’s President Zelensky:

4. We warmly welcome President Zelenskyy’s participation in this Summit.  We stand in full solidarity with the government and the people of Ukraine in the heroic defense of their country……..

That means and justifies for NATO, continuing the supply of billions worth of weapons to Ukraine – weapons that already now are ending up largely in the hands of dark and criminal weapons dealers. Brussels and Washington know it, but they will not stop it.

Zelenskyy, of course, is not free at all to take any decisions on his own. His decisions are dictated by the west.

GEOFOR: Can the statements of a number of Baltic politicians on the need to take Kaliningrad away from Russia lead to a new hotbed of military confrontation already in Lithuania?

PK: The Kaliningrad Oblast / District, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania, has also an important Baltic Sea port for Russia. Who knows what will really happen, but I do not believe that Poland and / or Lithuania will dare intervene in Kaliningrad.

These statements or declarations may be just hot air, or a new type of western-style anti-Russia propaganda. From my point of view, not to be taken seriously.

GEOFOR: The sanctions confrontation has, apparently, finally gone beyond reasonable explanations. Canada, following the UK, introduced them even against Patriarch Kirill… Tell us, is the bottom already reached, or should we expect new surprises?

PK: Another good question. Frankly I don’t know. I think rather that the [EU] Europeans, as well as Washington, start realizing that they are the ones suffering, I mean them – particularly also the elite, not just the people, about whom they do not care.

Therefore, it just might be, that they are quietly trying to make arrangements with Russia for energy deliveries – dropping “sanctions” and accepting Russia’s ruble-billing and more.

It has been clear from the beginning that the Global South, meaning China and associated Asian countries, like the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), ASEAN, the BRICS-plus Iran – as well as most of Africa and many of Latin American countries, will not adhere to sanctions.

These are also he countries that Russia keeps supplying with energy resources and food.

The west has clearly overreached with their sanctions, totally illegal sanctions, mind you.

Sanctions, any kind of “sanctions”, from one country to another, impacting another country’s economy and the people’s wellbeing, are illegal under international law.

That’s also a reason why the east, led by China and Russia, will dissociate from the western currency and payment system (via US banks and SWIFT) and become an autonomous, sovereign politico-economic force. That may happen soon, possibly later this year or in early 2023. A shockwave may be expected.

It could well be that the financial-economic decoupling of the east from the west – already ongoing — may be the “surprise”, when it reaches its final stages.

And that in the meantime, the west is quietly back-paddling, as they realize to what extent they have been shooting themselves, unwittingly embarking on committing socioeconomic suicide. See also this.

GEOFOR: Autumn is coming soon, will be followed by winter. Judging by the statements of the [EU] Europeans, they will not have time to fill in the gas storage facilities, even despite the fact that many companies have agreed to pay for Russian hydrocarbons “in rubles”, and the United States supplies liquefied natural gas. What will Brussels do in such a situation?

PK: Some of my assessment is already given above. And of course, supposedly NATO approves (despite 28 of the 30 NATO members being European, decisions are made in Washington), they may go back to Russia, quietly “lifting” some (or all) sanctions and trying to re-activate Nordstrom I and activate Nordstrom II.

It is clear that the Middle East, the Saudis, for example, will not jump in to supply Europe and the US with gas and oil, to replace deliveries from Russia. The results of the recent Joe Biden visit to the Saudis may be an indication.

For the Middle East replacing Russian gas, would be like “sanctioning” Russia, when they have clearly indicated that their future trading inclination is more eastwards, Russia, China and SCO and other eastern socioeconomic associations.

The Middle East realizes that the future is in the east. The west has been digging their own grave for decades. But they apparently still cannot admit it. Instead of seeking Peace, they are confronting an impending collapse.

GEOFOR: And the last question. Against the backdrop of the financial and economic crisis gaining momentum, the ratings of leading Western politicians are beginning to fail. B. Johnson is no longer the leader of the Conservatives. They are increasingly talking about the upcoming political crisis in Germany, and the midterm elections to the US Congress are not far off… What are we to expect from all this?

PK: Yes, Boris Johnson is out. But his “outing” was most likely a planned outing. In the west, there are no decisions nor elections made by the people or Parliaments. They are all imposed or planned from the beginning with the consent of the leaders in question – by the WEF and its handlers, or commanders, i.e. the interlinked corporate financial oligarchs of this world, the amalgamation of Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street. Plus, there are other important players like Chase, Bank of America, JPMorgan, CitiGroup, et al.

The WEF is the executioner according to the Great Reset and following the script of UN Agenda 2030. Only people themselves, waking up, can stop this drive to total destruction. And, yes, I’m positive that LIGHT will prevail over darkness.

It is said, the “financial emperors” control close to 90% of the western corporate industrial and service world with majority shareholdings. Under these circumstances it is not difficult to decide who “presides” over what country – and when they have to go.

Boris Johnson will be replaced by another vassal of the financial emperors, the one which best suits their current agenda.

As to Germany’s Olaf Scholz, he has been put into the German Chancellorship just a bit over six months ago, after a long vetting process with important players like the EC, Washington and not least NATO. He had the right profile for what the west is all about.

If one reads or listens to his history, it is amazing that he is not yet in jail. See this, The Olaf Scholz File – His Words, his Deeds (English spoken – 3 March 2022). Or you may watch the video below.

Yes, an economic crisis is coming. Even to Germany. According to many economists, Germany is de-industrializing. I agree. Self-made, by the insane “sanctions”. But even that is part of the plan.

During and after a harsh winter 2022 / 23, there may be lots of bankruptcies, unemployment, poverty to extreme poverty, perhaps even deadly famine for the poorest.

This is not a coincidence. There are no coincidences. This is shifting capital from the bottom and the center to the top – the financial elite, that pretends to rule the world. If they – the WEF-led globalists – have their way, there would be a One World Government. But that will not happen.

The globalist agenda is falling apart. That was already visible at the WEF’s Davos meeting last May. People around the world are waking up to the globalist agenda. The vast majority of them has been suffering under the global everything – and now the attempt of global digitization, meaning total control of every move you make, via the financial system.

Russia and China may lead humanity into a new future, a multipolar world. This is the hope. And the peoples will, is to be expressed in solidarity, and peace may prevail.

*

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.

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

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

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

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

***

Finance ministers are the pangolins in the world of international diplomacy, solitary animals and predatory, unlike foreign ministers who are like glowworms, mesmerising and gorgeous animals that create light through their tail. While the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken attending G20 foreign ministers meeting in Bali a week ago staged a dramatic walkout when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rose to speak, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen simply sat through the speech by Russian minister Anton Siluanov at the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank chiefs that began in Bali on Friday. 

Indeed, Yellen said her piece — calling Russia’s war in Ukraine the “greatest challenge” to the global economy and all that — while Russian Deputy Finance Minister Timur Maksimov who was present, calmly listened. But a joint communique is unlikely, as the US is pressing G20 allies for a price cap on Russian oil, where consensus is lacking. All the same, the moderation in Yellen’s behaviour catches attention, as she realises, perhaps, that she no longer sets the global agenda. 

Even a close friend of the US such as former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami is advising that “Russia has generally managed to stem the tide” on Ukraine’s battlefield and a “similar shift in Russia’s favour may well be playing out geopolitically,” which would mean that “the consequences of remaining on the current path could prove far worse.”  

Such voices of reason must be getting noticed in Washington. During the past week alone, Washington has shown willingness to “tweak” the western sanctions against Russia on three occasions in a direction that addressed Moscow’s concerns. 

The latest one is with regard to the food crisis where Russia and Ukraine have reached an agreement, whereby Kiev will remove the mines in the waters around its southern ports so that a “grain corridor” opens toward the Bosphorus. Meanwhile, Washington has notified international banks, shipping and insurance companies that the western sanctions are not applicable to Russia’s exports of food grains and fertiliser to the world market. 

Again, a potentially explosive situation arose when on June 18, Lithuania blocked the transit of Russian goods to and from the exclave of Kaliningrad. After Moscow’s furious protests and warnings of retaliation, the European Commission published a revised decision on July 13 in “a display of realism and common sense,” as the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson put it. 

According to the EU guidelines, the rail transit of oil and petroleum products, coal, steel and iron, wood, cement, and other non-military goods to Kaliningrad will not be prohibited under the sanctions. It is inconceivable that EU acted without consulting Washington, who likely intervened to defuse the potentially dangerous confrontation. 

Similarly, on July 11, the US state department spokesman acknowledged that Washington favoured a sanctions waiver by Canada that would enable Siemens to transfer an urgently needed turbine for the operation of Gazprom’s Nord Stream gas pipeline to Europe, so that Germany’s energy situation will not worsen.

In each of the above three situations, Washington’s stance is to not allow the present confrontation between Russia and Europe aggravate further. Washington must be acutely conscious that the war fatigue in Europe is a compelling reality. The farmers’ protests in the Netherlands have quickly spread across Europe. 

The UK prime minister Boris Johnson may have stepped down from a political implosion of his own making, but it was also a process rather than an event, and the state of the British economy teetering on the brink of recession was a major factor. Italy’s government is now on the verge of collapse and, again, the measures to offset the cost of living crisis became a focal point for tensions brewing within Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s broad coalition. 

When it comes to Germany, Europe’s powerhouse, all bets are off. The feasibility of reviving nuclear power generation; inflation and the most effective ways to fight it; rising prices; energy security crisis; looming industrial shutdowns and large-scale reduction in employment — these have exacerbated inter-party disagreements within the coalition government headed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz and steadily eroded public support. 

The internal disagreements on key issues are affecting the government’s decision-making and shredding the coalition cabinet’s reputation apart. The British Telegraph reported yesterday,

“Once admired and envied, Germany is now the textbook example of how much damage a misguided foreign and energy policy may do.” 

The newspaper underlined that Scholz is trying to please both the NATO countries and Russia, while ‘no one respects him’ and there are few options for further developments. Its forecast: “Either Berlin will suffer a massive setback, accompanied by the collapse of the ruling ‘traffic light’ coalition, or it will capitulate to Putin.”

Indeed, Moscow is tightening the screws. Gazprom warned on Wednesday it could not guarantee the functioning of “critical” equipment for the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline despite Canada’s decision to return an essential turbine after it was repaired. 

Yet, there was a time not too long ago when Putin forecast that Germany would be the world’s next superpower. Germany is indeed paying a very high price for toeing the US’ belligerent line towards Russia. The Greens in Scholz’s coalition, in particular, pushed the envelope. Today, Washington has no solutions to offer as German economy is on the verge of collapse due to the blowback from sanctions against Russia. 

The galling truth is that, as China Daily noted,

“On the European debt crisis of 2011, Germany, with a sufficient supply of Russian energy thanks to the stable relations with Moscow maintained by then chancellor Angela Merkel, acted as the saviour of the European Union… Will Germany be able to save the EU this time? ” 

To be sure, the Biden Administration understands that the Western alliance is facing the moment of truth. The “tweaking” of the sanctions thrice this past week conveys something. 

The influential Russian daily Izvestia wrote on Wednesday that the settlement over the “grain corridor” across the Black Sea can create the ambience for resumption of peace talks between Kiev and Moscow. The daily quoted Ivan Abramov, deputy chairman of the Federation Council (upper house of parliament) committee on economic policy, as saying, 

“Of course, now any agreements can bring positions closer. There have been shifts in Kaliningrad. Perhaps the success of the negotiations on grain will be an incentive for the resumption of peace talks with Ukraine. However, Kyiv should be ready for this.” 

Abramov hinted that President Putin and Turkish counterpart Erdogan may discuss new peace talks at their upcoming meeting in Tehran on Tuesday. The Deputy Chairman of the State Duma (lower house of parliament) Committee on Economic Policy Artem Kiryanov also told Izvestia that in order to stop the special military operation in Ukraine, the conditions declared by Moscow must be met, but Kiev instead appears to be inclined to rely on the supply of Western weapons rather than sit down at the negotiating table.

Against this backdrop, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has paid an “inspection visit” today to the command post of the Southern and Central groups of the Russian armed forces, which are spearheading the special military operations in Ukraine, to be briefed by the army commanders about “the current situation, the action of the enemy and the progress of combat tasks fulfilment”. 

The MOD press release stated that Shoigu “gave necessary decrees for intensifying the action of the groups of troops on all fronts in order to prevent massive missile and artillery attacks launched by the Kiev regime at civilian infrastructure facilities, population of Donbass and other regions.” Shoigu’s focus was on the consolidation of the military gains rather than new offensives.

*

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

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

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

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

***

When we’re dealing with a controversial topic, it’s a good item to start with something we know and go from there. What is something that we know for sure about Covid-19 vaccines? They kill people.

Jon Rappoport pointed this out a year ago: “A new May 4 report by independent researcher, Virginia Stoner, reveals US vaccine-death figures. The report is titled, ‘The Deadly Covid-19 Vaccine Coverup.’

Stoner uses the US government’s own numbers.

Here are key quotes from her report:

‘There has been a massive increase in deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) this year. That’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’, that’s an indisputable fact.’

‘We’re talking about a huge and unprecedented increase—so massive that in the last 4 months alone, VAERS has received over 40% of all death reports it has ever received in its entire 30+year history.”

‘The increase in VAERS death reports is not due to more vaccination.’

“Most recently, the death count went from 2794 on April 5, to 3005 on April 12, to 3848 on April 26….1054 deaths in 21 days.’

‘One hypothesis…is that the elderly and infirm, many in long-term care facilities, were the first to be targeted by the COVID-19 vaccine campaign, and they are much more likely to die coincidentally. These coincidental deaths then lead to an increase in suspected vaccine-induced deaths reported to VAERS.’

‘VAERS data just does not support that hypothesis. First, because all age groups—not just seniors—had a dramatic increase in VAERS death reports from COVID-19 vaccines…Across the board, all age groups experienced a dramatic increase in deaths reported to VAERS from the COVID-19 shots—even the under 18 group, which has had very few COVID-19 shots (so far).’

Stoner constructs a chart showing reported deaths from vaccinations in years prior to COVID, and deaths reported so far from COVID vaccines.

For prior years, we’re talking about roughly 100 deaths a year from somewhere between 250 million and 350 million vaccines administered. On the other hand, we’re talking about 3800 deaths from about 150 million COVID shots—not in a full year; in only four months.

The experts would say neither death figure (100 or 3800) is alarming, given the huge number of vaccines administered. But this is a deception.

Over the years, much has been written (even in the mainstream) about what sits behind REPORTED vaccine injuries and deaths. Estimates of TRUE injury numbers range from 10 to 100 times greater than the reported figures.

3800 reported deaths from COVID vaccines would skyrocket when you estimated the true figure.

As Stoner points out in her report, public health officials, in Orwellian fashion, keep repeating, ‘The vaccine is safe and effective.’ A straightforward analysis of their own numbers completely contradicts their stance.

Likewise, the mainstream press, politicians, corporations, and celebrities are on an all-out push to convince the public that the vaccine is a) necessary and b) a marvel, if only the ‘hesitant’ people would ‘follow the science’ and see the light.

Well, some cults are small; that one is huge.

Virginia Stoner’s report is a stark refutation of the conspiracy theory the cult is promoting.

When the entire population is being subjected to a vast experiment deploying a never-before-released RNA technology; when the shot in the arm is actually a genetic treatment; when the entire field of genetic research is riddled with pretense and lies and alarming miscalculations, leading to ripple effects in overall genetic structures; what else would you expect?

You would expect exactly what Stoner’s report shows and implies. The COVID vaccine is a building disaster.”

Vernon Coleman asks the appropriate question: exactly how many people has the Covid vaccine killed? “No one knows how many people the vaccines are killing – or how many they will kill.

But although I haven’t seen the mainstream media mention most of these deaths, people have already died or been injured after being given the vaccine:

SHOCKING – The latest covid jab deaths and injuries from VAERS (infants, teenagers and young adults are dying after the vaccine)

openvaers.com covid data (it is estimated that only 1% of vaccine adverse events is reported)

Note: The following paragraph has now been added to the UK’s Pfizer analysis data print, ‘A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine…’ In my view, this is yet another attempt to draw attention away from the very real problems associated with the vaccines. We note that when patients die 60 days after a positive covid test, they are added to the covid death figures but if someone were to die 60 minutes after a covid vaccine, then it is just a coincidence.

PFIZER (UK data) – Some of the Injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s Palsy, sepsis, paralysis, psychiatric disorders, blindness, deafness, shingles, alopecia and covid-19.

The following paragraph has now been added to the UK’s AstraZeneca analysis data print, ‘A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine…’ In my view, this is yet another attempt to draw attention away from the very real problems associated with the vaccines. We note that when patients die 60 days after a positive covid test, they are added to the covid death figures but if someone were to die 60 minutes after a covid vaccine, then it is just a coincidence.

ASTRAZENECA (UK data) – Some of the many injuries include: blindness, strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, sepsis, paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, deafness, shingles, alopecia and covid-19.

European database of suspected adverse drug reaction reports: Moderna, Pfizer-Biontech, AstraZeneca and Janssen.

• Derek Sloan MP raised concerns on covid-19 vaccine censorship of doctors and scientists (video – bitchute)
• Moderna begins first human trials for flu shot based on new mRNA technology used to make the company’s covid-19 vaccine (article – Daily Mail)
• The following is the FDA’s draft working list of possible covid vaccine side effects (see page 16 of document). This was published in October 2020 BEFORE the jab roll-out began.
• Canadian whistleblowers expose 13 stillborn deaths in 24 hours at Lions Gate Hospital caused by covid-19 vaccines (article – dailyexpose.uk)
• 2,620 dead babies in VAERS after covid shots… (article – vaccineimpact.com)
• A list of people who had their leg amputated after receiving the covid-19 vaccine (article – thecovidworld.com)
• Families of South Korea’s covid vaccine victims mourn loved ones during mass memorial service (article – thecovidworld.com)
• Three footballers collapse in three days – (hugotalks – video on brandnewtube.com)
• Paul Dimattina: Australian football league legend rushed to hospital after sever reaction to Pfizer booster shot (article – the covidworld.com)
• Sithipol Bovornkittipaisal: 26-year-old man dies 1 day after receiving Moderna covid-19 vaccine, investigation launched (article – thecovidworld.com)
• As reports of injuries after covid vaccines near 1 million mark, CDC, FDA clear Pfizer, Moderna boosters for all adults (article – childrenshealthdfense.org)
• 29,034 deaths 2,804,900 injuries following covid shots in European database of adverse reactions – corporate journalists have pericarditis after Pfizer shots (article – vaccineimpact.com)
• How many people in key Pfizer covid vaccine trial died? More than Pfizer told you (article – childrenshealthdefense.org)
• Pfizer secretly adds dangerous ingredient to injection for 5 to 11-year-olds as Taiwan stops Pfizer shots for 12 to 17-year-olds (article – vaccineimpact.com)
• Astroworld cover up? Hugo Talks (video – brandnewtube.com)
• Surge in reports of serious injuries as 5-year-olds start getting shots (article – childrenshealthdefense.org)
• German news agency compiles list of 75 European athletes who have died “suddenly” in the past 5 months since being fully vaccinated.
• Woman left wheelchair-bound with neurological damage hours after Pfizer vaccine dose (article – theexpose.uk)
• US Children’s Hospitals Now Overwhelmed with Infant Cardiac Patients (article – theexpose.uk) Copyright © The Expose. See this.

You might wonder, even if the Covid-19 vaccine kills people, doesn’t it also save lives? But in fact it is ineffective in warding off the so-called Covid “pandemic.” Vasko Kohlmayer says, “’Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain according to a new report from the country’s Health Ministry’ we read in a CNBC report.

Astonishment is one’s first reaction when coming across this piece of information, since it was not so long ago the vaccine manufacturers claimed their products were 92 to 98 percent effective.

The manufacturers’ initial claims, however, have been steadily revised down as real-world data has been coming in. In March of this year news came from South Africa that ‘AstraZeneca vaccine doesn’t prevent B1351 Covid.’ A couple of months later, the Hill ran a piece by a Baylor School of Medicine virologist who observed:

‘A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provides only 51 percent protection against B.1.351 of South Africa.’

Just a couple of weeks ago, we learned that recipients of the Sinovac Biotech’s vaccine have no antibodies after six months. This effectually means that merely half a year after being injected into people’s bodies the vaccine has zero percent efficacy in protecting against Covid-19.

Even factoring for the variants, the hard data makes it quite clear that the initial claims of vaccine effectiveness were greatly exaggerated. This, of course, comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the dynamic of the pharma industry. Drug manufacturers tend to wildly overstate the efficacy of their products, while doing their very best to understate their side effects. It is for this purpose they conduct trials that are manipulated to obtain the results they wish for. Sadly, they too often get away with it because of the corruption of the system by what is called regulatory capture. This is why the outcomes of manufacturers’ trials are almost never replicated by independent trials or real-world data.

This is what has apparently happened with the Covid vaccines. The manufacturers used the sense of emergency brought on by the Covid pandemic to conduct rushed and incomplete trials which were designed to yield the results they wanted to see. There is every reason to believe that the effectiveness of their injections was nowhere close to the 92-98% range they initially claimed even for the variants that were in circulation at that time.

Needless to say, one has a strong suspicion that even the meagre 39 percent figure is still overstated. This would only be natural, since everyone involved in the vaccination enterprise – the manufacturers, politicians, regulators, the medical establishment and corporate scientists – is trying their best to save face and reputation in the face of this fiasco. Bad though the data is, we can be quite sure that it has been massaged to soften the blow.

You can clearly observe this tendency at work in the CNBC piece which claims that even though Pfizer is only 39 percent effective, it still protects against serious disease. But this is simply not true, which you can easily see if you take the trouble to look into the data put out by the Israeli government. At roughly the same time that CNBC filed its report, the Israeli Ministry of Health published a bulletin which reported on Covid cases in the country. According to their data, there were 137 serious cases in Israel of which 95 were fully vaccinated and 42 unvaccinated or partially vaccinated (see here and here). In other words, the bulk of the serious cases was comprised of those who had received their shots. If the vaccine was as effective in protecting against heavy illness as the article claims, the numbers would look completely different. The figures published by the Israeli Ministry of Health shows that the claims of Pfizer’s efficacy of protecting against serious Covid are simply untrue.

This has been confirmed by the testimony of Dr Kobi Haviv, Director of Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem. In a recent TV interview, Dr Haviv stated that the fully vaccinated people account for about 90 percent of hospitalizations. Given that less than 90 percent of the Israeli population is fully vaccinated, it would appear that the vaccination not only does not prevent you from contracting the disease, but actually increases one’s chances of becoming a serious Covid case. Observes Dr Haviv: ‘yes, unfortunately, the vaccine… as they say, its effectiveness is waning.” And so it is, indeed. Dr Haviv’s interview is on YouTube so you can hear the truth straight from his mouth. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the Establishment Censors to take it down.” See this.

But there is worse. Everybody knows how sensitive and delicate small children are. Now the monsters want to give them the killer jab too! Let’s listen to Kohlmayer again:” “’CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccine boosters down to age 12,’ says a recent CBC news headline.

The article opens as follows:

‘Millions of Americans between the ages of 12 and 15 can now get a booster shot of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, after the CDC formally adopted new recommendations backed by a majority of the agency’s outside vaccine advisers. The CDC now says that Americans as young as 12 who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine should receive a third dose as early as five months after their first two shots. The agency’s officials said that enough time has passed for around 5 million adolescents to be eligible’

‘Why in the world are they doing this?’ one asks in disbelief.

Three basic facts have been well established by data and studies:

1. Healthy children are at virtually zero risk of serious Covid.
2. The vaccines will not prevent children from contracting the virus.
3. Covid injections carry risk of serious side effects.

According to a cost-benefit analysis conducted by Toby Rogers, Ph.D., in the 5 to 11 age range, 117 healthy kids will have to die of vaccine-related side effects in order to save one child from perishing of Covid 19.

A study from Japan has shown that young people are seven hundred percent more likely to be killed by Pfizer jabs than by Covid.

We have been repeatedly told that we must follow facts and science when dealing with this pandemic.

The science on vaccinating children against Covid-19 is in, and it could not be any clearer: while healthy children are at negligible risk from the disease itself, they are at real risk from the shots.

Since the vaccines do not stop infection and transmission, they will protect neither children nor their communities from the spread of the virus.

It makes not scientific or medical sense to give them these shots. Vaccinating children for SARS-CoV-2 violates both the tenets of good medicine and evidence-based science.

According to Dr Robert Malone, who is one of the world’s preeminent vaccine scientists, the cost benefit analysis is not even close.

Those who want to vaccinate children follow neither the science nor logic. Subjecting children to Covid jabs needlessly exposes young lives to potentially grave risks.

The incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis may be as high as 1 in 317 in the young, especially boys, and increases further with each additional dose.

Then there is a danger of deadly blood clots as well as several other serious conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Astonishingly, scores of children have already been injected with two doses that turned out to be ineffective, which is the reason a booster is now required.

The booster, however, already looks to be even more useless than the original offering. The booster, in fact, appears to have negative efficacy which means that those who receive it seem to be more likely to contract the virus.

Soon we will have a multitude of 12-year-olds who will have received three of these pointless and dangerous shots without any medical justification whatsoever.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. said that injecting children with the Covid vaccines is a crime. He is not incorrect.

A number of children have already been killed by the vaccines.

Some of the newly vaccinated children will develop serious conditions and some of them will die. The lives of these healthy children will be cut short for no good reason and their parents will be beside themselves with grief.”

We must do everything we can to stop them before they kill more. If we act on what we know, we can stop these demonic monsters.

*

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.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

Boris Johnson was shunted out of office by cabinet colleagues increasingly worried about their own careers and electoral prospects. But the prime minister’s downfall was encouraged, even engineered, by parts of the Whitehall establishment. 

This included Britain’s top spooks – what I call the ‘permanent government’ and in the US they call the ‘deep state’. It was a personal victory for a long list of unelected officials.

Among them were both of the prime minister’s old ethics advisers, namely Lord Christopher Geidt – an ex-army intelligence officer who had worked for the Queen – and Sir Alex Allan, a former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee; as well as Sir Philip Rutnam, former permanent secretary at the Home Office; Lord Jonathan Evans, the former head of MI5 who now chairs the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and Lord Simon McDonald, former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office.

It was McDonald’s decision to publish a letter accusing 10 Downing Street of telling lies over what Johnson knew about the behaviour of his former deputy chief whip that was the last straw for hesitant ministers.

After Johnson announced his resignation last Thursday, McDonald tweeted triumphantly: “It was a good day.”

It was a good day. pic.twitter.com/wWHVv93wxY

— Simon McDonald (@SimonMcDonaldUK) July 7, 2022

But McDonald’s move was just the latest in a series of interventions by establishment figures that helped cut short the prime minister’s mandate, after Johnson won an 80-seat majority in December 2019 to run the country for the next five years.

Within months of that landslide victory, Sir Philip resigned in protest against alleged bullying by his boss, home secretary Priti Patel. He sued the government for constructive dismissal, and settled out of court for a reported six figure sum.

Sir Alex then stood down after Johnson rejected his advice that Patel had not “consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect”.

More recently, Lord Geidt resigned after he said Johnson had put him in an “odious and impossible position” by asking him to “risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code”.

Lord Evans has not resigned, but used his committee’s platform to call for stricter guidelines covering leadership and ethical behaviour. “The political system in this country does not belong to one party or even to one government…It is a common good that we have all inherited from our forebears and that we all have a responsibility to preserve and to improve”, he said.

Brexit and beyond

Britain’s top spooks in MI5, MI6, and GCHQ – and senior counter terrorism officers in Scotland Yard – were opposed to Brexit. After the 2016 referendum, they strongly opposed the hard Brexit Johnson demanded, as it broke off close institutional cooperation with their European counterparts, threatening speedy information-sharing on counter-terrorism and other criminal investigations.

Claims that Johnson was leaving secret intelligence reports lying around for all to see in his Downing Street flat reflected increasingly widespread concern in MI5 and MI6 about his behaviour.

Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 when the agency was responsible for misleading dossiers on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programme before the invasion of Iraq, was the only “securocrat” in favour of Brexit. His grounds were that it would give Britain control over immigration. Curiously, Dearlove also objected to the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU body.

Concern about Brexit among Whitehall’s mandarins has been compounded by what they regard as Britain’s declining reputation and standing in the world – and Johnson’s clownish boosterism.

Sir Ivan Rogers, Britain’s EU representative in Brussels, had earlier quit his post over the government’s handling of the Brexit negotiations.

Senior civil servants were aghast when the government decided unilaterally to change the Northern Ireland protocol it had agreed as part of the Brexit negotiations. Sir Jonathan Jones, the government’s top legal adviser, resigned over the decision.

Yet opposition to Johnson and his close political clique was (and remains) much broader than Brexit. What the civil service hierarchy in Whitehall say it is concerned about is propriety, sticking to the rules, opposing corruption in all its manifestations, the waste of taxpayers’ money (though the Ministry of Defence is a notable exception), and “jobs for the boys”.

The growing chumocracy has led to mounting frustration, anger, and even panic in Whitehall. Let us recall the handing out of lucrative Covid-related contracts to Tory friends and donors; ministers discussing official business with their political advisers on private emails away from the prying eyes of civil servants; Priti Patel’s failure to be candid about unofficial meetings with prominent Israeli politicians (leading to Theresa May’s decision to sack her); Johnson’s meeting when he was foreign secretary with ex-KGB officer Alexander Lebedev in his Italian palazzo without officials, and his subsequent awarding of a peerage to Lebedev’s son.

Aided and abetted by his more cavalier ministers and coteries of political advisers, Johnson also bypassed the Public Appointments Commission, part of whose role is to ensure that those involved in such appointments act with “integrity” and “merit”, declaring any relevant interests and relationships.

Downfall

Johnson’s praise of the Civil Service as “peerless” and of the “agencies” – a reference to MI5, MI6, and GCHQ – as “so admired around the world” in his resignation speech outside 10 Downing Street was pure humbug.

Simmering and growing concern throughout Whitehall about Johnson’s lying and the moral corruption in Johnson’s bunker erupted into the open last week when Lord McDonald revealed he had written a letter to Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, saying that despite repeated claims, Johnson had known about previous allegations relating to Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip suspended for allegedly groping two men.

Referring to 10 Downing Street claims that “No official complaints against [Mr Pincher] were ever made”, McDonald told Stone: “This is not true”. In a subsequent interview with the BBC, McDonald said: “I think they need to come clean”. He described a “sort of telling the truth and crossing your fingers at the same time and hoping that people are not too forensic in their subsequent questioning and I think that is not working.”

The letter, and McDonald’s decision to publicise it, reflected Whitehall’s determination to fight its corner in any way it could.

McDonald was keen to attack Downing Street, but he might also have looked at his own backyard. His Foreign Office showed complete disregard for countless civilians killed in Yemen by UK-supplied weapons. And he personally instructed Britain’s ambassador to Burma to be “more flexible” with Aung San Suu Kyi’s regime, as her military committed a genocide of Rohingya Muslims. His old department has also indulged in obsessive secrecy and has refused to declassify files from decades gone by.

Julian Smith, an MP and former Northern Ireland Secretary who was sacked by Johnson, enthusiastically championed the Whitehall establishment, saying civil servants were “up in arms” and tweeting that they had “literally held the administration together”.

Over the past years @UKCivilService has been attacked and maligned by certain government ministers. Over the past 24 hours they have literally held the administration of our country together & are currently sorting out this mess. Thank you.

— Julian Smith MP (@JulianSmithUK) July 7, 2022

The former Head of the Civil Service, the crossbench peer, Bob Kerslake, who had previously criticised the government for withholding official documents from the National Archives, told the BBC at the height of the Pincher row: “There must be a complete openness and transparency from No 10 and the Prime Minister”. The former and long-serving Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, has repeatedly implored civil servants to talk truth to power, meaning to their political bosses, not to the public.

And there’s the rub. It is a bit rich for Whitehall, the “permanent government”, to call for more openness and transparency when it has thrived on official secrecy and keeping information from the public to avoid embarrassment, suppress wrongdoing, and protect itself from independent scrutiny. Without warnings by websites and outlets beyond the mainstream media such as Declassified, Whitehall will continue to do so at a time civil liberties and freedom of the press are increasingly under threat.

Whitehall has shown it can brief against a government, for the most part discreetly and via former, retired, officials. Johnson became an increasingly safe target for them as they argued that all they were doing was defending constitutional propriety. A true test in future will be whether their loyalties in our democracy are not only to their political masters honouring those proprieties, but to us, the public. That means abandoning a culture of complacency and much less official secrecy. These must be a key test to judge their behaviour, as well as that of a new prime minister.

*

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 is a British editor, journalist and playwright, and the doyen of British national security reporting. He wrote for the Guardian on defence and security matters and was the newspaper’s security editor for three decades.

Featured image: The prime minister announces his resignation. (Photo: Kyle Heller / No 10 Downing Street)

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

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

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

***

The British Parliament is debating a national security bill which could undermine the basis of national security reporting and ultimately throw journalists in jail for life.

A person convicted under the new offense of “obtaining or disclosing protected information,” defined in Section 1 of National Security Bill 2022, faces a fine, life imprisonment, or both, if convicted following a jury trial.

A review of the parliamentary debate on the bill makes clear that work by press outlets such as WikiLeaks is at the heart of Tory and Labour MPs’ thinking as they push to make the bill law.

As currently written, direct-action protests, such as those conducted by Palestine Action against U.K.-based Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems Ltd, could also be captured under the offences of “sabotage” and entering “prohibited places” sections of the bill.

Whistleblowers, journalists and publishers focusing on national security related matters may be most at risk of being prosecuted, though any person who “copies,” “retains,” “discloses,” “distributes” or “provides access to” so called protected information could be prosecuted.

“Protected information” is defined as any “restricted material” and it need not even be classified.

Under this bill, leakers, whistleblowers, journalists or everyday members of the public, face a potential life sentence if they receive or share “protected information” which is widely defined.

That does not mean imprisonment from one day “up to” a life sentence. If a judge determines a fine isn’t suitable enough punishment the only alternative is life in prison. Following a conviction, a judge would have no choice but to either issue a fine or hand down a life sentence, or both.

[Read the bill in its entirety here.]

There is no public interest or journalistic defense in the bill, a fact noted by some of the parliamentarians during the debates.

“The glaring omission at the heart of the National Security Bill is a straightforward public-interest defense, so that those who expose wrongdoing, either as whistleblowers or journalists, will be protected,” Tim Dawson, a long-time member of the National Union of Journalists’ National Executive Council told Consortium News.

“Without this, there is a risk of concerned U.K. citizens being prosecuted as though they were foreign spies,” he added.

The bill can be seen as part of a growing crackdown in both Britain and the United States against legitimate journalism that challenges establishment narratives.

In many respects, the proposed law, which applies to people both inside and outside the U.K., shares many elements with the draconian 1917 Espionage Act, which the U.S. government is using to prosecute WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

Assange is charged with 17 offenses under the Espionage Act, amounting to a maximum 170 years in prison. None of the charges allege conspiring with a foreign power and merely pertain to receiving and publishing documents leaked to him by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

No Evidence of Harm

As is the case with the U.S.’ Espionage Act, no evidence of actual harm needs to be proven by prosecutors in order to secure a conviction under the National Security Bill.

There is a broad test of whether the defendant knows or “ought reasonably to know” that their conduct is “prejudicial to safety or interests of the U.K.”

What is, or is not, “prejudicial” to the “safety” or “interests” of the U.K. is also to be determined by the government of the day, according to long established case law from the U.K.’s highest court.

This could include anything from environmental, energy, climate and housing policy, to policing, foreign affairs or military policy.

WikiLeaks-Style Publications

A review of the parliamentary debates over the bill shows that although it is being justified on the basis of protecting the U.K. from the “serious threat from state-backed attacks on assets, including sites, data and infrastructure critical to the U.K.’s safety or interests,” national security leaks and reporting – including that of WikiLeaks — is explicitly in the minds of at least some of the key politicians supporting the bill.

“Will the right honourable lady condemn the WikiLeaks-type mass dumping of information in the public domain? It is hugely irresponsible and can put lives at risk,” Tory MP Theresa Villiers asked Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yevette Cooper, on June 6.

“Yes, I strongly do, because some of the examples of such leaks that we have seen put agents’ lives at risk, put vital parts of our national security and intelligence infrastructure at risk and are highly irresponsible,” Cooper replied, adding, “We need safeguards to protect against that kind of damaging impact on our national security.”

There is no evidence that anything published by WikiLeaks has resulted in the loss of life.

A U.S.-leaked government report itself concluded that there was “no significant ‘strategic impact’ to the release of the [Iraq War Logs and Afghanistan War Diary]”, from the Manning leaks which Assange is being prosecuted over. “No actual harm [against an individual]” could be shown either, a lawyer acting for the U.S. government admitted during Assange’s extradition hearings.

This contradicts the official government line that the leaks caused serious harm.

Broad Threat

Among the many disclosures revealed by WikiLeaks, include the secret texts of proposed corporate and investor rights treaties such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

These treaties, which were being negotiated in secret and would not have been known to the citizens until just before or even after they had become law, would have preferenced corporate rights over domestic laws and subordinated labor, environmental and health protections and climate policy to the profit-making imperatives of private industry. Their passage stalled after their draft texts were leaked and then published by WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks revelations also include dramatic incidents such as  the execution of 10 handcuffed Iraqi civilians in their family home, including four women, two children and three infants, by U.S. soldiers who later ordered an airstrike to cover it up.

Many around the world might still believe that a U.K. plan to build the world’s largest “marine park” in the Chagos Islands was motivated by environmental concerns, were it not for a cable published by WikiLeaks revealing that the true purpose was to prevent the indigenous population from ever being able to return to their land.

Militarized atoll of Diego Garcia, in Chagos Islands in central Indian Ocean. (Wikimedia Commons)

Torture and rendition of civilians as well as other war crimes were also revealed by WikiLeaks.

All such material, which are among the documents Assange is being prosecuted by the U.S. for publishing, would fall under the National Security Bill’s definition of “protected information.”

Conspiracy with Foreign Power 

In theory, involvement of a “foreign power” must also be proven for Section 1 of the bill to apply. But a review of the “foreign power condition” in Section 24 of the bill shows a myriad of ways that this condition could be satisfied.

Section 24 reads as follows:

“24    The foreign power condition

(1)   For the purposes of this Part the foreign power condition is met in relation to a person’s conduct if —

(a)      the conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power,

and

(b)      the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that to be the    case.

(2)   The conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is in particular to be treated as carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power if —

(a) it is instigated by a foreign power,

(b)  is under the direction or control of a foreign power,

(c) it is carried out with the financial or other assistance of a foreign power, or

(d) it is carried out in collaboration with, or with the   agreement of, a foreign power.

(3) Subsections (1)(a) and (2) may be satisfied by a direct or indirect relationship between the conduct, or the course of conduct, and the foreign power (for example, there may be an indirect relationship through one or more companies).

(4) A person’s conduct may form part of a course of conduct engaged in by the person alone, or by the person and one or more other persons.

(5) The foreign power condition is also met in relation to a person’s conduct if the person intends the conduct in question to benefit a foreign power.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) it is not necessary to identify a particular foreign power.

(7) The foreign power condition may be met in relation to the conduct of a person who holds office in or under, or is an employee or other member of staff of, a foreign power, as it may be met in relation to the conduct of any otherperson.”

Foreign Funded Organizations 

The foreign power condition could potentially be satisfied, therefore, due simply to the involvement, at any stage, of a journalist working for news outlets such as Al Jazeera, Press TV, CGTN, RT, Voice of America, France 24, Redfish or TeleSUr.

Tory MP David Davies, himself a supporter of the bill despite being known for his criticism of the prosecution of Assange, noted that “[human rights group] Reprieve, Privacy International, Transparency International and other excellent organizations that do very good work have received some funding from other nations’ Governments” and could therefore “fall foul” of this law.

“Perfectly legitimate organizations could be left committing an offence, under this area of the bill, if they use leaked information — which may not even be classified — to challenge government policy,” Davies added.

Furthermore, what is deemed to be a “perfectly legitimate organization” is in the eye of the beholder and can change over time – as proven by the increased E.U. and U.S. censorship of RT and Sputnik since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Even if a foreign power is proven to somehow be involved, either in the obtaining of restricted material, sharing or publishing it, there is no apparent need to prove conspiring with that foreign power for the condition to be satisfied and therefore for a defendant to be convicted.

Therefore, if a person reports upon U.K. government documents — which prosecutors argue have been hacked and released by a foreign government agency, or even a hacker group infiltrated or influenced somehow by a foreign government agency — they could be found guilty under this law, without any evidence either of participation in the hack or conspiracy with a foreign power.

The Bill and the Official Secrets Act 

Following the revelations of mass, warrantless, government surveillance, by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, as well as WikiLeaks revelations of war crimes and other state wrongdoing, the Cabinet Office asked the Law Commission to review its official secrecy, data protection and espionage laws.

In 2020, the Law Commission recommended replacing the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920 and 1939 with an Espionage Act, and updating the Official Secrets Act 1989. Many of its recommendations on ‘reforming’ U.K, secrecy laws, would make it easier to bring prosecutions against whistleblowers, journalists and publishers by lowering so called “barriers to prosecution”.

For example, the Law Commission recommended that prosecutors should no longer have to prove that leaks by public servants and contractors, covered by the 1989 Act, have caused “damage”. The 1989 Act is the main legislation currently used to target whistleblowers, leakers, journalists and publishers.

The National Security Bill repeals the older official secrets laws and expands criminalisation of conduct which might be useful to an “enemy” with the more broadly defined “foreign power”. This bill also adopts recommendations to expand what can be labelled a “prohibited place” beyond military sites. Section 1 applies to people based outside the U.K,, regardless of their nationality, and this appears to flow from the Law Commission’s proposed amendments to the 1989 Act, which currently only applies to U.K. citizens.

Technically, the National Security Bill hardly amends the Official Secrets Act 1989. Perhaps this is because the Home Office opposes the Law Commission’s insistence that revisions to the 1989 Act re-introduce a public interest defence, which could be used by journalists and everyday civilians. The Home Office also opposes the idea of an independent body to receive whistleblower concerns. Yet many of the most draconian recommendations have been implemented in some form in the Bill.

Section 1 of the Bill – which lacks any requirement to prove damage along with the overly broad foreign power condition– could simply be the Home Office’s way of seeking to expand the scope of conduct covered by the 1989 Act as much as possible without explicitly doing so. The National Security Bill therefore appears to fall foul of the Law Commission’s recommendations that the definition of a foreign power “should not render the offense overly broad”.

National Security Reporting

Vauxhall Cross, London, headquarters of British Secret Intelligence Service. (Laurie Nevay, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

In 2018, emails and other documents belonging to the Institute for Statecraft’s Integrity Initiative, a now defunct U.K.-based, intelligence services-linked, propaganda and psyop organization, were hacked and published online.

The documents revealed that the Integrity Initiative was receiving funding from the U.K. Foreign Office, Facebook, NATO and neoconservative-linked foundations, and was engaged in directing anti-Russian, anti-left and pro-NATO propaganda towards the European and U.K. public.

Integrity Initiative documents, including emails and a contract with the U.K. Foreign Office, revealed an ambitious global agenda involving secret “clusters” of academics, journalists, policy makers and national security-linked officials in Europe, North Africa and North America, with more being planned.

The hacked documents revealed that the purpose of the Integrity Initiative was to shape public opinion and public policy under the guise of combatting Russian “disinformation.”

A group called Anonymous Europe claimed responsibility, though the Foreign Office and Western media suggested, without evidence, that the Russian government was somehow behind the hack.

The BBC even reported, also without evidence, that the documents were “leaked to the Russian media.”

In fact, the documents were published on an internet messaging board and available to anyone aware of the website, including independent British and American journalists who reported upon them.

Reporting on such documents, if the National Security Bill becomes law, could be considered a violation of Section 1, given that some of the files were “restricted” government documents and the Integrity Initiative was partially government funded. If foreign government actors were involved in hacking or releasing the documents that alone could satisfy the “foreign power condition” in Section 24.

Even the fact that journalists (including British citizens) who were writing for foreign government-funded news outlets reported on the documents could satisfy the “foreign power condition.”

Even more disturbing, involvement of a foreign power is not actually needed if the government argues that the conduct of the defendant was “intended” to “benefit a foreign power.” In this circumstance, “it is not necessary [for the prosecution] to identify a particular foreign power.”

Therefore, for example, if a journalist known for writing articles critical of NATO reports on “restricted” material which paints the military alliance in a bad light, regardless of whether the documents were leaked to him directly or even if he simply came across them already published online, that journalist could be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to life — if the prosecutor convinces the jury that, based on their prior reporting or public comments critical of NATO or of Western foreign policy, they intended their reporting on the “restricted material” to “benefit a foreign power.”

Which foreign power was he intending to benefit? It isn’t necessary for the prosecutor to say, as Section 24 (6) makes clear.

There are a number of other notable elements to this bill worth considering.

‘Sabotage’ & Entering ‘Prohibited Place’

Direct action might also fall foul of provisions in this bill, if the foreign power condition is satisfied.

Committing “damage” against any “asset,” inside or outside the U.K., for “a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom” is also punishable by a fine or life in prison, or both, under Section 12.

“Damage” includes “alteration” or “loss of or reduction in access or availability” to an “asset.”

Under Section 4, entering a “prohibited place” could result in a life sentence, if the person knew or “ought reasonably to know” it is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the U.K. This includes if someone “accesses, enters, inspects [including films], passes over or under, approaches or is in the vicinity of a prohibited place.”

Conceivably, direct action activists such as members of Palestine Action who have successfully shut down factories belonging to Israeli weapons manufacture Elbit Systems Ltd, would be caught by such provisions, The same goes for journalists filming them or entering a premises designated “prohibited.”

BREAKING: Palestine Action has scaled the roof and seized control of Elbit's weapons factory in #Shenstone, knocking out the engines manufacturer for Israel's killer drones🔨 #ShutElbitDown pic.twitter.com/mVatwdb9Hk

— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) June 22, 2022

In the 1964 case of Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions, the U.K.’s highest court upheld  conviction of members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament  for violating the Official Secrets Act. The activists were convicted for entering Wethersfield RAF base “a prohibited place” for a purpose deemed “prejudicial to the security of the state.” The trial judge was said to be within his right to deny the defendants the ability to offer evidence or cross-examine witnesses to argue that their purpose in entering the base was to improve the U.K.’s security.

This is the same case that held that what is “prejudicial” to the “safety” or “interest” of the country is up to the government of the day to determine.

Protecting Corporate Secrets

Section 2 of the bill also creates a crime of “obtaining or disclosing trade secrets.” As is the case with Section 1, this occurs whether the person knew or “ought reasonably to know” that their conduct is “unauthorised.”

A person faces either a fine or up to 14 years in prison, or both, if they are convicted.

There is no whistleblowing, journalistic or public interest protection provided in this section either.

Arguably, obtaining or disclosing “trade secrets” which could reveal, for example, corruption, environmental pollution, labor violations and other human rights abuses or other forms of corporate malfeasance could conceivably result in prosecution under this bill.

The foreign power condition must be satisfied for Section 2 to apply, which, it has already been shown, is arguably easier to do than one might think.

Limiting Legal Aid Access

Access to legal aid is also restricted for anyone convicted of a “terror” offence. This means that someone who, for example, was convicted for violating Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 — for refusing to give access to their mobile phone password at the airport — could find themselves denied legal aid years later.

Freezing Funds & Other Assets

The ability of the government to “freeze” assets is also made easier in the Bill. The law currently permits freezing and seizing of assets if it can be shown that they are “intended to be used” for terrorism.  This is replaced in Section 61 and Schedule 10 with the lower threshold of “at risk of being used” for terrorism.

State Crimes Committed Abroad

Interestingly, Section 23 amends the Serious Crime Act 2007 to note that it can’t be used to prosecute members of MI5 (Security Service), MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service), GCHQ or the armed forces, for any criminal conduct committed outside the U.K,, if their criminal conduct is deemed “necessary for the proper function” of those institutions.

Leaking & Direct Action 

When the National Security Bill was first revealed, a number of observers seemed somewhat sanguine about it on the basis that the foreign power condition needed to be met before a conviction could be secured under Section  1.

The Freedom of Information Campaign, for example, tweeted:

The government appears to have dropped plans to tighten the 1989 Official Secrets Act which punishes the leaking of certain classes of information. Today's National Security Bill replaces the 1911, 1920 and 1939 OSAs but makes no substantive change to the 1989 Act. #FOI

— Campaign for Freedom of Information (@CampaignFoI) May 11, 2022

When journalist Richard Spence asked about the potential life sentence, they replied:

The government appears to have dropped plans to tighten the 1989 Official Secrets Act which punishes the leaking of certain classes of information. Today's National Security Bill replaces the 1911, 1920 and 1939 OSAs but makes no substantive change to the 1989 Act. #FOI

— Campaign for Freedom of Information (@CampaignFoI) May 11, 2022

Since then, however, the Freedom of Information Campaign, jointly with Article 19, submitted a brief for MPs making clear that journalists and civil society activists who receive some foreign funding and yet are engaged in “legitimate activities” could be caught by this bill.

The Bill appears to have cross-party support (with few dissenters) amid seeming hysteria over alleged Chinese government influence operations.

Laws are versatile and can, if not strictly drafted, be used in circumstances that even the original drafters had not intended. All it requires is for a prosecutor to be willing to bring a case and for a judge to allow it to go forward.

Beyond Stated Purpose

Jan. 1 1916: Pacifists on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. (Library of Congress)

The Espionage Act is a perfect case in point. Ostensibly created to protect the U.S. from German spies during WWI, it was used to successfully prosecute people for their opposition to their country’s involvement in the war. Their convictions were upheld on appeal despite the fact that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Decades later the administration of Richard Nixon used the same act to prosecute Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. The governments of George W. Bush and Barack Obama would then use the law, again to target whistleblowers such as John Kiriakou who revealed C.I.A. torture, Jeffrey Sterling who used official channels to blow the whistle on a dangerous and ultimately botched plot to undermine Iran’s nuclear program and Daniel Hale who revealed that 90 percent of those killed by U.S. drones in Afghanistan were civilians.

Now this same 1917 law is being used to prosecute Assange, an award-winning journalist, for publishing “restricted” documents while based outside the U.S.

During a debate, Margaret Ferrier, an independent MP from Scotland, asked whether the home secretary has “considered the dangers to freedom of the press that the National Security Bill presents.”

“Many of my constituents,” Ferrier added, “are concerned that measures that could prevent journalists from publishing stories of public interest are undemocratic.”

‘Online Safety Bill’

“No, I do not see a danger to journalistic freedoms,” Minister for Security and Borders Damian Hinds replied. He proceeded to change the subject by referring to another proposed bill saying that the government is “taking stringent steps to ensure, for example, that in the Online Safety Bill journalistic rights and freedoms are absolutely to the fore, because of the vital and irreplaceable role that a free and sometimes boisterous media plays in underpinning and challenging us in our democracy.”

The Online Safety Bill, described as an “Orwellian censorship machine” by the Open Rights Group, would grant powers to ministers to censor legal content. It requires all online communications – public and private — to be monitored for “harmful content” and undermines encryption of private messenger apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

“The Online Safety Bill creates a carve out for news media organizations (defined as ‘news publishers’) who are registered with the Independent Press Standards Organisation or IMPRESS or Ofcom in the case of broadcasters,” said Monica Horten, policy manager for freedom of expression at the Open Rights Group.

In theory, this carve out means news organizations “are not subject to platform content moderation policies in the same way as everybody else.” Horten added that online platforms “are mandated to leave their content online, regardless of whether it meets their policies, or other Online Safety Bill compliance requirements.”

This censorship exemption ostensibly applies to “all content that is created for the purpose of journalism and which is U.K.-linked,” according to a convoluted explanatory note recently published by the Home Office.

Regulated media outlets will also have a fast-track complaint process if their material is taken down.

In other words, a two-tier freedom of expression between the press and everyday people.

What will happen in practice to citizen journalists, bloggers and independent and alternative outlets which are not, cannot or have no interest in being, regulated by U.K. press regulators remains to be seen.

“It will be impossible for large platforms, operating at scale, to determine on that basis who is and who is not a ‘journalist,’” Horten argued.

Ominously, she assessed that it is “therefore probable that the only way to make this provision work will be to institute a register of media.”

*

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.

Mohamed Elmaazi studied law at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and has contributed to numerous news outlets, including Jacobin, The Dissenter, The Canary, Open Democracy, The Grayzone and The Real News Network. He has covered all of Julian Assange’s extradition hearings.

Featured image: Assange supporters marching on Parliament, February 2020. (Joe Lauria)

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

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

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

***

The right to boycott is likely heading to the US Supreme Court after a court of appeals upheld an Arkansas law restricting contractors from boycotting Israel.

With major implications for freedom of speech in the US, it is worth re-examining the historical use of boycott as a tool of resistance by anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist grassroots movements for justice, and the case of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement called for by Palestinians.

Unlike broad-based sanctions that are imposed by powerful states, often unilaterally and as a means of punishment, boycott movements are rooted in the resistance of people against the injustices of those in power, as a tool of accountability for human rights abuses.

The term “boycott” was first coined in 1880, after Irish tenants refused to pay unaffordable rental increases forced on them by an English land agent, Charles Cunningham Boycott. However, the practice of using such nonviolent means to effect change was used before this – such as the 1791 Sugar Boycott in Britain against slavery – and has been used many times thereafter.

In 1891, Iranians participated in the Tobacco Protests, refusing to use tobacco products as a collective response to a widely unpopular move by Nasir al-Din Shah to grant a concession to Britain over Iran’s tobacco industry.

A tool of resistance

In the US, boycotts became an essential tool during the 1950s in the Civil Rights Movement, used by Black communities as one strategy to fight back against white supremacy in the United States. The Montgomery Bus Boycott continued for 13 months as Black people refused to ride city buses until the Supreme Court decision to end bus segregation.

In the 1980s, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa gained international support after decades of calling for boycotts in order to end apartheid. The movement’s credibility came not only from the merits of its demand for equality, but also because it was part of an indigenous movement supported by South Africans themselves.

The tide against apartheid South Africa changed once the movement gained the support of state actors to exact consequences on the South African government in tandem with the international grassroots boycott movement.

Boycott is a form of political resistance wielded by people against their oppressors.

The BDS movement is a grassroots Palestinian effort to mobilise the international community in solidarity with the Palestinian freedom struggle. One reason for the appeal to international solidarity is the fact that nearly all Palestinian tactics of resistance have been criminalised and precluded by Israel, with US support and complicity. One example of this criminalisation is Israel’s designation of six Palestinian human rights organisations as “terrorists”.

Palestinians face ethnic cleansing and a racist system intent on their erasure. As recent reports from the world’s leading human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as the well-respected Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, have demonstrated, Israel’s actions constitute apartheid and crimes against humanity.

End the apartheid regime

With no state, and subject to a brutal military occupation, with the state of Israel controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and subjecting Palestinian citizens of Israel to egregious discrimination in many areas of their lives, Palestinians have taken their cue from the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa to right these wrongs.

BDS is a refusal to accept Israel’s settler colonialism, apartheid, and occupation of Palestine. Boycott is the withdrawal of support for the apartheid regime as well as the Israeli sporting, cultural, and academic institutions, and all companies complicit in violations of Palestinian human rights.

Divestment is the withdrawal of investments from Israel and all companies that economically sustain Israeli apartheid.

Sanctions pressure other governments to fulfil their legal obligations to end apartheid, such as by banning businesses with illegal Israeli settlements and ending military trade and free-trade agreements.

The 2005 BDS Call issued by 170 Palestinian civil society organisations sets forth three demands.

The first is an end to Israeli occupation of all Arab lands and dismantling the illegal apartheid wall that isolates Gaza as the largest open-air prison in the world.

Second, full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel must be granted. Though they comprise 20 percent of Israel’s population, they are subjected to dehumanising and repressive laws, racist violence, and the ongoing threat of land confiscation. The legal system targets Palestinian citizens of Israel solely for their ethnicity, restricting and controlling access to housing, employment, education, healthcare, and other fundamental rights.

The third demand is for the respect, protection, and promotion of the right to return for Palestinian refugees as required by UN resolution 194. There are 7.25 million Palestinian refugees who have been forcibly displaced and systematically excluded from their homeland. Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians continue to create more Palestinian refugees, who have the right to return guaranteed under international law.

Targeted campaigns

Unlike country-wide unilateral sanctions often employed by the United States that harm civilians, BDS calls for targeted campaigns against companies such as Puma, G4S, and HP. These forms of economic sanctions pressure Israel to comply with international law by reducing the financial resources available and undermining the institutions of apartheid.

It is noteworthy that the leading voices in South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement, which was crucial to the liberation of Black South Africans, have been strong advocates for BDS and the liberation of Palestinians. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was a fierce proponent of BDS, calling on Israeli citizens to liberate themselves by supporting the liberation of Palestinians.

Tutu also condemned the US for its attempts to crush the BDS movement, and expressed his moral obligation to speak out: “My conscience compels me to stand with the Palestinians as they seek to use the same tactics of non-violence to further their efforts to end the oppression associated with the Israeli Occupation.”

One of the BDS movement’s global campaigns, Apartheid Free Zones, demonstrates the international support for the BDS movement. Dozens of local governments have passed BDS resolutions. Leaders from across the Global South have joined together to launch the Global South Response Initiative, standing together to oppose Israel’s apartheid and annexation plan and demand a UN investigation of Israeli apartheid.

Attempts to ban BDS

As of 5 July, 33 states in the US have enacted some form of legislation targeting boycotts of Israel. What’s more, 245 bills have been introduced thus far at either the state or the federal level to curtail advocacy for Palestinian rights.

As is the case for much policymaking nationwide, the main sponsors of anti-BDS legislation have frequently partnered with the infamous American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”), a corporate lobbying group, to draft and codify these bills into law.

Oftentimes, these laws are blocked by the courts, but the BDS case now heading to the Supreme Court may severely limit pending and future challenges to any such laws.

Despite the clear violation to free speech these laws pose, the Eighth Circuit upheld a workaround of classifying these laws as purely commercial conduct with no political implications to protect.

This reasoning is alarming for two reasons: first, it opens the gates for anti-boycott legislation focused on virtually any issue. The Foundation for Middle East Peace has compiled a list of various anti-boycott bills, most prominently ones prohibiting boycotts of the firearms and the oil and gas industries.

Notably, these bills are predicated on the view that boycotting these industries amounts to discriminatory treatment, and some even require businesses to demonstrate that their failure to contract with these industries is based on a non-political justification lest they be presumed to be in violation of the law.

Second, it provides cover to the violence that these laws and pro-Israel groups inflict upon communities of colour and all those in solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

Most directly, it denies public employment to workers who refuse to vow not to boycott Israel, as was the case with speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, whose contract with the state of Texas required her to betray her beliefs until it was ultimately prohibited by a court.

But it doesn’t end there. Anti-BDS laws may deprive incarcerated persons of legal representation unless their publicly afforded attorneys make a similar pledge.

Student organisations seeking to support Palestinian rights may also see their funds taken away and their schools penalized, and recipients of disaster relief may have their aid conditioned upon their promise not to boycott Israel. Even the Movement for Black Lives has suffered interferences from Israeli government actors seeking to undermine their solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

Anti-BDS legislation aims to disrupt cross-movement solidarity, obfuscates political action by arbitrarily divorcing it from supposedly pure commercial conduct, and, at its core, strengthens the corporatocracy by shielding it from public accountability through commercial means and by upholding the colonialist tactics at play in the Israeli apartheid system.

Hollow declarations 

The BDS movement is led by people directly impacted by Israeli settler colonialism, military occupation, and apartheid.

BDS takes the moral, ethical, and political position that apartheid, settler colonialism and military occupation are inexcusable and must be resisted. Likewise, the movement against apartheid South Africa sought to “isolate South Africa and highlight its brutalisation and oppression of its own people, and its aggression against neighbouring states”. Similar tactics against Israel could likewise help realise the end of the apartheid system.

BDS and other historical boycott movements have been initiated by indigenous grassroots movements that have aimed their efforts at specific targets in their pursuit of the very justice and equality that world leaders and international bodies claim to espouse.

If these leaders refuse to apply the same moral and legal standards to Israel, then their declarations of human rights and international law will continue to ring hollow.

*

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.

Azadeh Shahshahani is the Director of Legal & Advocacy with Project South. She received her JD from the University of Michigan Law School. She also has a Master’s in Modern Middle Eastern and North African Studies from the University of Michigan. She has worked for a number of years in the US South to protect and defend immigrants and Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian communities. She previously served as president of the National Lawyers Guild and as National Security/Immigrants’ Rights Project Director with the ACLU of Georgia. She also serves on the Advisory Council of the American Association of Jurists and on the Board of Directors of Defending Rights and Dissent.

Dr. Assal Rad is the Research Director at the National Iranian American Council, where she works on research and writing related to Iran policy issues and U.S.-Iran relations. Her writing can be seen in Newsweek, The National Interest, The Independent, Foreign Policy and more. She has appeared as a commentator on BBC World, Al Jazeera, NPR, and others. She completed a PhD in Middle Eastern History from the University of California, Irvine in 2018 and has a forthcoming book titled, The State of Resistance: Politics, Culture, and Identity in Modern Iran (Cambridge University Press, 2022).

Featured image: Collage used by Zionist organization to portray the BDS movement as “war”

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

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

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

***

Canada said their war in Libya was to defend human rights and enable democracy. But, NATO’s 2011 assault has unleashed a decade of instability and violence as well as deteriorating social and economic indicators. And they still haven’t held presidential elections.

Since the start of the month there has been an uprising against living conditions in Libya. Protesters are unhappy with power outages, corruption and the divided country’s failure to hold elections. On July 1 the parliament building in the east was stormed and burnt.

Describing the scene in Tripoli and Benghazi, New Arab reported, “Some brandished the green flags of the regime of dictator Moamer Kadhafi, who was killed in a 2011 NATO-backed uprising that plunged the country into over a decade of violence.” A June 27 Reuters story about the dire situation in the country’s eleventh biggest city explained: “Like everybody else Reuters spoke to in Sirte, he viewed the 2011 uprising as a foreign plot to destroy Libya and hankered for calmer times when Gaddafi lavished money on the city.” In December the eastern and western based governments canceled a planned national election in part because Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, looked likely to win.

At the same time as Libyans revolt against the failure to hold elections, details are emerging about the scope of violence in recent years. A United Nations panel released a report two weeks ago detailing how militia fighters executed hundreds between 2016 and 2020. 247 bodies were uncovered in mass and individual grave sites in the western Libyan city of Tarhuna with many of the victims handcuffed and blindfolded.

Since Gadhafi was killed in October 2011 thousands, probably tens of thousands, have died in fighting. More than a decade after the foreign-backed war Libya remains divided between two main political factions and hundreds of militias operate in the country of six million.

At the NATO summit in Spain two weeks ago Italy’s Defense Minister, Lorenzo Guerini, warned that Libya required greater attention. In other words, 11 years after NATO “liberated” the country the alliance may consider intervening again.

Canada played an important part in the coalition that waged war on Libya from March to October 2011. Seven CF-18 fighter jets participated, two Canadian naval vessels patrolled the Libyan coast and Canadian special forces were likely on the ground. Canadian general Charles Bouchard commanded the entire NATO operation, “personally signing off on every last preselected [bombing] target,” according to the Globe and Mail.

The human toll of NATO’s war was significant. The alliance dropped 20,000 bombs on almost 6,000 targets, including more than 400 government buildings or command centres. Dozens, probably hundreds, of civilians were killed in the strikes. NATO erroneously classified some civilian sites they struck as military targets.

Gaddafi’s final stronghold, Sirte, was the site of widespread war crimes. Under siege by NATO fighter jets, this city of 100,000 was cut off from outside water, medicine, food and electricity supplies for weeks. After they captured the city the rebels executed hundreds. CBS News reported, “nearly 300 bodies, many of them with their hands tied behind their backs and shot in the head, have been collected from across Sirte and buried in a mass grave. … There are no names in one graveyard, only numbers: 572 so far and counting.”

Throughout the conflict Canadian officials pressed for violence. Briefing notes uncovered by the Ottawa Citizen show that foreign minister John Baird pushed the rebels National Transitional Council to keep fighting when he visited Benghazi in June 2011. “Hawkish Baird urged Libyan rebels to keep up fight”, noted an April 2012 headline describing the minister’s visit with the rebels three months into a seven-month war. In public he called for an end to the fighting, but in private Baird “impressed upon the National Transitional Council the importance of pushing forward militarily.”

Apparently, Canadian officials wanted to make sure Gaddafi was taken out by force. In April 2012 La Presse reported on internal documents that showed how Ottawa pressed neighbouring countries not to grant Gaddafi exile after Tripoli fell. A September 2011 document explained: “There is a fear that Gaddafi is seeking asylum and assistance of neighbouring countries that have maintained good relations with Libya. … A study on the options available to Canada to influence these countries to refrain from providing any aid or safe haven to Gaddafi was also conducted.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper later celebrated the dictator’s summary execution.

Canada recognized the violent and repressive NTC as the legitimate voice of the country’s people while Gaddafi was still in control of most of the country. After giving everyone who fought against Gaddafi’s regime a blanket amnesty, the NTC made it illegal — punishable by life in prison — to glorify any aspect of Gaddafi’s 40-year reign. The same punishment awaited anyone who “attacks the February 17 revolution, denigrates Islam, the authority of the state or its institutions.”

But, at the same time Canadian officials presented the war as a struggle for human rights and democracy. During his trip to rebel-held Benghazi foreign minister John Baird called the NTC the “best hope” for Libya, noting that “obviously no government can be worse than the Gaddafi regime.” On his trip Baird visited the NATO command in Naples where he wrote on a bomb: “Free Libya. Democracy”.

11 years later most major social and economic indicators have deteriorated and there haven’t been presidential elections. Are any Canadians officials going to apologize?

*

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

Featured image is from Yves Engler

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

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

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

***

In an interview with Pam Long, U.S. Army veteran and frequent contributor to The Defender, Dr. Samuel Sigoloff — an osteopath board-certified in family medicine and an active-duty major with the Army suspended for writing COVID-19 vaccine exemptions for service members — explained why he believes the mandates must end.

The June 30 deadline to comply with the U.S. military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for service members has passed and tens of thousands of service members expect to be involuntarily separated in the near future.

Doe v Rumsfeld (2003) clearly prohibits the DOD from mandating an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccine.

When challenged with this precedent, the DOD falsely asserted EUA vaccines can be used “interchangeably” with the FDA-approved Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, ignoring the legal distinction even if, hypothetically, the two products are identical in formulation.

Pfizer records show the vaccine maker will not begin producing the Comirnaty vaccine until stockpiles of its Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccines are exhausted. In fact, Pfizer has said it will never produce FDA-approved Comirnaty — which unlike the company’s EUA version of the vaccine, would be subject to liability in the case of adverse outcomes.

The DOD has utilized deceptive communications to coerce uptake of the EUA products, including using the term “BLA compliant” — referring to available EUA vaccine lots as FDA-approved products, and even referring to EUA-labeled BioNTech vials as “Comirnaty.”

This month I interviewed Dr. Samuel Sigoloff, an osteopath board-certified in family medicine and an active-duty major with the Army, who discussed how the Army suspended him for writing COVID-19 vaccine exemptions for service members and why he believes the mandates must end.

Sigoloff’s statements reflect his personal opinions and do not represent the view of the DOD, the Army or the U.S. government. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

Pam Long: As of June 2022, the U.S. Coast Guard claimed to have received the first lots of “Comirnaty-labeled” vaccines. However, these vaccines have shipment documentation that originates from Fort Detrick, Maryland — not a Pfizer manufacturing address.

The labels on these vials do not match the strict requirements of FDA-approved labels. The labels do not have the red text watermark authentication. They are missing the manufactured date and the manufacturing address.

Where did this product originate and how can service members verify if it is FDA approved?

Dr. Samuel Sigoloff: How do we verify these are FDA-approved? We don’t know. We can’t know. There is so much deception involved on the part of DOD, and on the part of Pfizer, that it’s almost impossible to know.

And there should be absolute public outcry due to the amount of deception. I would say that if the labeling is not exactly, precisely, as it should be, as it was approved, then it is best for the service member to assume that that is not the appropriate FDA-approved medication.

Long: Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, adjutant general for Oklahoma, recently stated that the availability of only EUA vaccines and non-availability of FDA-approved vaccines “was very much an issue in the past” (inadvertently admitting an illegal mandate of EUA vaccines) and was resolved by the arrival of the new Comirnaty-labeled vials in June 2022.

What concerns do you have that senior leadership at DOD is either (a) fraudulently promoting a relabeled EUA product as FDA-approved to increase uptake or (b) has no willingness to verify if a vaccine is counterfeit, with unknown origin and manufacturing date?

Sigoloff: About Gen. Mancino, how he stated in a video that they only had EUA vaccines, not FDA-approved, and now they have the FDA-approved vaccines — I think that is an admission of guilt that they have been coercing service members to take something.

But they have been coercing service members to take an EUA vaccine, which is an illegal act. I think it is very important that these generals and these high-level leaders take every precaution to ensure that what they’re providing is exactly what they should be providing.

I believe if there is any concern for origin, if there’s any concern for manufacturing date or location, then higher leadership are adding to the confusion, and are not being open and honest with what the product actually is. And they’ve not done the homework to ensure that what they’re providing is what they’re supposed to be providing.

Long: Given the current recruitment and retention crisis with catastrophic impact on national security, with an estimated 100,000 unvaccinated service members and 400,000 partially vaccinated service members pending separation, do you think the billion-dollar vaccine contracts are forcing the near-zero exemptions mandate or “health of the force?”

Sigoloff: For the mandate, I don’t think it has anything to do with the health of the force. I think it actually is the opposite, and I believe that this is a bioweapon that’s being produced by our enemies.

And by produced, I mean the production, the original design was completed by our enemies, by Fosun Pharma, in conjunction with BioNTech, and that was in March of 2020. Fosun Pharmaceutical, which is a Chinese company, made an agreement with Pfizer in July 2020 to develop the vaccine.

Long: Is it plausible that many of the 378,633 partially vaccinated service members, who took a first dose but refuse a second or booster dose had an adverse reaction to the first dose? Do you know of any service members who were granted or denied a medical exemption after an adverse reaction?

Sigoloff: Do I know anybody who’s taken the first dose but refused the second or the booster and had a reaction to the first dose? Yes, I know a physical therapist. He’s about my age. He is a very healthy and fit individual and he began to have heart issues.

I also interviewed an active-duty service member stationed in Korea, who after he received the first dose, had a heart attack. And he did receive some adverse administrative action because he would not take the second dose. He’s still stuck in Korea, not allowed to leave because he does not have the second dose.

Long: The courts will decide if the DOD vaccine mandate is the “least restrictive means” to maintain the health of the force. Have you witnessed success with other COVID-19 treatments, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine?

Have you witnessed any death or myocarditis in military personnel from these FDA-approved drugs?

Sigoloff: I have personally taken ivermectin the moment I thought that I might have COVID-19 and had lost my taste for 12 hours. It was the most minimal illness I’ve had. I’ve had flu multiple times, and it was about 100 times worse than when I had COVID-19.

I also had a patient, a civilian paralegal on post, and when he ran across me, just in passing, he said, “Oh, are you Doctor Sigoloff?”  … [Y]ou gave me and my wife ivermectin. It worked great. Thank you so much.”

This is right before I was suspended. And at my previous duty station, I talked to a man who was a civilian and he was breathless. He could get approximately two or three words out without having to gasp for air. I prescribed him hydroxychloroquine, and the day after he began taking it, I spoke to him. He was able to carry on long-winded sentences and his clinical picture significantly improved within a day of taking the hydroxychloroquine. I have not witnessed any deaths due to myocarditis [resulting from ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine].

Long: A recent Coast Guard email indicated that service members who are still waiting on a religious accommodation approval will not be separated immediately as per the June 30, 2022 mandate deadline. Instead, these service members will be prohibited from re-enlistment and advancement in rank and separated over time. Is this another DOD deception of voluntary attrition, yet actually involuntary separation?

Sigoloff: For a voluntary attrition, you’d actually be involved with separation. I can’t really talk about the Coast Guard. I am not in the Coast Guard and I don’t believe the Coast Guard actually follows under DOD. DOD, yes, I believe they’re telling the court system that there are no adverse actions. How? Because that’s what their policy states. They state that the service member may be ordered to take Comirnaty and that that is a legal order, which it’s all true.

And then the next statement says: … or the service member may volunteer to take one of the EAU products. Then all these people who cannot comply with the legal order to take Comirnaty because Comirnaty doesn’t exist, they’re all being punished. Because they’re not voluntarily taking these EUA products.

And so they’re telling the court system that, oh, well, they’re not being punished for not taking Comirnaty. But what’s actually happening on the ground? These commanders are punishing people for not taking the EUA products, which is illegal, unethical and immoral.

Long: A February 2022 DOD IG report explained that there is no reliable data on DOD employees’ vaccine status. Can you explain this double standard between the suits and the boots to civilian readers?

How does this adversely undermine morale and cohesion, while DOD employees in administrative positions are not held to a vaccine mandate and 5,700 healthy and deployable service members have been separated for vaccine refusal?

Sigoloff: So, many of these DOD civilians were previously, like sometimes, just even a month ago, were active-duty service members. And so how can a human being who is not wearing uniform and a human being who is wearing uniform have different human rights?

We’re seeing service members’ human rights being completely trampled on. They do not have the ability to determine what goes into their body, whereas the civilians, they have the ability to say no, I don’t want that in my body, so I’m not going to get it. But the service members can’t make that determination because they’ll get punished if they do.

Now, when you put on the uniform, many people think that you give up your civil rights. You give up your human rights. That is absolutely false. That could not be further from the truth. Service members do not give up their human rights. They retain all of their human rights because we are still human. That is the definition of human rights. All of the amendments to the Bill of Rights — those are human rights.

Many people think soldiers don’t have the ability to speak freely. We do. There are certain things we should not do in uniform. We should not speak politically in uniform. But we can speak politically out of uniform. We don’t lose the ability to speak. We don’t lose the ability to make decisions for our own body.

Long: The DOD recently changed policy to retain HIV-positive service members and prohibit their separation. Can you comment on how this policy adversely affects morale as healthy, unvaccinated service members are being separated?

Sigoloff: Patients who are HIV-positive have decreased immune systems, which means it would be dangerous for them to go to an austere environment or a combat environment, as there are many pathogens or illnesses, viruses, bacteria and fungus that could adversely affect them, could kill them if they get infected with these different pathogens. That’s why that’s always been a policy.

You have to remember the DOD is not running a charity here. When you’re employed by the U.S. government in military service, you have certain expectations. Some of those expectations are you must be able to be ready to deploy, defend, destroy the enemy, to engage with the enemy in close combat. And if you’re unable to do that because you could get a life-endangering infection, then sorry, you can’t be in the military because that’s what we do.

Long: As China and Russia monitor the DOD, what do you view as the most important priority if Congress were to intervene to reverse the recent decisions by DOD leadership? Does the military have critical personnel shortages in any areas while high-trained, unvaccinated pilots are being assigned administrative and janitorial positions?

Sigoloff: I think they should immediately put a moratorium on any vaccine. I think they should bar any service member from receiving this bioweapon. And I take the time to explain this in a video that I’ve published on Rumble. It’s an hour-long explanation, because what I’m saying may sound absolutely crazy. But as I walk you through the logic as to why I believe this is a bioweapon, I show you every document. I’m not just shooting from the hip to say that this is a bioweapon, this is.

We have proof that Fosun Pharma went into agreement with BioNTech, a German company. So a Chinese company gave $100,000,000 to Germany’s BioNTech. And then after that agreement was made, that Chinese company now made an agreement with Pfizer. Because of redactions in the Freedom of Information Act documents Pfizer released, we cannot determine some of the locations where the testing sites took place. And my concern is some of those testing sites were in China.

Next, if we also look at that original agreement, China retained the rights to sell it to only the Chinese market, whereas BioNTech was allowed to sell to the entire world. Also, in that same video, I show a clip of a man saying he knew a woman from China who came to America. She was told by China that if she gets any of these mRNA “vaccines” (they’re not vaccines, they’re genetic therapies) in America she would be tested and/or scanned when she tries to re-enter China to see if she’s had that administered to her, and if that test or scan were positive, she would be barred from entry to her home country.

So I do believe that this is a bioweapon, developed and engineered by our enemy. And I think Congress should immediately bar any service member from receiving any more of these genetic therapies, because if this is a binary weapon system, meaning it takes two things to make it work, this may be the first thing. And when China hits the second thing, it could decimate all of our forces, because the only people that are allowed to work are those who got the shot.

And I can’t speak about unvaccinated pilots because I don’t work with pilots, but I can speak about myself. The military has a critical personnel shortage in the department of medicine. At my duty station, I am one of two active-duty doctors. We have a couple of civilian PAs and NPs. I was the medical director for about a month. And then I was suspended and given a relief for cause because I gave out medical exemptions. And so yes, I am now doing paperwork, doing administrative work.

They could use me working for them, but they refused to have me work because I was doing my job appropriately and protecting service members who did not want to receive the shot. And my medical exemption has now become an affidavit in Robert v. Austin. My medical exemption was about how the first three ingredients of Comirnaty are not FDA-approved for medical use and they’re for research use only.

Long: What resources do you recommend for service members who are pending separation?

Sigoloff: I don’t really know many resources. I would try and make that process take as long as possible. And even if they’ve threatened separation over the next year, I would begin doing the Soldier for Life transition assistance program. This is for the Army, but it is the Congressionally mandated transition program, and I believe every branch of the service has its own.

What that will do is get you out of the office, get you out of whatever you’re doing, get you away from your unit for a while, and give you some time to work things out. Give you some time to take a knee and breathe and learn how to get ready for civilian life.

The biggest thing is you must make a decision. Are you going to get this vaccine or are you not? If you will never get this then don’t ever get it. Stick to your guns. If you do decide that you may get it, first, you must ask yourself why you fought this long, only to give up now?

*

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.

Pam Long is graduate of USMA at West Point and is an Army Veteran of the Medical Service Corps.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

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

***

Few people now doubt that contemporary events worldwide point to a fast accelerating decline of North American and European countries as world leaders in practically any sphere of human activity. The collapse across the world in acceptance of US or European Union moral and political authority is clear from the refusal of most majority world countries to support US-led sanctions attacking the Russian Federation. The world may still be menaced by the pale shadows of bygone imperialist rule but these are fast being displaced by vibrant dreams and hopeful new prospects rapidly taking shape and coming to life.

In that uncertain context, when a report like this year’s World Economic Forum Report on the Global Gender Gap appears, people living in the majority world naturally look twice at its underlying principles, moral vision and assumptions. This is especially so in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela or other countries around the world similarly under attack from the same Western corporate and political elites who control the World Economic Forum itself. An important feature of the WEF report is its dependence on the data and presupppositions of diverse Western institutions and organizations. But despite this ostensibly unfavorable context, the WEF report does indeed recognize the tremendous advances in equality for women in Nicaragua, as summarized in this graphic:

Writer and community health worker, Becca Mohally Renk, has analysed in detail the results of this WEF report for the North American network in solidarity with Nicaragua. She notes that Nicaragua is a joint leader for gender equality in educational attainment and lies fifth in the world in terms of overall political empowerment. Becca might also have added that Nicaragua is also just 0.002 points off joint first place in the WEF index on Health and Survival. Related to that achievement, Becca points out that although just over 30% of Nicaraguan women are reported to marry young, the WEF reports that the mean age of women having their first child is now just under 27 years old, while the total fertility rate (births per woman) is reported to be 2.38.

In addition, the report ranks Nicaragua in joint first place of gender equality for

•  women professional and technical workers
•  women’s literacy rate
•  women’s enrolment in tertiaryeducation
•  women in parliament
•  women in ministerial (cabinet) positions

Becca also explained in her notes for the solidarity network that, according to the WEF report, Nicaragua has also achieved equal rights or near-equal rights in the following areas:

• access to justice
• access to financial services
• access to land assets
• access to non-land assets
• inheritance rights for widows and daughters
• freedom of movement
• right to divorce

Overall the WEF data does largely reflect positively on Nicaragua although one might quibble that, for example, it completely omits the country’s achievements in other areas relevant for women’s rights like free vocational and technical training, wider availability of drinking water or support with free school meals and scholastic supplies for children attending preschool and primary school. However, the report has two much more fundamental failings as a narrative and statistical account of women’s equality in the country. Firstly, it begs the question of how Nicaragua could possibly have achieved such strikingly impressive advances in equality for women given its history.

Nicaragua’s economy and society is recovering from the legacy of almost two centuries of genocidal Spanish colonialism, followed by over 170 years of repeated US military interventions and US protected dictatorship and 17 years of deliberate US designed neoliberal under-development. Most recently the US and its allies inflicted wholesale economic destruction on Nicaragua through the failed coup attempt they organized in 2018. Now, the country is also recovering from the adverse effects of the global measures implemented to address Covid-19 and the damaging global economic effects of illegal US and allied government coercive measures against the Russian Federation.

A second and equally serious failing is that the WEF report uses essentially neocolonial, rich country assumptions about how Nicaragua’s economy actually works. Nicaragua’s economy has little in common with an advanced Western economy based mainly on formal employment and relatively high wages. Nicaragua’s is a socialist inspired model with over 70% of its economy based in the family, cooperative and associative sector, often called the popular economy. This model of economy has guaranteed that Nicaragua is practically self sufficient in terms of healthy, sustainable food production

In addition, Nicaragua has the best public health infrastructure in Central America. Public health care is free. Education is free, including vocational technical education. Low income households receive subsidy for their electricity bills. Public transport costs are subsidized. University scholarships are available for low income students. Preschool and primary school children get free school meals.

99% of the country has electricity of which up to 70% is generated by renewable sources. Nicaragua’s highway system is among the best in Latin America. Nicaragua is among the the most secure countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nicaragua’s is among the most dynamic economies in Latin America, currently growing at around 5.5%. All of these economic characteristics have a gender dimension but they are only very partially reflected in the WEF report.

Essentially, the WEF Global gender Gap report evades recognizing the implications of the details of Nicaragua’s social and economic structure in promoting women’s equality. And that evasion itself leaves open the question of how Nicaragua has managed to overcome its history of imperialist aggression so as to defend women’s rights and equality better than far wealthier and far more economically advanced nations. This year Nicaragua will give the 43rd answer to that question when it celebrates the 43rd Anniversary of the triumph of the Sandinista Popular Revolution on July 19th 1979.

That victory came just ten years, after the publication of the historic revolutionary program of 1969 which explicitly declared women’s emancipation and equality as one of its principal objectives. The US tried to smother that program with a decade of the Contra War and then piled on top of that vicious attack another 17 years of neoliberal destruction. Despite everything, the US and its allies failed to destroy the Sandinista Revolution. Since January 2007, the original revolutionary program has become a reality, carried out by the Sandinista Front for National Liberation.

Led by Comandante Daniel Ortega and Compañera Rosario Murillo, Nicaragua’s Revolution has rescued women’s equality from the feudal dead end identity politics serving the class needs of Western ruling elites. Under Daniel and Rosario the FSLN government has restored to women’s rights their full meaning in terms of class justice and socio-economic democratization. And that is why Nicaragua has been able to vindicate its history and its revolutionary principles by leading the struggle for women’s rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. But you will never learn that from reports by the World Economic Forum.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

Stephen Sefton, renowned author and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report

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

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

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

***

Guest: Sonia Elijah, investigative journalist and broadcaster at trialsitenews.com. She has a background in Economics and was a former BBC researcher. Her analysis of the Pfizer COVID vaccine safety report received worldwide attention.

This session reviews the leaked internal emails from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and meeting report between the agency and Pfizer.

The US and EU government officials pressured European drug regulators to rush the approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine despite safety concerns; including direct lobbying by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla to the President of the EU Commission and a high-level FDA regulator.

Video

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

The Heroic Archbishop Viganò: The Corrupt Billionaire Agenda, “SARS-CoV-2 Virus Is Nothing but a Seasonal Flu”

By His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò and Steve Bannon, July 17, 2022

If in the last two years we had been faced with a true pandemic, caused by a deadly virus for which no other cures existed except for a vaccine, we would be able to think that the emergency was not intended. But this is not what happened: the SARS-CoV-2 virus is nothing but a seasonal flu that could have been cured with existing treatments and effective prevention based on strengthening immune defenses.

Customary Barbarity: Britain’s SAS in Afghanistan

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 18, 2022

Units of the British SAS are now accused of almost identical practices, a point that will come as little surprise to some in the Royal Military Police. Titled Operation Northmoor, the RMP initiated a number of investigations in 2014 that covered 675 criminal allegations, some of which were said to have been committed by the special forces.  In 2019, the Ministry of Defence closed the investigation claiming that there was no evidence of criminality.

The Church of Pfizer: D.C. Promotes ‘Faith in Vaccine’ Initiative

By Jordan Schachtel, July 18, 2022

Sure, there’s zero scientific evidence that mRNA vaccines are working, but that doesn’t mean you should abandon your faith in Big Pharma’s money making machine, according to the Public Health bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

Listen to Kissinger and CIA’s William Burns and Compare with Populist Political Platitudes

By Jan Oberg, July 17, 2022

This short article aims to merely illustrate – not prove – the difference between security political intellectualism and ignorance. It does not focus on peace – theories, ideas, concept or policies – simply because none of the personalities appearing below are in the business of peace.

The WHO “Stealth Coup” to Dictate Global Health Agenda of Gates, Big Pharma

By F. William Engdahl, July 17, 2022

Acting on an initiative from the Biden Administration, by November 2022, conveniently at the onset of the next flu season in the northern hemisphere, the World Health Organization, barring a miracle, will impose an unprecedented top-down control over the national health regulations and measures of the entire planet.

The Russia-China Polar Silk Road Speeds Ahead

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, July 17, 2022

Since China’s Arctic extension of the New Silk Road was first unveiled in a January 2018 white paper, a process of Arctic development has been unleashed which represents one of the most important and under-appreciated developments on Earth.

In Eurasia, the War of Economic Corridors Is in Full Swing

By Pepe Escobar, July 17, 2022

The War of Economic Corridors is now proceeding full speed ahead, with the game-changing first cargo flow of goods from Russia to India via the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) already in effect.

Video: NATO and Global Empire

By Michael Welch, Bianca Mugyenyi, Tamara Lorincz, and Danny Haiphong, July 16, 2022

Following the talks of the NATO leaders in Madrid, in late June, there was a lot more agreed to than mobilizing the troops in preparation for warfare, with increased costs to individual NATO members. There was also the endorsement of a new Strategic Concept giving direction to the Alliance not only during this new phase of battle with Russia.

The Top Ten Creepiest and Most Dystopian Things Pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF)

By Vigilant Citizen, July 16, 2022

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is one of the most powerful organizations in the world. And, throughout the years, people at the WEF have said some truly insane and dystopian things. And they’ve managed to word these things in the creepiest ways possible. Here are the top 10 most insane things said by the WEF.

Dare to Jump into the “Empire of Freedom”. Hannah Arendt’s Confession of the Ethically Justified Denial of the Individual

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, July 15, 2022

For the German philosopher and professor of political theory Hannah Arendt, Eichmann’s defining motive, apart from personal ambition, lay in a “misguided fulfilment of duty and a bureaucratic obedience to the cadre”. To a certain extent, it was the “sheer thoughtlessness” of the desk criminal that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that time without “diabolical-demonic depth”.

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

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

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

***

The insistence that there is a noble way of fighting war, one less bloody and brutal, has always been the hallmark of forces self-described as civilised.  Restraint characterises their behaviour; codes of laws follow in their wake, rather than genocidal impulses.  Killing, in short, is a highly regulated, disciplined affair.

The failed wars and efforts of foreign powers in Afghanistan have destroyed this conceit.  Lengthy engagements, often using special forces operating in hostile terrain, have been marked by vicious encounters and hostile retribution.  Australia’s Special Air Services supplied a very conspicuous example. The 2020 report by New South Wales Court of Appeal Justice Paul Brereton on the alleged murders of Afghan non-combatants was an ice bath for moralists claiming they were fighting the good fight.

Known rather dully as the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry Report, Brereton claimed that 39 alleged non-combatant murders were perpetrated by Australian special service units during their tours of duty.  The report was inspired, in no small way, by the work of consultant Samantha Crompvoets, a sociologist commissioned by the Special Operations Commander of Australia (SOCAUST) to conduct a “cultural review” of the Special Operations Command in mid-2015.

Her January 2016 report makes grim reading, noting such endemic practices as body count competitions and the use of the Joint Priority Effects List (JPEL).  The JPEL effectively constituted a “sanctioned kill list” characterised by tinkered numbers.

Units of the British SAS are now accused of almost identical practices, a point that will come as little surprise to some in the Royal Military Police. Titled Operation Northmoor, the RMP initiated a number of investigations in 2014 that covered 675 criminal allegations, some of which were said to have been committed by the special forces.  In 2019, the Ministry of Defence closed the investigation claiming that there was no evidence of criminality.

The RMP team disputed the finding, and had to face an atmosphere of hostility encouraged by then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Johnny Mercer.  According to Mercer, the whole effort was a crusade by overly keen human rights lawyers keen to harass the MOD.  In his sights was the solicitor’s firm Leigh Day, which was twice cleared of allegations of professional misconduct for their handling of compensation claims against the MOD over alleged incidents in Iraq.

A recent BBC investigation has revisited Britain’s military efforts, finding evidence of unlawful killings during 2010-11.  One unit took its work so seriously as to be allegedly responsible for the deaths of 54 people over six months.  The pattern of behaviour is markedly similar to those of the Australian special forces: detainees supposedly shot after producing a concealed weapon; the use of “burner” weapons rather than formal issue to do the deed.  Institutional complicity is also alleged, with officers higher up the pecking order covering up the misdeeds of their subordinates.

The investigation also suggests that vital information was not shared with the RMP.  A claim is made that General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, director of the special forces, did not disclose to the RMP earlier concerns about unlawful killings, or the existence of a review into the squadron.

With these allegations come enormous impediments to accountability.  The British government, captured by a Brexit atmosphere of exceptionalism, has busied itself with making prosecutions harder than ever.  In 2020, the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was introduced to provide serving and former military personnel “more legal protection from prosecution for alleged offences resulting in overseas operations.”

The press release announcing the Bill went on to note the number of compensation claims against the UK Ministry of Defence – near 1,000 – for unlawful detention, personal injury and death.  To this could also be added 1,400 judicial review claims against the MOD seeking investigations and compensation for a number of human rights violations.

Instead of seeing such figures as an instance of cultural blight and abuse in the UK military forces in their conduct of overseas operations, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace preferred a different reading.  The “vast majority” of personnel had “acted in accordance with the rule of law and often at great personal risk” but had been “faced with the prospect of repeated investigations by inquest and police”.

The Bill became law in 2021.  Under the law, prosecutors are discouraged from initiating actions in various ways.  There is a general presumption against the prosecution of soldiers for overseas offences committed five years after the alleged incident.  The original bill even went so far as to apply this presumption to all crimes bar sexual offences, though this was subsequently amended to exclude torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

“Particular weight” must be given by the prosecutor to a range of matters, such as “being exposed to unexpected or continuous threats, being in command of others who were so exposed, or being deployed alongside others who were killed or severely wounded in action.”  It was imperative for the prosecutor to “have regard to the exceptional demands and stresses to which members of Her Majesty’s forces are likely to be subject while deployed on overseas operations, regardless of their length of service, rank or personal resilience.”  If the prosecutor favours prosecution, another limitation must be negotiated.  Any action against military personnel can only proceed with the consent of the Attorney General.

The UK authorities have also insulated themselves from civil claims based on harmful overseas acts that might arise in connection with the Human Rights Act.  The time bar there is six years.

Given that the acts alleged in the BBC investigation took place over a decade ago, the prospect of genuine, fully committed prosecutions is almost impossible to envisage.  An investigation of some shape or form is likely to happen, though it will be carefully managed to fail.  Britain has shown, time and again, that the rich rhetoric of human rights can be uttered even as its soldiers butcher for Queen and country.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

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

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

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

***

Sure, there’s zero scientific evidence that mRNA vaccines are working, but that doesn’t mean you should abandon your faith in Big Pharma’s money making machine, according to the Public Health bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

The notoriously ultra-progressive and secular city has finally found religion, and they’re recruiting worshippers to the state-sponsored church of Pfizer.

D.C.’s Health Department is advertising a “Faith In Vaccine” program, partnering with places of worship in the city to convince residents to get COVID tested and injected with their next round of mRNA.

Faith in Vaccine Pop-Up Clinics are available for 1st dose, 2nd dose, and boosters.

Pfizer vaccines for residents 12 years and older will be available at the walk-up vaccination sites listed.

Visit: https://t.co/iYybX79yBS to learn more about the COVID-19 vaccine. pic.twitter.com/4xcHqujaTO

— DC Health (@_DCHealth) July 15, 2022

The initiative was launched last year, partnering with church leaders to host pop up vaccine centers and “spread the word” about this miracle cure in D.C.’s faith-based community.

Today Director @thombowen received his 2nd booster shot. Faith in Vaccine Pop-Up Clinics are available for 1st dose, 2nd dose, and boosters.

Visit: https://t.co/7UX1eGj6WB to learn more about the COVID-19 vaccine. @_DCHealth

Get tested. Get vaccinated. #DCvalues pic.twitter.com/lZOSorGIm7

— Mayor’s Office of Religious Affairs (@_MORADC) May 12, 2022

“Through the ‘Faith in the Vaccine’ initiative, DC Health is working with the Leadership Council for Healthy Communities and the Black Coalition Against COVID to further engage the faith-based community with the goal of spreading the word about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine and supporting residents in getting vaccinated,” read a statement from the mayor’s office.

“The whole goal of Faith in Vaccine is to bring vaccines into community for easy access where folks feel comfortable and have confidence in the community,” added DC Health’s Ankoor Shah.

The Faith in Vaccine has often advertised free perks to new parishioners. The program has delivered “Free Backpacks” and “Free Masks” to children who get injected with holy mRNA at places of worship.

There’s no evidence that the vaccines are working, and that’s why it’s important to have faith.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

There is no question that the iconic North Atlantic right whale is at the brink of extinction; fewer than 370 remain on planet earth. Any additional negative impacts on the whale could easily spell its doom.

Scientists at many environmental nonprofit groups have repeatedly raised the alarm that the right whale population is rapidly declining. Recent letters signed by these organizations emphatically state that “the North Atlantic right whale population cannot withstand any additional stressors; any potential interruption of foraging behavior may lead to population level effects.”

Yet these same organizations have promoted a Biden administration plan to site 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind turbines along the U.S. east coast by 2030, a plan that clearly carries risks for endangered marine mammals, including the North Atlantic right whale.

Offshore wind will result in the massive industrialization of our ocean waters. Arrays of turbines will create land-use conflicts within the already crowded waters used for commercial and recreational marine activity and further displace the right whale from its natural habitat. We can’t save whales and other species by destroying their habitats, even in the name of fighting climate change.

Two projects – Vineyard Wind I and South Fork Wind – are the furthest along in development, and will place dozens of turbines and related infrastructure in southern New England waters. These regions are recognized as year-round core North Atlantic right whale foraging habitat. The mitigation requirements aimed at protecting right whales during project construction are certain to fail because they are based on outdated science that assumes seasonal, not year-round whale activity.

The NGOs concede that the first offshore projects will serve as test areas to determine the effectiveness of their mitigations, but such research will take years to validate. Other projects proposed for New York, New Jersey, and Maryland have been under development for several years already. There is no apparent intent to delay these proposals in order to research and validate the mitigations.

The Save Right Whales (SRW) Coalition was formed, in part, in response to the perceived inaction by environmental NGOs to prioritize the right whale over their support for renewable energy.

Now we believe we know what is behind that inaction.

A SRW Coalition report has identified 36 separate examples in which wind companies and foundations that receive wind company money have donated nearly $4.3 million to these environmental organizations that are prioritizing wind energy over the endangered species that will be impacted.

Furthermore, there is likely much more money flowing to these groups than is publicly known, as we have documented over a dozen donations that had no assigned value.

The coalition also has identified several joint alliances between many environmental groups and wind companies that go beyond the transfer of funds. The missions of these alliances are to advocate for offshore wind. Examples include the New York Offshore Wind Alliance (NYOWA) and the New England for Offshore Wind (NE4OSW).

Offshore wind is an industry. Attention to the impacts on the environment by industrial wind projects is a threat to corporate profits and investors. When offshore wind companies donate to environmental groups, they often frame their donations as a way to mitigate the impacts of their projects by funding conservation research. But such research is often mere tokenism that serves to distract from the immediate risks of the proposed projects.

The environmental NGOs present themselves as stewards of the natural environment and protectors of our precious species. The public has trusted their claim that wind turbines can be safely sited near and within waters where right whales live, feed, and breed. However, the financial conflicts and business alliances suggest such claims are paper thin.

These planned offshore wind installations are tantamount to an irreversible experiment that could have deadly and permanent consequences. This is an unacceptable position, particularly given the perilous state of the right whale.

It’s time for the NGOs to publicly acknowledge all of the money they’ve received and to state clearly where their priorities lie.

Our oceans need stalwart defenders now more than ever.

*

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.

Lisa Linowes is a member of the Save Right Whales Coalition whose mission is raise public awareness regarding the impact of the Vineyard Wind offshore wind project and other planned offshore wind projects on the critically-endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Featured image is from The New Lede

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

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

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

***

First published on globalresearch.ca on July 4, 2022

***

A chaotic upside-down world, where injustice is justice, war is peace and good and bad are reversible at will, has been emerging over the last decades. Gradually. But ever more severely, to the point where most everyone is confused, preferring holding on to his / her comfort zone, also called cognitive dissonance.

George Orwell’s 1984 is but a prelude to what is still in the making – and may come, if We, the People, do not stop it.

Today, the juxtaposed values that are infiltrated in our brains by massive lie-propaganda have already reached a stage where most people cannot detect a difference between truth and lies. Once they do, they find themselves believing in what commonly is known as a lie, but is sold by the elite and its billion-dollar mass-media as the truth.

So, they are confused and applaud their hangman.

Confusion is absolute.

Take Sicily, or some of the refugee-strategically placed Greek islands, like Lesbos, Leros, Samos, Chios, Kos – they are among the Mediterranean islands, most invaded and affected by refugees. They are the places of first refuge for Africans and Asians fleeing from misery and tyranny at home.

Black and colored skins, are often hated, and discriminated against. Yet, they are in poverty and misery – most needing help, attention from their fellow humans.

We, the largely white Europeans, have everything; they have nothing. They roam the streets begging, being chased away from restaurants and hotels by waiters and servants of the rich. Often even police stop them from begging.

The refugees’ situation today is intimately connected to some 500-plus years of mostly European colonization, when native and indigenous people were enslaved and exploited, along with their lands.

According to UNHCR, there are currently worldwide more than 100 million people on the run, fleeing from home, misery and hopefully from death.

The dynamics of history is playing out today.

For most of the “freed” colonies freedom never came, even though proclaimed in most “former” colonies in the fifties and sixties. “Former” is but a euphemism for a color-change. Today they are as colonized – or worse – as they were then. The white colons chose their corrupted colored counterparts to continue exploitation on their white colons’ behalf – dictatorship in misery.

Pakistan, Bangladesh, India are Asian’s prime examples. When a country like Pakistan finally elects – to the surprise of the west – a leader who defends the interests of his fellow-people, Imran Ahmed Khan – the wannabe empire US of A pudges him, by buying corrupt Pakistani Parliamentarians and politicians. And nobody does anything against it. So, the western cabal continues pretending ruling over Pakistan, formerBritish colony.

Ukraine

Compare this to white-skinned Ukrainian refugees. They have priority everywhere. Even hotels in selected European cities advertise We support Ukrainian refugees. Whatever that may mean. Nobody asks. It expresses the current brainwashed state of mind.

After EU Council President Charles Michel proposed to make Ukraine and Moldova candidates for EU membership, the draft final declaration of the June 23-24 EU summit in Brussels on June 21, 2022, stated,

“The European Council has decided to grant candidate country status to Ukraine and Moldova.” (Georgia is to be granted candidate status as well.) It is assumed that the 27 heads of state and government will follow the EU Commission’s recommendation. See this.

*

The Role of Germany in the US-Ukraine proxy war

Three days after the Russian attack on Ukraine – just as illegal under international law were all US wars since the attack on Yugoslavia – German Chancellor Olaf Scholz introduced his government’s statement on Feb. 27 with the words:

“February 24, 2022 marks a turning point in the history of our continent.”

In a firm voice, Scholz castigated Vladimir Putin’s cold-bloodedness and ruthlessness over his war of aggression, which he said could not be justified by anything, and asked:

“May might break right?”. The rhetorical answer (with respect to Russia) is clearly no. However, different standards seem to apply to the United States. 

Would Olaf Scholz, who has one of the most corrupt political records in recent German history (see this [in German]) , dare to challenge the US, for example with “May might break right?” – While referring to US invasions and aggressions on Syria, Iran, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan, Yemen – and yes, Russia — and uncountable more countries over the past few decades – causing the death of some 20 to 25 million people.

Would Chancellor Scholz dare to refer to such US-made atrocities?

Clearly not. But nobody reacts. It’s normal. Double-standards: The western cabal is always right with might. This narrative has been indoctrinated into the brains of western civilization for over hundred years. It’s just part of an incoherent chaos, where might is right – and bad is good, where justice is overruled and literally overrun, bulldozed away by the powers that be. No constitutional rule, nor any national or international court, or judge, dares to stop them, the corrupted western governments, and the masters that pull the strings on them.

To stay with the absurdity of the western supported Ukrainian conflict – NATO countries have been shipping untold quantities for billions of dollars and euros of modern weaponries, including the most sophisticated tanks and anti-missile systems, drones, missiles – and more, much more. This weaponry digitized, works electronically and needs well-trained personnel to be used.

It so happens that such western / NATO training is apparently fast declining. RT (Russia Today) reports that Training of Ukrainian troops has “dipped” in recent weeks, leaving them unable to operate advanced weapons systems from the West. See this.

Is it possible that western training of Ukrainian troops declined, because the west has lost hope in Ukraine’s making any headways against Russia? – A senior US defense official told the Foreign Policy (FP) magazine, “The drumbeat of faster, faster, faster” does not always work well because “the Ukrainians needed to have the training to be able to effectively use these systems.”

Or is the reason for the faltering training much worse – namely that the lavish deliveries of ‘lethal aid’ from the US, UK and other NATO countries to Ukraine have led to “black marketplaces”, where some of those weapons can be purchased popping up on the dark web, [Google explains the dark web as part of the internet that isn’t visible to search engines and requires the use of an anonymizing browser to be accessed. The dark web may be used by people wishing to carry out illegal activities online, such as selling weapons or drugs].

According to RT, Ukrainian traders claim to offer not just small arms or body armor on the dark web, but also such sophisticated hardware as Javelin and NLAW anti-tank systems or Phoenix Ghost and Switchblade explosive drones.

When asked if dark web-purchased weapons could be delivered to an area outside Ukraine, for example, the Polish border town of Przemysl, the reply was: No problem, for an additional cost of US$ 1,000, meaning that Ukrainian arms smugglers may have already bribed border guards to cross in and out of Poland without complications. See this.

Food shortages and Famine

The Rockefeller Foundation over ten years ago predicted food shortages.

So, what may happen in the next 12 to 24 months – famine, death in many poverty-stricken areas – is not a Russian caused food-shortage. It’s part of the cabal’s plan. It fits perfectly their agenda, creating fear, misery and population reduction, by any means possible.

And we know the massive and coerced vaxxing with toxic and electromagnetic substances is also part of the cabal’s master plan – Rockefeller, Gates, Schwab et al, and not to forget, the BlackRock-Vanguard financial headmasters.
See this.

None of this is made transparent by the 24/7 mass-media lie-propaganda. They would not tell us that this is all part of a long-planned massive eugenics agenda; a planned massive genocide.

In the Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics, Edwin Black wrote on 28 June 2022, [during the German Nazi period] Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed “unfit,” – or in preserving only those who conformed to the Arian stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as [Nazi Germany’s] national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws.

This sounds very much like getting rid of the “useless eaters”, as Klaus Schwab’s top adviser, Yuval Noah Harari, WEF scholar and Israeli intellectual would call today’s “unfit”, or simply superfluous people.

It is a dark and rotten civilization that produces so-called “intellectuals” – where is the intellect? – who call part of their fellow-humans “useless eaters or people”, or unfit. May we turn such arrogance around, calling them, the Schwabs and Hariris of this world, “the useless crust of humanity”? See this.

Digitization of Everything

The world’s population, especially the primary-targeted western world’s populace, is so much divided, scared, and / or wantonly swerved away from the reality through a “well-deserved relaxed back-to-normal summer period” that most of them are totally oblivious to what’s to come – the harsh, and ever harsher continuation of restrictions, mandates, of elimination of human rights, of personal rights, of personal freedoms.

Digitization is already all over us, in many forms, but the most nefarious mode is through the QR code (QR = Quick Response), that can store as much as 30,000-plus pieces of information about every one of us. And there is literally no limit to its potential expansion. We are talking about digitization of money, of every transaction – purchase, payment, trade, travel, service contracts, medical records including digitization of the human brain.

It’s called Optogenetics, a well-advanced WEF (World Economic Forum) program of total brain control. See this from Kla.tv (23 June 2022 – in German).

*

Nuclear holocaust, vaxx genocide or eugenics and digitization of everything including your brain? Is this our convoluted, chaotic, topsy-turvy, state-of-utter-confusion future?

Why would not the masters of ceremony, Klaus Schwab, Gates, Rockefeller, et al, as well as their top financial Cult Rulers of the BlackRock-Vanguard Clan, test total digital brain control on themselves? Their digitized, robotized, optogenized brains may experience utter happiness, as Artificial Intelligence (AI) may deprive them gradually but totally of all their possessions – converting them into common goods.

Common good for We, The People, who through our enlightenment and will-power will have overcome the beast of treason, deception and downright crime and ascended to a civilization of Peace, Love and Harmony into a bright future for mankind.

*

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

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 The Last American Vagabond

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

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

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

***

First published on June 2, 2022

Weakened hearts, blood clots, and now you can add neurological brain damage to the list of side effects being reported in children following COVID-19 vaccinations.

In at least one case, one poor child developed all three conditions.

In a case study published earlier this month (May, 2022) in the Journal of Neuroimmunology, a 15-year-old girl developed encephalopathy, myocarditis, and thrombocytopenia simultaneously following the second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

As billions of people are getting vaccinated, it is not surprising that vaccine-related adverse events are coming into focus and being reported in the scientific literature.

Here we report a case of COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine-associated encephalopathy, myocarditis, and thrombocytopenia following the second dose of vaccine which responded dramatically to methylprednisolone. (Source.)

Neurological issues are common side effects of all childhood vaccines, and are often grouped under the label of “autism.” There is a very clear correlation with increased vaccinations of children to rising rates of autism in the United States, even though the U.S. Government health agencies refuse to acknowledge any causal effect between the bloated childhood vaccine schedule and diagnoses of autism.

It is no surprise, therefore, that we are seeing similar reports following the deadly COVID-19 vaccines.

But how do reports of brain damage following COVID-19 vaccines compare to the rate of brain damage reported with all other vaccines administered for the previous 30 years before the roll-out of the COVID-19 experimental shots?

To develop a baseline, I chose to search VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) for all cases reporting “encephalopathy” following vaccination.

“Encephalopathy” is a term for “any diffuse disease of the brain that alters brain function or structure.” (Source.)

This term alone does not represent all the cases of neurological damage to the brain that are reported in VAERS, but it does give us a point of reference to compare cases reported after COVID-19 shots as compared to all other FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30+ years.

And what I found was that there is a 2,000%+ increase in brain injuries being reported after COVID-19 shots.

Here are the results based on a search for “encephalopathy” symptoms after COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.) Notice the high rate of death among these cases of “encephalopathy.”

This is the result from 17 months of COVID-19 vaccine distribution since December of 2020, when the vaccines were given emergency use authorization, which is over 64 cases per month.

By way of contrast, for the previous 30 years (360 months) before the COVID-19 vaccines started, there were 1,068 cases of “encephalopathy” reported after all other FDA-approved vaccines, an average of less than 3 per month. (Source.)

That is an increase of over 2000%.

Here are a few faces from some children who lost their lives due to brain damage because their parents forced them to get one of these shots, as reported on social media.

*

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

All images in this article are from HIN

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

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

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

***

First published by globalresearch.ca on May 30, 2022

***

This short article aims to merely illustrate – not prove – the difference between security political intellectualism and ignorance. It does not focus on peace – theories, ideas, concept or policies – simply because none of the personalities appearing below are in the business of peace.

By means of some videos, I aim to illustrate the differences between security political intellectualism and the kind of populist rhetorics that has become so widespread. Weapons have been around for decades but mostly managed by elites who operated within some kind of intellectual framework – agreeing or not agreeing with its characteristics is not the point here.

Most people who conducted security politics decades ago were well-educated and experienced compared with most of today’s security political decision-makers.

This overall intellectual disarmament coupled to ever-higher levels of military armament and the recent talk about the use of nuclear weapons creates a new and extremely dangerous reality for us all.

Recently, the Financial Times published two important interviews – one with Dr Henry Kissinger and one with the CIA’s present director, William J Burns. The conversations circle around the NATO-Russia conflict and the war in Ukraine – but certainly also the image of China and what role China plays – or should play – in the US foreign policy thinking

Here is Henry Kissinger, born in 1923 and, thus, almost 99 years old when speaking here:

You may also like to see this short one where Kissinger talks about what must be done to avoid armed conflict with China:

And here is William Burns, born in 1956 and with a very diverse career in US foreign policy; – he is a tremendous improvement from his fundamentalist Christian charlatan predecessor, Mike Pompeo:

And here Burns gives a 30 min lecture without manuscript or notes, covering US relations with Asia/China, Russia and the Middle East – a delightful geo-political grasp of the bigger picture. It’s from 2018.

It is not that he has one word of criticism of the US itself – except when it comes to Trump, the president at the time he spoke. But there is a knowledge and clarity that makes one wish to debate with him.

Regrettably, with most of today’s European leaders, one would hardly feel it meaningful.

Given what they stand for, neither Kissinger nor Burns is – so to speak – my cup of tea. However, in an era in which every discourse of peace has disappeared – or, been disappeared – perhaps some people might listen to people like Kissinger and Burns whose profession has always been more war than peace – but on a solid intellectual foundation?

Their cohesive way of reasoning in a low voice – Kissinger in particular with his world perspective and geo-political professionalism and both with a larger perspective – contrasts most of those who make security political decisions today who often display a frightening lack of knowledge, conceptual foundation and ability to look at things in a larger perspective – time as well as space.

There is a clarity of mind growing out of a reservoir of comprehensive knowledge and personal experience. There is no manuscript, no uhs, ums or likes, no pauses or contradictions. What is said is integrated, consolidated.

These two foreign policy experts never sink to the level of populist rhetorics and know-nothingism.

*

Sadly, that is what we’ve just witnessed several European politicians, including NATO S-G Jens Stoltenberg and Sweden’s and Finland’s prime ministers at their decision to join the alliance, do. The same applies to most of those who have shaped the EU/NATO response to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Some of it is close to embarrassing, offensive to the intelligence of the average citizens.

When the Swedish government had decided to apply, prime minister Magdalena Andersson arguedon May 16, 2022, that “while there might be things we Swedes disagree about, there is one thing we all share: We want to live in this free and democratic Sweden that we all love so much. That is a Sweden that is worth defending, and Sweden is best defended inside NATO.”

In other words and quite absurdly: Since the Swedes love their country, the government wants to join NATO to protect it. Why on earth Sweden that has been non-aligned for more than 200 years suddenly joins NATO cannot possibly be explained by such irrelevant marketing gibberish.

Here is a video from about three weeks before the two countries joined under the two female PMs leadership. It seems difficult to find a sentence which is based on some kind of intellectual substance. Most of it comes closer to a middle school essay.

Such populist rhetorics defies every sense of analyses and serious arguments pro et contra. Platitutes can hardly be disputed and, so, every intellectualism has disappeared.

Why is that, by and large, European politicians can’t do it better than this?

This type of superficiality, the lack of grounding in a rational analysis and a principled policy, makes it possible – if not likely – that standpoints can easily be changed.

For instance, as late as in January the Finnish PM, Sanna Marin, said it would be “very unlikely” Finland would apply for a NATO membership during her term in office. (While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took place on February 24, it was still a very tense situation in which she stated that). Euractive adds that “It is also widely accepted in Finland that a referendum should precede a NATO application. For the first time, fewer than half (42%) oppose NATO membership, while 28% have said they are ready to join.”

Compare that with her harsh, almost Russophobic rhetorics in this interview in May 2022.

*

Back to both Burns and Kissinger. They both seem keenly aware of the dangers humanity is facing – while of course not stating that the present situation, to a high degree, has been caused by their own country and by NATO.

Note also that both consider China the by far most serious adversary of the United States. And, therefore, that there is a larger perspective on the war in Ukraine. I believe Burns is getting it wrong when it comes to President Xi Jinping’s/China’s perception of the Ukraine war – and wrongly leaves out its much stronger opposition to NATO’s expansion and what conclusions China will draw from that concerning Taiwan and other issues.

Interesting is also Kissinger’s emphasis on how counterproductive it would be – actually, is – for the United States to behave in a way that makes Russia and China come more strongly together against the US. One does not get the impression that there are any NATO or EU decision-makers who have looked that far in time and space while meting out the punishment of Russia right after its invasion of Ukraine.

Neither does it seem that the US itself has the faintest idea that its consistent Cold War policy – which TFF has documented in “Behind the Smokescreen. An Analysis of the West’s Destructive Cold War Agenda and Why It Must Stop” (2021) – now coupled with its attempt to make Ukraine a full NATO member could have that effect and tying a series of countries such as Russia, India, Iran, China as well as the larger part of the Middle East and Africa closer together.

In summary, let’s not forget that the most important division these years is hardly between different informed opinions but between those who know and those who are ignorant. In my view, the latter have the upper hand at this phase of the West’s decline.

And that is dangerous. Dangerous as hell.

*

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

Jan Oberg is director at the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

First published on June 2022

***

It has often been said, Washington is the Belly of the Beast and Switzerland is the Head of the Beast. Considering a variety of dimensions, it is probably not far from the truth.

Switzerland is home to a number of highly dubious institutions and organizations.

Take the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the unelected NGO, with its unelected master, Klaus Schwab, based in Cologny, suburb of Geneva. This unelected but dirty-rich body of “luminaries”, with tax-free status, pretends to decide over our future, the future of the world, and literally, the future of mankind.

Once a year, mostly in the second half of January, the WEF unites some 2000 to 3000 oligarchs and wannabe luminaries in Davos, Switzerland, to ruminate (often in secret chambers off the madding crowd) on how to make the world a better place. No, not for us the people, but for themselves, the elite.

Their private-jet pilgrimage to Switzerland leaves a carbon footprint behind, that is like blatantly spitting in the face of their “climate change” agenda, imposed on the world.

This year, 2022, has been a “covid-exception”, and the word-shaking get-together took place in May, still in Davos, under the usual heavy police and secret service protection. But with a reduced number of luminaries and world leaders. It smells a bit like “deglobalization”.

Second, Switzerland is also home of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a colossal round tower, bearing similarities to the depictions of the “Tower of Babel” which is said to having been built as an act of rebellion against God. Is the physical similarity of the two towers a strange coincidence? – See this.

The BIS is located in Basle, at the border to Germany. It was created in 1930 with the stated objective to “managing” Germany’s debt payments to the winners of WWI. In reality, it was rather used to prepare and fund WWII. The BIS channeled money from the US Federal Reserve (FED) to Hitler’s Germany – including to finance Hitler’s war, especially against the Soviet Union.

The first Chairman and President of the BIS (1930-1933) was Gates McGarrah. The BIS’ official role was “clearing German reparations and interallied debts and to develop new facilities for international banking.” 

Interestingly, Gates McGarrah, was appointed on August 30, 1924, as the American director of the General Council of the Reichsbank, the central bank of Germany, created in 1876 until 1945. This job he carried out partially in parallel with his assignment as Chairman and President of the BIS from which he retired in 1933. See this. 

The US is known for dancing on several fiestas at the same time. In this case they funded their WWII enemy, Adolf Hitler, to fight the USSR, officially an US ally against Germany. The funding was channeled through the BIS in Basle.

The Soviet Union suffered enormous losses (estimates vary from 25 and 30 million), but the Soviet army defeated Hitler’s army, which was the beginning of the downfall of Germany’s Nazism.

There is no question why Russia’s President Putin is dead-set against the Nazi-leadership and Nazi military forces – the Azov Battalions – in Ukraine. The Azov Battalion(s) fought with Hitler’s Nazi army during WWII against the Soviet Union.

Today, the BIS, an extremely secretive agency, still sits in Basle, in a Babel-shaped tower, managing the pyramid funds of the western monetary system – through the system’s central banks around the world. The building has several underground floors, where it stores a large portion of the gold reserves and other assets of the world’s central banks.

The BIS is largely owned by the Rothschild family, which de facto, has an enormous “outreach” over the globe’s financial system – the multitude of currencies, of which most of the western ones gradually have become fiat currencies, following the image of the US dollar, according to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Since 2001, the Euro, often referred to as the little brother of the US dollar, follows the same fraudulent pyramid doctrine.

Third, Switzerland has also one of the world’s most secret international banking systems with tentacles of services and networks reaching around the globe. Despite many “attempts” by foreign countries, especially the US, to breaking the Swiss banking secrecy, it has never really been broken, because of the high-powered international oligarchs and financial institutions, who have a vital interest in the secretive banking pivot Switzerland.

The Pandemic Treaty: World Health Tyranny

Finally, but by no means least, Switzerland is also home to the World Health Organization (WHO) – which is now being groomed to take over the 194 member countries’ health sovereignty, through a so-called “Pandemic Treaty”. This would literally make of WHO a WHT — a World Health Tyranny.

So far, the first voting round last week was lost for WHO, mostly thanks to a block of some 47 African countries, voting against it. But by no means is this the end. The Pandemic Treaty was a proposal of the Biden Administration – observe: “Democrats”. But it was immediately supported by Switzerland, the EU and a host of other mostly western countries.

This Pandemic Treaty, if implemented, will change the global landscape and strip you and me of some of our most basic rights and freedoms. Make no mistake, the WHO Pandemic Treaty is a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.

Video: Digital Tyranny and the QR Code: Peter Koenig and Michel Chossudovsky

The Pandemic Treaty is the “Back Door” towards “Global Governance” and Digital Tyranny. It is the End of “Representative Democracy”

Although the Pandemic Treaty was already proposed in December 2021, and, of course, welcomed by the Swiss Government, it was not before April that the Swiss public at large became aware of it. Secrecy and dictatorship have long become the norm, and we are still fantasizing about “democracy”?

Switzerland, the Head of the Beast, is well aware of the illegal and more than questionable machination playing out on her territory. It’s more: Switzerland encourages them and pulls together all the key strings: The world’s central banking (BIS); the WEF, master of globalization, “penetrating” (Klaus Schwab’s term) governments around the world with WEF scholars from the WEF academy of “Young Global Leaders”; and last but not least, the World Health Organization, alias the World Health Tyranny.

The Swiss Government is aware of the ongoing crimes on her territory. Why doesn’t it stop it?

Remember Klaus Schwab’s ludicrous dictum, “You’ll own nothing, and You’ll be happy”? Well, it looks like this drive is starting, carefully planned in, yes, Switzerland.

The Swiss Social Democrats and other center-left parties are proposing subsidizing “poor” people – whereas poor is not (yet) nationally defined, for example, with a set of countrywide indicators; nor does Switzerland have a country-wide minimum wage. These temporary payments per family would make the people and families dependent on government handouts. Instead of defining and enforcing a livable minimum wage for work, not as a subsidy.

The issue is not the amount of the “temporary” subsidy, but rather the dependency it creates. In combination with 5G and possibly soon 6G, Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotization of humanity, or as Yuval Noah Hariri says,

“humans are hackable animals and can be chipped and transformed into ‘transhumans’”.

Such people may be rendered happy by remote-directed mind-manipulation, so they will be complacent, and smile at elite-imposed atrocities.

Have you noticed, that what used to be called the Democrats (in the US), the Social Democrats, Socialists, Greens, or otherwise center-left or outright left parties, are gradually all selling out to the Globalist Agenda? It seems as if they were oblivious to what drives them in a direction contrary to their original objectives, working for better labor conditions, for sovereign labor rights, for national independence.

All of that they have done brilliantly, until the mid-to late seventies, when they were gradually and seemingly unnoticed captured by a neoliberal and CIA agenda to destroy social / socialist movements in Europa.

Therefore, a “temporary government subsidy for the poor” might be the first step towards a Universal Basic Income (UBI), a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly.

In a chipped mind-manipulable transhuman, à la Hariri, the UBI might result in a smiling young adult, who owns nothing, but is happy.

All he owned had been stolen or confiscated by the One Word Tyranny (OWT), but his / her brain is 5G-manipulated to be happy. That would be a final key accomplishment of Klaus Schwab’s 4^th Industrial Revolution; of Agenda 2030, and of the Great Reset.

The official justifying description of UBI is: The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement.

In Switzerland the proposal for a UBI was rejected by a Peoples’ Referendum (6 June 2016), by more than 75% of the votes. Now, is the Swiss Government pushing it through the backdoor, to comply with the WEF’s Great Reset?

Hariri is one of Klaus Schwab’s closest allies and advisors – he is right down Schwab’s alley of the 4^th Industrial Revolution. Is Hariri with his arrogant imposition, calling the bulk of the people around the world “useless eaters”, just fear-mongering, or real?

Let’s opt for the former, because fear is still the dark cult’s strongest weapon. And Schwab and his ilk can clearly be considered a low-vibrating class, way below the light.

*

There are other reasons why Switzerland may be a front-runner for Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset and in carrying out the dark side of UN Agenda 2030.

Switzerland’s private debt accounted for 171.70 % of her Nominal GDP in Dec 2021. That’s one of the world’s highest. See this.

The only country of the Global North, overtaking Switzerland in private debt, is the United States, with a private debt to GDP ratio of 228% in 2021. See this.

Both countries are perfect pioneers for “expropriation” – towards owning nothing and being happy. With the WEF, the BIS, the worldwide network of international banking being seated in the Head of the Beast, as well as monetary digitization advancing at warp speed and eight more years to meet Agenda 2030 targets, Switzerland is well placed to demonstrate what the Great Reset may look like.

Accent on “may” – as it will not happen. People will resist. An evil plan of this caliber cannot succeed.

*

In Switzerland the private over-indebtedness has to do with the Swiss banking system. Like in many countries, most of the private real estate properties are mortgaged.

The peculiarity in Switzerland is that mortgages do not have to be amortized. If you are not an exception paying back your mortgage, you never really own your house. Mortgaged properties are often passed on from generation to generation. That makes you easy prey for expropriation, if the economy derails, inflations soars, interest rates increase rapidly, unemployment is on the rise – all of which can be, and is, of course, being manipulated.

Artificially created financial crises we have had several of various degrees in the last 30 years. One of the worst ones was the financial collapse of 2008/10 that purposefully destroyed Greece. A good crisis is all it takes for private banks to expropriate homes, putting their “owners” with nothing but a smile into the streets.

This could happen again today. In fact, it has already begun to happen – rising inflation, rapidly increasing interest rates – and bingo, the bank takes over and you own nothing. That doesn’t make you happy yet, but in combination with a 5G-hacked brain, a chipped happiness pill, a chip under your skin, or better, you are already chipped by the poisonous graphene oxide loaded non-vaxxes that were force-injected into your body from December 2020 forward, you may soon feel happy and own nothing.

What is currently going on – semi-clandestinely – is a vivid precursor to the smiley face of the Great Reset, “Owning nothing but being happy, as the Government gives me everything I need”.

If not stopped NOW, Switzerland is on her way to become a front runner for Klaus Schwab’s Reset. We, the People, can and must stop it.

Alternatives: Peace and Democracy

Switzerland could easily turn its Head of the Beast into a Head of Peace and Democracy. Switzerland could return to her legendary constitutional “neutrality”, hélas, abandoned already decades ago, by abrogating the self-destructive US and EU imposed sanctions on Russia, thereby showing to the utterly corrupt and dystopian world, what real human and societal values could be. It takes character and political will, a strong government to resist pressures from Washington and Brussels.

But it could be done. Switzerland, like no other so-called “neutral” country, has a strong, hundreds of years-old-tradition of Constitutional Neutrality. It is highly unlikely that Switzerland would be “punished” for not adhering to the criminal western imposed economy and sovereignty interfering sanctions.

To the contrary, Switzerland could be a shining example for neutrality and non-interference in other nations’ business.

This position of neutrality and “bridge-building arbiter” could be enhanced by Switzerland’s position in the UN Security Council (UNSC). Today, 9 June, the UN General Assembly is voting on five of the ten non-permanent members of the UNSC. Switzerland is a candidate likely to be approved.

By adopting the rational and moral qualities of Head of Peace and Democracy, Switzerland might become a mediator of Peace for countries in conflict, like Ukraine and Russia, alias US and Russia. Switzerland might influence the dark-vibrating cult organizations of the WEF, WHO and the BIS – whom she grants residency on her soil, to become humanity friendly, seeking conflict resolutions, more distributive equality for the good of the people; promoting human rights rather than the sale of weapons.

In essence, Switzerland might and could insist that the WEF adhere to its noble Mission Statement “Committed to Improving the State of the World”.

“Peace is Love, and Love is Peace”

Switzerland could turn the dystopian, Orwellian “War is Peace and Peace is War” into what it should be in a rational and peace-loving world – “Peace is Love, and Love is Peace.”

This new / old role of Swiss neutrality could only become a winning proposition – a win-win for everyone.

It could spark an enlightenment way beyond Swiss frontiers, touching even the powerful financial giants to seek higher levels of coexistence with the inhabitants of this unique Mother Earth, universe, and find a more equality-prone distribution of Mother Earths generous resources.

Why not? Once the collective consciousness rises above the material values, billions and trillions become mere numbers and cease to represent values and “standing”.

It would be a push towards a peoples’ victory over conflict, hatred and envy, it might become truly a massive “We shall Overcome”.

Tell me one good reason, why the human mind should not have the capacity to make this true. And remember – NO FEAR is our strongest weapon against the dark adversaries.

*

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

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.

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

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

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

***

Der Artikel „Amerikas neue ‚Todesengel‘: Injizieren der Menschheit eine genverändernde, todbringende Technologie. Mediziner können sich nicht auf Unwissenheit berufen“ in „Global Research“ vom 11. Juli 2022 beginnt mit einem bemerkenswerten Zitat, das dem ehemaligen SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann im Prozess in Israel 1961 zugeschrieben wird – und unwillkürlich Parallelen zur politischen Situation in der heutigen Welt heraufbeschwört. Eichmann galt in der internationalen Öffentlichkeit als einer der Hauptverantwortlichen für die „Endlösung“ der Juden in Europa:

„Die Schuld für den Massenmord liegt allein bei den politischen Führern… Ich klage die Führer an, meinen Gehorsam zu missbrauchen. Damals wurde Gehorsam verlangt, so wie er auch in Zukunft von den Untergebenen verlangt werden wird. Gehorsam wird als eine Tugend gelobt.” (1)

Für die deutsche Philosophin und Professorin für Politische Theorie Hannah Arendt lag das bestimmende Motiv Eichmanns neben persönlichem Ehrgeiz in einer „irregeleiteten Pflichterfüllung und einem bürokratischen Kadavergehorsam“ (2). Es sei gewissermaßen „schiere Gedankenlosigkeit“ des Schreibtischtäters gewesen, die ihn dafür prädisponierte, ohne „teuflisch-dämonische Tiefe“ zu einem der größten Verbrecher jener Zeit zu werden (3).

Im nationalsozialistischen Genozid hingegen sah Arendt einen „Verwaltungsmassenmord“ (administrative massacres) (4) und – weit vorausschauend – die Vision einer hochtechnisierten und bürokratischen Welt, in der der Völkermord und die Ausrottung „überflüssig“ (oder „nutzlos“) erscheinender Bevölkerungsgruppen geräuschlos und ohne moralische Empörung der Öffentlichkeit zur Gewohnheit werden würden (5).

Für die Totalitarismus-Forscherin Arendt besteht der Mechanismus totalitärer Herrschaft sowohl in einer „staatlicherseits vorgeschriebenen Umwertung der Werte“ (6) als auch in einer „unaufhaltsamen Verstärkung des Terrors, der die Menschen unbeweglich mache“ (7).

Arendts persönliche Antwort auf das nationalsozialistische „Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit“ bestand nach Auffassung des Historikers Hans Mommsen im Bekenntnis zum „Rebellentum“, einer ethisch begründeten Verweigerung des Individuums.

In einem einführenden Essay zu Arendts Buch „Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein Bericht von der Banalität des Bösen“ schreibt Mommsen:

„Dem Individuum forderte sie ab, was sie selbst zu praktizieren versuchte, den existenzphilosophisch begründeten Sprung in das Reich der Freiheit zu wagen; (…) und einen wirklichen Neuanfang zu wagen.“ (8)

Dieser Text aus dem Jahr 1986 hat bis heute nichts von seiner analytischen Schärfe und Brisanz verloren.

Arendt selbst spricht in ihrem Buch von einer grundsätzlichen Frage, die in allen Nachkriegsprozessen berührt wurde und die das Wesen und das Funktionieren der menschlichen Urteilskraft betrifft:

„Was wir in diesen Prozessen fordern, ist, dass Menschen auch dann noch Recht von Unrecht zu unterscheiden fähig sind, wenn sie wirklich auf nichts anderes mehr zurückgreifen können als auf das eigene Urteil, das zudem unter solchen Umständen in schreiendem Gegensatz zu dem steht, was sie für die einhellige Meinung ihrer gesamten Umgebung halten müssen.“ (9)

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Schwerpunkte: Klinische-, Pädagogische- und Medien-Psychologie). Als Pensionär arbeitete er viele Jahre als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung und eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und Frieden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Noten

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-new-angels-death/5786216

2. Arendt, Hannah (1964). (8. Auflage November 2013). Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein Bericht von der Banalität des Bösen. München, S. 25

3. a. O., S. 57

4. a. O., S. 58

5. a. O., S. 18

6. a. O., S. 57

7. a. O., S. 26 f.

8. a. O., S. 43

9. a. O., S. 69 

Featured image is licensed under the public domain

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

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

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

AI Translation of Emanuel Pastreich’s article

エマニュエル・パストライヒの記事のAI翻訳

***

7月8日、日本の古都は蒸し暑い一日だった。日本政界の最高実力者、安倍晋三が奈良近鉄の駅前で地元自民党候補の街頭演説をしていると、突然大きな音が鳴り響き、異様な煙が立ち込めた。

信じられないような聴衆の反応だった。珍しいほど集まった群衆の中で、誰一人として逃げだしたり、地面に伏せたりする者がいなかったのだ。

安倍元総理の護衛は、演説中、安倍元総理から異様に離れていたが、安倍元総理をかばおうとも、安全な場所に連れ出そうともせず、無表情で眺めていた。

数秒後、安倍元総理は崩れ落ちるように地面に倒れ、定番の青いジャケット、血で染まった白いシャツ、そして北朝鮮にいる日本人拉致被害者との連帯を示すトレードマークの青いバッジを身に着けて、無表情に横たわっていた。おそらくは瞬殺されたのだろう。

その時になってようやく、護衛は安倍元総理の背後に立っていた山上徹也容疑者を取り押さえた。山上との攻防は、プロの手口ではなく、テレビの視聴者のために演出されたダンスのような形をとっていた。

マスコミはすぐに、山上が安倍元総理に個人的な不満を持つ４１歳の元海上自衛隊員であると特定した。

山上は 現場から逃げようともせず、ボディーガードにつかまったときも、アンバランスなほど大きい手製の拳銃を持ったままだった。 連行されてからも迷うことなく警察にすべてを話したそうだ。

安倍元総理が歩道に倒れた後も、群衆の誰一人として逃げ出すこともなく、どこから撃ってきたのか周囲を見渡すこともなかった。誰もが、魔法のように、銃撃が終わったことを理解しているようだった。

そして、コメディが始まった。安倍首相をリムジンに乗せて連れていくのではなく、彼の周りに立っていた人達は、ただ通行人に声をかけ、誰か医者はいないかと尋ねただけだったのだ。マスコミはすぐにこの事件を「単独の銃撃犯」と決めつけ、山上がカリスマ的な宗教家である川瀬カヨが始めた新興宗教 「世界平和統一家庭連合」 と関係があり、母親の不幸をその団体と交流があった安倍元総理大臣のせいにするというおもしろおかしいストーリーを繰り返した。

世界平和統一家庭連合には文鮮明師が創設した統一教会の信者がいることから、ジャーナリストのマイケル・ペンは、安倍元総理を死に至らしめた陰謀は文鮮明師との共謀の結果であるという結論に飛びついたのである。大手メディアはこの奇抜なストーリーを受け入れたが、日本の警察や保安当局は別の解釈を打ち消すことはできなかった。ブロガーの北川高嗣氏は７月１０日、安倍晋三は山上氏が立っていた後ろからではなく前から撃たれ、駅前広場を挟んだ交差点の両側にある高いビルの上、あるいは両方から斜めに発射されたに違いないとする資料を掲載した。

北川高嗣の投稿

事件の日の夜に外科医が「弾丸は2発あった」と発表するまで、マスコミは、根拠なく「安倍元総理は１発しか撃たれていない」と主張していたが、北川の弾道分析は、マスコミの発表よりも科学的なものだった。

人混みの中、かなり離れたところに立っていた不格好な自作銃を持った男が、安倍元総理に２発当てることができる可能性は低い。銃の専門家であるタレントの小園浩己は、『スッキリ』（7月12日放送）で「そんなことはありえない」と発言している。

世界へのメッセージ

安倍晋三は、日本で最も有力な政治家であり、現在の地政学的危機から生まれた前例のない不確実性に対応するために権力を得た。日本の政治家や官僚は権力者である安倍晋三の元に集まっている。そのような力ある人物が、近くに十分な警備体制もないまま射殺されるのは理にかなっていない。

おそらく、このメッセージは日本の視聴者には伝わらなかっただろうが、 日本の政治家にとって、ほかの国の政治家にとって、明確な警告であった。

安倍首相が撃たれたのとほぼ同じ瞬間に政権を追われたボリス・ジョンソンが辞任し、７月１１日に突然ウーバーの影響力行使疑惑で告発され、数カ月の大規模な抗議行動にも動せざるエマニュエル・マクロンは突然罷免を要求されている件もあり、 １４日に　 イタリアのマリオ・ドラギ首相が突然に辞任したことなどをみれば、G7核心政治家が一週間以内に政治運命を問われるようになったことは不可思議である。

安倍首相の白いシャツに赤で描かれていたメッセージは、グローバリストのシステムを受け入れ、コロナ体制を推進しても、G7加盟国のリーダーであっても安全を保証するのに十分ではないというものだった。

安倍首相は、世界中の国家のガバナンスを蝕む目に見えない癌による、今までで、最高位の権力を持つ犠牲者であった。この癌は、意思決定を国家政府から、民間のスーパーコンピューター、民間投資グループ、テルアビブ、ロンドン、レストンの嘱託情報会社、そして世界経済フォーラム、NATO、世界銀行、その他の大規模な機関が、億万長者によって雇われた戦略思想家たちのネットワークに移行させるための制度的病である。

第４次産業革命は、中央政府が効率化の名の下に、全ての情報のインプットとアウトプットの管理をFacebook、Amazon、Oracle、Google、SAPなどに移行するために採用された口実である。アメリカの資本家J.P.モルガンが言った言葉がある。「政治における全てのものには２つの理由がある：もっともな理由と本当の理由である。」

安倍首相が暗殺されたことで、これらのテクノロジーの圧制者とその主人は一線を超え、国家権力の威光をまとった者が命令に従わなければ、平気で殺戮されると宣言したのである。

日本の問題点

日本は、アジアで唯一「西側」に加わることができる先進国として、排他的なG7クラブのメンバーであり、最高の情報共有プログラムである「ファイブ・アイズ」との協力関係を結ぶ（そして可能ならばそのメンバーになる）資格があるとして、称賛を浴びている。

それにもかかわらず、日本は世界的な金融業者、そして新世界秩序のためのワシントンの軍産複合体やウォール街の計画立案者たちの期待や要求に逆らい続けてきたのである。

ワシントンで日本の足元にも及ばない同盟国として常に非難されてきたのはアジアの韓国だったが、実は米国国防総省や世界経済全体の乗っ取りに忙しい超富裕層が、日本の頼りなさに疑念を抱き始めていたのである。

世界銀行やゴールドマン・サックス、あるいはハーバード大学のベルファーセンター（科学国際問題研究所）のグローバリスト・システムでは、「先進国」の優秀な人材は決まった道を歩むことになる。

オーストラリア、フランス、ドイツ、ノルウェー、イタリアなどのエリートは、流暢な英語を学び、ワシントン、ロンドン、ジュネーブのシンクタンクや ジェネーヴの大学院か研究院にしばらく通い、銀行、政府機関、 シンク・タンクなどで安泰な収入を確保し、エコノミスト誌の常識、親金融の視点を福音書とするのである。

ところが、日本は、独自の高度な銀行システムを持ち、工作機械ではドイツに匹敵するほどの先端技術を持ち、ノーベル賞受賞者を多数輩出できる高等教育システムを持ちながら、この「先進国」のモデルに倣ったリーダーを輩出できていない。

日本のエリートはほとんど海外に留学しないし、日本には優れた知的サークルがあり、海外の学会やジャーナリズムからもたらされる情報に依存することはない。

他の国と違って、日本には一流の学術誌の中にかなりの数は日本語に書かれ、しかも日本人の専門家だけを引用して書いている。実際、植物学や細胞生物学などの分野では、世界トップクラスの日本語による学術誌が存在する。

同様に、日本には深度があり、多様な国内経済があり、多国籍企業が参入しようとしても、それは容易ではない。

過去10年間の富の大規模な集中は、超富裕層が秘密のグローバル・ガバナンスのための見えないネットワークを作ることを可能にした。その代表が、世界経済フォーラムのヤング・グローバル・リーダーズ・プログラムや（中国を対象に）シュワルツマン・スカラーズ・プログラムである。これらの新進気鋭の政策担当者は、各国の政府、産業界、研究機関に潜入し、グローバリズムのアジェンダが滞りなく進行するように仕向けている。

このようなグローバル・ガバナンスの狡猾な形態によって、日本も影響を受けている。しかしながら、英語が上手な日本人、ハーバードに留学している日本人が、日本社会で必ずしも活躍しているわけではない。

日本の外交や経済には、頑固なまでの独立性があり、これは、コロナのキャンペーンでは、ダボス会議の参加者の間で懸念されたものである。

安倍政権（とその後の岸田政権）は、世界経済フォーラムや世界保健機関のワクチン接種や社会的距離に関する指令に従ったものの、日本政府は他の国々に比べて市民生活への介入は少なく、各組織にワクチン接種を義務付けることもあまり上手くいかなかった。

QRコードを用いてワクチン未接種者にサービスの提供を遮断することは、他の「先進国」と比較して、日本では、限定的に実施されるだけであった。

さらに、日本政府は要求されたデジタル化のアジェンダを完全に実行することを拒否しているため、多国籍テクノロジー大手企業が他の国で行使している日本に対する支配力を否定している。このような日本のデジタル化の遅れを受け、ワシントンD.C.のウィルソンセンター(Wilson Center)は、デジタル庁の牧島かれん大臣（2021年9月にグローバル金融からの圧力で発足）を招いて、なぜ日本のデジタル化がこれほど遅れているのかを説明させた（7月13日）。

日本人は、デジタル化、つまり政府や大学の機能の多国籍ハイテク企業への全面的なアウトソーシング、情報の私有化は自分達の利益にはならないことをますます認識しているので、それに対する抵抗が根強い。

日本では、政府の機関が依然として 文書記録の使用を含む古い慣習に従って運営され続けている。日本人は今でも本を読み、韓国人や中国人ほどAIに夢中にはなっていない。

日本の西洋文明に対する抵抗は、1867年の明治維新までさかのぼることができる。日本は、西洋の思想を日本語に翻訳し、日本の概念と組み合わせて、複雑な国内言説を作り出した。それを基礎にして西洋のまねではなく、融合的なガバナンス体制を作ろうとした。明治維新で作られたガバナンス体制は、日本と中国の前近代的な先例に基づいて、19世紀のプロイセンやイギリスから引き出された行政ののモデルを使って、複合的な制度であった。

その結果、大臣が官僚の領分を君臨する封建的なガバナンス習慣が生み出され、官僚は自分たちの予算を注意深く管理し、内部の指揮命令系統を維持することになったのだ。

安倍元総理大臣の問題点

安倍晋三は現代で最も優れた政治家の一人であり、米国やその他の国際機関との取引には常に前向きであるが、日本をグローバリストの支配下に置くことに関しては常に慎重であった。

安倍元総理は日本を帝国として再生させるという夢を抱いており、自らを明治天皇の再来だと考えていた。

安倍元総理がイギリスのジョンソン氏やフランスのマクロン氏と違うのは、テレビに出ることよりも、日本国内の実際の意思決定プロセスをコントロールすることに関心があったという点だ。

一部の人が試みているように、安倍元総理大臣の治世を美化する必要はない。彼は、政府の危険な民営化、教育の空洞化を推し進め、中流階級から富裕層への大規模な資産移動を後押しした腐敗したインサイダーであった。

極右団体である日本会議を利用して、超国家主義的なアジェンダを推進し、日本の帝国時代の最も不快な側面を美化したことは、深く憂慮すべきことであった。安倍元総理は、どんなに愚かな軍事費増額にも揺るぎない支持を示し、アメリカのあらゆる無駄遣いも喜んで同意した。

しかしながら、岸信介首相の孫であり、安倍晋太郎外相の息子である安倍晋三は、幼少期から優れた政治力をもっていたことは事実である。政治的な道具を自在に使いこなし、世界中の企業や政府のトップを、アジアの政治家としては異例なほど簡単に呼び寄せることができた。

私は、２度ほど安倍元総理に直接お会いしたが、その印象を鮮明に覚えている。シニカルな政治を展開する一方で、日本人が「素直」と呼ぶ純粋さと素朴さを聴衆に発し、魅了する。彼の態度は、彼の信奉者の忠誠心を培い、彼の政策に敵対する人々を圧倒するような、受容性と開放性をほのめかしていた。

つまり、安倍元総理は、自民党内や国際社会で、相手の立場を考えて行動することができる優れた政治家であり、かつ、思いやりのある慈悲深い指導者であるかのように見えた。

そのため、安倍元総理の民族的ナショナリズムを敵視する日本人が、それでも安倍元総理を支持したのは、安倍元総理が日本に国際政治のリーダーシップを取り戻すことができる唯一の政治家だと考えたからである。

日本の外交官や軍人は、日本のビジョンの欠如について限りなく心配している。つまり、彼らが日本は大国となる資格を全て備えているにもかかわらず、受験だけが得意だが、リスクを取ろうとしない、臆病な東大卒の男たちによって永遠に運営されていることを悪夢としてみている。

そのため、日本はプーチンや習近平のような長期政権は当然できず、マクロンやジョンソンのような人物さえを輩出することはない。

安倍元総理は歴史を書くリーダーであることを望み、国際舞台でその役割を果たすのに必要な人脈、才能、冷酷さを持っていた。彼はすでに日本の歴史上最も長く総理大臣を務め、3回目の総理大臣就任を計画していたが、その時、彼は打ちのめされたのである。

言うまでもなく、世界経済フォーラムの背後にいる権力者は、たとえグローバルなアジェンダに適合していたとしても、安倍元総理のような国家指導者を欲していない。

何がいけなかったのか？

安倍元総理は、中国やロシアとの経済的関係が強まる一方で、米国、イスラエル、NATO諸国との政治的・安全保障的統合が急速に進む中、過去10年間に日本が直面した不可能なジレンマを、伝統的な国家運営の手段を用いて処理することができたのである。

日本がロシアや中国との友好関係を維持しながら、米国やその同盟国とこれほどまでに接近することは不可能であった。しかし、安倍元総理はほぼこれを成功させた。

安倍元総理は冷静沈着で、自らの能力と人脈を駆使して、日本独自の空間を切り開こうとした。その際、安倍元総理が頼りにしたのは、外務省の谷内正太郎という戦略的思想家による高度な外交術だった。

安倍元総理大臣と谷内大使は対照的だが効果的な地政学的戦略で東西両国に働きかけ、秘密外交を駆使して、日本を再び大国のゲームに参加させるための長期的な取引にこぎ着けた。

一方、安倍元総理はオバマ大統領とトランプ大統領に、韓国やオーストラリア、その他のインドよりもさらに踏み込んでワシントンの立場を支持する日本を示したのである。当時、安倍元総理は、米国の東アジア計画に合致した再軍備を推し進めるために、国内で多大な批判を受けることもいとわなかった。

安倍元総理は、親米的なレトリックと兵器システムの購入によってワシントンの政治家に感銘を与えると同時に、中国とロシアを最高レベルで関与させた。これは並大抵のことではなく、ワシントンDC内はもとより、北京やモスクワでも高度なロビー活動が行われた。

ロシアの件では、安倍元総理は2019年にロシアとの複雑な平和条約の交渉に成功し、関係を正常化し、北方領土に関する紛争を解決することができた。ワシントンが東京への制裁圧力を強めるなかでも、日本企業のエネルギー開発の契約を確保し、ロシアへの投資機会を進めることができたのだ。

ジャーナリストの田中宇は、ロシア政府が他の日本政府代表の入国を禁止した後でも、安倍はロシアへの入国を禁止されなかったと指摘する。

安倍は中国とも真剣に関わり、長期的な制度的関係を固め、 自由貿易協定交渉を進めて、その第15回協議（2019年4月9日～12日）で突破口を開いた。安倍は中国の有力政治家とすぐに接触できた。安倍のレトリックは厳しい反中国的なものであったが、中国の政治家からは信頼され、予測可能な人物であると考えられていた。

その結末

安倍元総理大臣暗殺に至るプロセスの引き金となったと思われる決定的な出来事は、マドリードでのNATO首脳会議（6月28～30日）である。

NATOサミットは、裏の隠れたプレーヤーが新しい世界秩序の法則を打ち立てた瞬間であった。NATOは、ヨーロッパを守るための同盟を越えて、世界経済フォーラムや世界中の億万長者や銀行家と協力し、別の時代のイギリス東インド会社のように機能する「世界軍隊」として、説明のつかない軍事大国に進化する道を歩んでいるのである。

NATOサミットに日本、韓国、オーストラリア、ニュージーランドの首脳を招待したことは、このNATOの変革の重要な部分であった。

これら４カ国は、情報共有（ハイテク多国籍企業に国家の軍事分析機能をアウトソーシング）、先端兵器システムの使用（ロッキード・マーチンなどの多国籍企業の担当者が管理しなければならない）、共同演習（抑圧的な意思決定プロセスの前例を作る）、その他の国民国家内の指揮系統を弱める「共同」アプローチなど、安全保障における前例のないレベルの統合に加わるよう招待されたのである。

7月１日に東京に戻った岸田が最初に会ったのは、間違いなく安倍だった。岸田は、バイデン政権が日本に要求した無理難題の条件を安倍に説明した。

ところで、ホワイトハウスは今や、ビクトリア・ヌーランド（国務次官＝政治担当）ら、ブッシュ一派の訓練を受けたグローバリストの完全な道具と化している。

日本に対してなされた要求は、自殺行為のようなものであった。

日本はロシアへの経済制裁を強化し、ロシアとの戦争の可能性に備え、中国との戦争にも備えようとしていた。日本の軍事、情報、外交の機能は、NATOに集まる不透明な民間業者の集団に移されることになる見通しであった。

安倍元総理が死の直前の1週間に何をしたかはわからない。おそらく、ワシントンDC、北京、モスクワ、そしてエルサレム、ベルリン、ロンドンにあるすべての人脈を駆使して、日本がバイデンを全面的に支持する国いう印象を世界に与えながら、裏で中国やロシアとのデタントを構造する方法を模索していた。多段的な対応を考え出し、高度な政治劇を展開したのであろう。

安倍のこの対応は問題点があった。他国の政府が機能を停止している中で、日本がこのような高度な対応をしたことで、主要国で唯一、行政府が半端に機能している国になってしまったことである。

思えば、安倍元総理の死は、安倍元総理大臣暗殺のちょうど２年前、2020年7月9日に行方不明になったソウル市長の朴元淳と酷似している。朴氏はソウル市庁舎で、中央政府が押し付けていたコロナの社会的距離を置く政策に反発し、手を打った。翌日には遺体が発見され、同僚からのセクハラ容疑に悩んだ末の自殺と即断された。

今、何をすべきか？

現在の状況の危険性を過小評価するべきではない。ジャーナリストの田中宇が指摘するように、米国が自分たちのリーダーシップを発揮するための最良の希望を破壊し、グローバリストが日本に、ワシントンや他のパラサイト階級の隠れ立役者に依存する弱腰の総理大臣を延々と続けさせようとしていると認識する日本人が増えれば、そうした展開は日米の完全な断絶をもたらし、政治または軍事衝突につながる可能性があるのだ。

ワシントンD.C.の日本担当トップであるマイケル・グリーンが、彼の機関であるCSIS（戦略国際問題研究所）のホームページに掲載された安倍元総理への追悼文を書かなかったことは、それを物語っている。

グリーン氏は、ブッシュ政権の国家安全保障会議のベテランで、CSISのヘンリー・A・キッシンジャー・アジア・プログラム議長であり、「Line of Advantage: Japan’s Grand Strategy in the Era of Abe Shinzo 」(有利な一線：安倍晋三政権の日本大戦略)の著者である。グリーンは安倍元総理と、おそらくアメリカ人の中で最も親しい間柄にあった。

安倍元総理への追悼文は、クリストファー・ジョンストン（CSISの日本科長、元CIA職員）が原案を作成した。この奇妙な人選は、暗殺があまりにセンシティブな問題なので、グリーンは本能的に最初のレスポンスを書くのを避け、知名度低い専門の職員に任せたかったのだろう。

ワシントンでも東京でも、その他の場所でも、責任ある知識人や市民にとって、この不透明な暗殺事件に対する有効な対応はただ一つである。

それは国際的な科学的調査の要求である。そのプロセスは痛みを伴うかもしれないが、我々の政府がいかに見えない力に乗っ取られているかという現実に向き合うことを強いることになるだろう。

しかしながら、真の背後関係を見抜けなければ、国家のトップに責任が押し付けられ、グローバル金融の犯罪を隠すために、国と国の間の紛争に巻き込まれることになりかねない。

前回、日本政府が軍部の統制を失ったのは、1932年5月15日の犬養毅首相、1936年2月26日の斎藤実首相の暗殺が一因であった。

しかしながら、国際社会にとっては、1914年6月28日のオーストリア・ハンガリー帝国のフェルディナント大公暗殺事件をきっかけに、ロスチャイルド、ウォーバーグなどの銀行家が世界経済を統合的に操り、緊張状態を世界大戦へと導く環境を作ったことの方が重要なのである。

私がこのような文章を書くのは容易ではない。私は若い頃から日本の文化に深い関心を持ち、「源氏物語」から夏目漱石の小説まで幅広く日本文学を読んで深く感銘を受けたアメリカ人である。

私はアメリカの大学で日本文学専攻の教授を１０年勤めた。その前は東京大学の大学院で博士課程まで勉強した。私にとっては日本ほど馴染みがある国はない。

私が経験したアメリカの9.11の事件と同じく、この暗殺を口実にして日本国を支配する権力に抗う市民を弾圧するようになることを懸念する。

この事件の国際調査のために日本人と一緒に努力したい。

それにおいての日米同盟は真実のための同盟であるべきで、平和のための同盟でもあるべきであり、多国籍企業に対抗する同盟であるべきである。

安倍晋三元総理大臣暗殺について 言明します from Emanuel Pastreich on Vimeo.

*

読者への注意：上または下の共有ボタンをクリックしてください。InstagramとTwitterでフォローし、TelegramChannelに登録してください。Global Researchの記事を自由に再投稿し、広く共有してください。

エマニュエル・パストライヒは、ワシントンDC、ソウル、東京、ハノイにオフィスを持つシンクタンクであるアジアインスティチュートの会長を務めました。パストライヒは、未来都市環境研究所の所長も務めています。パストライヒは、2020年2月に、米国大統領の立候補を独立者として宣言しました。

彼はGlobalResearchの定期的な寄稿者です。

注目の画像：ビデオ映像からの画像は、元日本の安倍晋三首相が、銃撃者に撃たれる直前の2022年7月8日に奈良で選挙演説を行っているところを示しています。（共同通信）

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

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

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

First published on Global Research on July 11, 2020

***

The United States wants to turn Taiwan into an Asian Ukraine. The goal is to use it as a weapon against a China, a country that has been declared an adversary.

These are amended remarks given by the author at an event held by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute titled “NATO and Global Empire.” The event can be watched in full here .

This year’s NATO Summit took place amid a geopolitical seismic wave crashing upon Eurasia: Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. Contrary to the musings of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and its loyal servants in the West, NATO is not a defensive institution but rather the root cause of the dangerous confrontation developing between the U.S. and Russia. NATO provoked Russia to intervene in Ukraine by sponsoring a right-wing coup in 2014 and facilitating a regime of ethnic cleansing in the Donbas region for the next eight years. NATO is now prolonging the special military operation in Ukraine through massive military aid packages and economic sanctions. True to imperialism, NATO has no intention of stopping with Ukraine. The military alliance not only has plans to expand further into Eurasia to provoke Russia but also has set its sights on China in the Asia-Pacific.

NATO’s ambitions are nothing more than an extension of U.S. foreign policy objectives. The primary objective of U.S. imperialism at this moment in history is the containment of China—a euphemism for war. While U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has denied any intention of creating an “Asian NATO,” U.S. and NATO actions say otherwise. NATO invited Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea to this year’s Summit. NATO’s so-called Strategic Concept which came out of the Summit placed heavy focus on the “threats” posed by China and went so far as to call the socialist country “malicious” in its supposed targeting of “Alliance security.”

Beyond the Summit, the United States has led the way in developing military and political alliances that mirror NATO. In 2020, the Trump administration revived the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (known as the Quad) to bring India, Japan, and Australia further into the anti-China fold. However, members of the Quad are careful not to engage in a united military pact. The Biden administration was thus compelled to launch AUKUS in 2021, a mini-Asian NATO. AUKUS brings the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia into a military alliance which promises to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines and encourage Australia to increase military spending to satisfy its imperialist partners, all in the name of countering the so-called “China threat.” On June 24th, the U.S. announced the formation of the Partners in the Blue Pacific with New Zealand, Australia, and the U.K. in an obvious response to China’s recent security agreement with the Solomon Islands.

The U.S.’s emphasis on building up military alliances in the Asia-Pacific against China can be traced back to former President Barack Obama’s Pivot to Asia strategy. The Pivot to Asia has since morphed into an “Indo-Pacific Strategy” that has garnered only lukewarm results. China’s stabilizing economic presence in the region presents a counterweight to the U.S.’s military ambitions. Even the most unfriendly nations toward China, such as Japan, must carefully negotiate between its loyalties to the U.S. and its need for trade relations with China. For all the talk of an Asian NATO or a stronger military alliance in the region, the United States has been forced up until this point to rely on bilateral relationships to forward its aggressive policy toward China.

Still, NATO’s decision to shift attention on the Pacific is a clear and present threat to world peace. Even the Washington Post-owned Foreign Policy magazine has warned of a “Global Cold War” arising out of NATO’s interest in China. The U.S. government, Northrup Grumman-funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has admitted that NATO is returning to a “Cold War posture.” A better term for the strategy is full-spectrum dominance. The alliances that the U.S. is attempting to build in the Pacific are nothing more than an extension of a decade-long militaristic posture toward China which has brought more than half of the U.S.’s military arsenal to the region.

This brings the question of Taiwan into view. It’s clear to anyone paying attention that the U.S. views Taiwan as the single most important flashpoint for its military strategy against China. U.S. President Joe Biden has already approved four different weapons transfers to Taiwan over the course of eighteen months. Biden has also verbalized on three different occasions that his administration is committed to defending the island from a so-called invasion from China.

These moves are dangerous violations of the status quo on the Taiwan question established during the tumultuous latter stages of the Cold War. The recognition of the People’s Republic of China by the United Nations in 1971 and the normalization of relations between the U.S. and China in 1979 affirmed Taiwan as a Chinese province under the One-China principle. However, the United States under successive administrations has moved away from the status quo by providing clear political support to separatist forces in legislation such as the Taipei Act which advocates for Taiwan’s participation within prominent international bodies. Furthermore, the United States has increased arm sales to Taiwan in violation of Article 6 of the 1982 Joint Communiqué between China and the U.S. which states:

“Having in mind the foregoing statements of both sides, the United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.”

To get a picture of just how much the U.S. has violated this clause, the U.S. maintains a backlog of weapons transfers to Taiwan worth $14 billion and this number is only set to grow with the announcement of $120 million more in assistance to Taiwan’s naval forces earlier this month.

Taiwan is intimately connected to the U.S.’s overall strategy of developing a NATO-like infrastructure in the Pacific. U.S. military strategists and talking heads have become obsessed with likening Ukraine to Taiwan. Their argument is that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine means that the U.S. must escalate in Taiwan to protect the island from China. The problem with this formulation is two-fold. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Taiwan is a province of China. Where the parallel truly resides is that similar to Ukraine being used as a pawn to forward the NATO encirclement of Russia, Taiwan is being used as a chip in the U.S.’s plans to militarily encircle China.

A key country to watch following the NATO summit is Japan. Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pre-empted the NATO summit by stating that China should be forced to “give up seizing Taiwan.” Japan currently stations more than 120 U.S. military bases and has already made a commitment to increase military spending in a show of loyalty to the U.S.’s anti-China geopolitical strategy. With South Korea’s election of a new pro-U.S. president and Australia’s adoption of a hostile policy toward China, the U.S. will likely seek firmer commitments from its so-called allies on the question of Taiwan.

The U.S. sees in the Taiwan question both a profitable venture for its defense industry and an opportunity to build the case for war with China. But the U.S.’s legitimacy is on the decline and China’s prestige in Asia, the Pacific, and the rest of the world is on the rise. The U.S. doesn’t merely seek alliances; it needs them. Military encirclement and the host of aggressive policies that the U.S. employs against China cannot succeed in isolation, if they can succeed at all. The U.S. understands that any conflict with China over Taiwan would require a level of support in the region similar to the servitude demonstrated by Europe against Russia.

Such a pursuit is incredibly reckless for a host of reasons. First, China presents no tangible military threat and in fact makes peace a fundamental priority in the international arena. China has only a single military base abroad and has not participated in a military conflict in more than four decades. Furthermore, while China seeks peaceful resolution to the issue of reunification with Taiwan, it will not tolerate any attempt by the U.S. to engineer independence or separatism. So-called Taiwan “independence” is China’s red-line, just as Russia’s red-line was NATO expansion into Ukraine and beyond.

The U.S.’s provocations in Taiwan thus risk a hot war with China that would inevitably lead to nuclear exchange. A hot war with China would destroy whatever stability exists around the world and create an economic and human catastrophe far greater than what has occurred over the course of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. Those who dismiss these real and legitimate threats to humanity in favor of Sinophobia, Yellow Peril, and New Cold War talking points are walking in lock-step with the U.S. empire. It is critical that we resist this reactionary defeatism, oppose any and all attempts of the U.S. to form a NATO-like infrastructure in the Pacific, and align ourselves with all global forces, including China, standing on the side of self-determination and peace.

*

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

Danny Haiphong’s work can be followed on Twitter @SpiritofHo and Telegram at The Haiphong Press. You can support Danny on Patreon by clicking this link. You can contact him at [email protected].

Featured image is from BAR

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

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

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

First published by Global Research on July 15, 2022

***

We are now seeing more records of side effects from the pediatric COVID-19 vaccines for the most recent age group authorized by the FDA, babies and toddlers between the ages of 6 months and 4 years old. This age group was authorized to be injected with COVID-19 vaccines less than 1 month ago, on June 17th.

In the most recent update to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database this past Friday (July 8, 2021), 123 new records were added to this age group, with 137 cases now recorded since the FDA authorization. (Source.)

As we reported on July 6th, when the first few cases were beginning to show up in VAERS for the babies and toddlers, hallucinations are a very troubling side effect in this very young age group.

With these 137 cases recorded in the past few weeks, other troubling side effects including brain injuries, seizures, and skin rashes are showing up in the database.

27 of the 137 cases listed “Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome” as a side effect.

Cleveland Clinic defines “Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome” as:

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) is a rare and life-threatening reaction to the use of any neuroleptic medication. Neuroleptics, also known as antipsychotic medications, treat and manage symptoms of many psychiatric conditions. (Source.)

I am tempted to write my emotional reaction to this news, but I want to keep this clean and G-rated.

What kind of parent would willingly inject their baby with something that has the same “rare and life-threatening reaction” as antipsychotic drugs?? No wonder some of these babies and toddlers are hallucinating!

Other side effects among these first 137 cases recorded in VAERS for babies and toddlers who are injected with the COVID-19 vaccines are: anaphylactic shock, dementia, depression, lupus, pancreatitis, colitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, encephalitis, seizures, meningitis, and all sorts of rashes. (Source.)

The most common reason for recording a case to submit to VAERS for this age group, by far, is “medication error,” where the pharmacist or doctor injected the baby with the wrong dose, either an adult dose, or a dose for an older child.

Such gross incompetency among medical staff should not surprise us, since most of the good, ethical doctors have quit or been fired over their refusal to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, or inject others with one. The ones remaining are either vaccine zealots, or worse, they know full well that these vaccines are killing and harming children, but they fear losing their job more than standing up for what is right.

As I read through the write-ups of each of these cases, it is clear that many of the toddlers are putting up a fight to resist being injected, but if it results in only getting a partial dose of the vaccine, they just inject them again.

I also noted in several of the write-ups that instead of referring to the “parent” of the child, reference is made to the “guardian,” which suggests that some of these babies and toddlers are in the foster care system, where their “guardians” have no choice but to inject their “foster children” because the child is technically a ward of the State, and the State has the right to administer any medical procedure, even experimental ones, without parental notification.

Please pray for America’s children, as the United States is one of the few, if not only, places in the world where babies this young are being injected with these toxic shots.

Those who are participating in this Satanic ritual will be held accountable at some point, and the Judge of the universe will not accept ignorance as an excuse, even if your “pastor,” or the nurse or doctor at your church, told you that these vaccines are “safe,” and you trusted them.

Christian churches are one of the most dangerous places for children today, because if you refuse to submit to the Satanic practice of vaccinating your child, you risk being reported to CPS and having your child medically kidnapped where they will remove them from your home and put them into a nice “Christian” foster home where they will receive all recommended medical procedures.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12)

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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

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

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

First published on May 22, 2022

***

Acting on an initiative from the Biden Administration, by November 2022, conveniently at the onset of the next flu season in the northern hemisphere, the World Health Organization, barring a miracle, will impose an unprecedented top-down control over the national health regulations and measures of the entire planet.

In what amounts to a stealth coup d’etat, WHO will get draconian new powers to override national sovereignty in 194 UN member countries, and to dictate their health measures with force of international law.

It is sometimes referred to as the WHO Pandemic Treaty but it is far more. Worse, most of the WHO budget comes from private vaccine-tied foundations like the Gates Foundation or from Big Pharma, a massive conflict of interest.

Draconian New WHO Powers

Doing something with stealth means doing it in a secretive or concealed manner, to prevent it being widely known and possibly opposed. This applies to the proposal given by the Biden Administration to the Geneva WHO in January 18, 2022 according to official WHO documents. The WHO hid the details of the US “amendments” for almost three months, until 12 April, just a month before the relevant body of the WHO meets to approve the radical measures. Moreover, rather than the previous 18 month waiting time to become treaty in international law, only 6 months are used this time. This is a bum’s rush. The US proposal is backed by every EU country and in total 47 countries ensuring almost certain passage.

The proposals, officially titled, “Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies: Proposal for amendments to the International Health Regulations,” were submitted by Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs (OGA) in the US Department of Health and Human Services, Loyce Pace, as “amendments” to a previously ratified 2005 WHO International Health Regulations treaty. The WHO defines that 2005 treaty thus: “the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) provide an overarching legal framework that defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders. The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States.” (emphasis added).

Ms Pace came to the Biden Administration from heading the Global Health Council, whose members include the most corrupt names in Big Pharma including Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, J&J, Abbott, Bill Gates-funded AVAC, to name a few. Her proposals for the radical transformation of WHO “pandemic” and epidemic powers, could easily have been written by Gates and Big Pharma.

Before we look at what the Loyce Pace “amendments” will do to empower the transformation of WHO into a global health dictatorship with unprecedented powers to overrule judgments of any national governments, one stealthy legal issue must be noted. By disguising a complete change in the 2005 WHO treaty powers as mere “amendments” to a ratified treaty, WHO claims, along with the Biden Administration, that the approval of the amendments requires no new ratification debate by member governments. This is stealth. With no national debate by elected representatives, the unelected WHO will become a global superpower over life and death in the future. Washington and WHO have deliberately restricted the process of public participation to ram this through.

A De Facto New Law

As required, the WHO finally published the US “amendments.” It shows the deletions and as well the new additions. What the Biden Administration changes do is to transform a previously advisory role for the WHO to national governments on not only pandemic responses but also everything tied to national “health,” with an entirely new power to override national health agencies if the WHO Director General, now Tedros Adhanom, determines. The US Biden Administration and WHO have colluded to create an entirely new treaty which will shift all health decisions from a national or local level to Geneva, Switzerland and WHO.

Typical of the Washington amendments to the existing WHO Treaty is Article 9. The US change is to insert WHO “shall” and delete “may”: “If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall may…,. In the same article now deleted is “offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned…” The views or judgment of say, Germany or India, or USA health authorities become irrelevant. WHO will be able to override national experts and dictate as international law its mandates for any and all future pandemics as well as even epidemics or even local health issues.

Moreover in the new proposed Article 12 on “Determination of a public health emergency of international concern, public health emergency of regional concern, or intermediate health alert,” WHO head–now Tedros in his new 5-year term–alone can decide to declare an emergency, even without agreement of the member state.

The WHO head will then consult his relevant WHO “Emergency Committee” on Polio, Ebola, Bird Flu, COVID or whatever they declare to be a problem. In short this is a global dictatorship over citizen health by one of the most corrupt health bodies in the world. The members of a given WHO Emergency Committee are chosen under opaque procedures and typically, as in the current one on polio, many members are tied to the various Gates Foundation fronts like GAVI or CEPI. Yet the selection process is entirely opaque and internal to WHO.

Among other powers the new Pandemic Treaty will give Tedros and WHO the power to mandate vaccine passports and COVID jabs worldwide. They are working on the creation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity program. Under the new “Pandemic Treaty”, when people are harmed by the WHO’s health policies, there’s no accountability. The WHO has diplomatic immunity.

Former WHO senior employee and whistleblower, Astrid Stuckelberger, now a scientist at the Institute of Global Health of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva, noted,

“if the new Pandemic Treaty is adopted by member states, “this means that the WHO’s Constitution (as per Article 9) will take precedence over each country’s constitution during natural disasters or pandemics. In other words, the WHO will be dictating to other countries, no longer making recommendations.”

Who is WHO?

The Director General of WHO would have the ultimate power under the new rules, to determine for example if say, Brazil or Germany or USA must impose a Shanghai-style pandemic lockdown or any other measures it decides. This is not good.

Especially when the head of WHO, Tedros, from the Tigray region of Ethiopia, is a former member of the Politburo of the designated terrorist (then by Washington) Marxist organization, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. He holds no medical degree, the first in WHO director-general history without such. He has a PhD in Community Health, definitely a vague field, hardly medical qualification for a global health czar. Among his published scientific papers are titles such as “The effects of dams on malaria transmission in Tigray Region.” He reportedly got his WHO job in 2017 via backing from Bill Gates, the largest private donor to WHO.

As Ethiopia Minister of Health in the Tigray-led dictatorship, Tedros was involved in a scandalous coverup of three major cholera outbreaks in the country in 2006, 2009 and 2011. An investigative report published by the Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health found that during one major cholera outbreak, “Despite laboratory identification of V cholerae as the cause of the acute watery diarrhea (AWD), the Government of Ethiopia (Tedros) decided not to declare a “cholera outbreak” for fear of economic repercussions resulting from trade embargos and decreased tourism. Further, the government, in disregard of International Health Regulations (WHO), continually refused to declare a cholera epidemic and largely declined international assistance.”

As Ethiopian Health and later Foreign Minister Tedros was accused of systematic ethnic cleansing against rival tribes in the country, especially Amharas, denying opposition supporters World Bank and other food aid, as well as nepotism, diversion of international funds for hospital construction into political support for his minority party. Ironically this is the opposite of the new WHO law Tedros backs today. On 22 September 2021 Merkel’s Germany proposed Tedros for a further term without opposition.

WHO, Gates, GERM

A hint of what’s in store under the new rules was given by WHO’s largest donor (including his GAVI), the self-appointed “Globalist Everything Czar”, Bill Gates. On his April 22 blog entry, Gates proposes something amusingly with the acronym GERM — Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization—team. It would have a “permanent organization of experts who are fully paid and prepared to mount a coordinated response to a dangerous outbreak at any time.” He says his model is the Hollywood movie, Outbreak. “The team’s disease monitoring experts would look for potential outbreaks. Once it spots one, GERM should have the ability to declare an outbreak…” It would be coordinated by, of course, Tedros’ WHO: “The work would be coordinated by the WHO, the only group that can give it global credibility.”

A dystopian notion of what could take place is the ongoing fake “Avian Flu” epidemic, H5N1, that is causing tens of millions of chickens to be terminated worldwide if even one chick tests positive for the disease.

The test is the same fraudulent PCR test used to detect COVID-19.

Recently, Dr Robert Redfield, Trump’s head of CDC, gave an interview where he “predicted” that Bird Flu will jump to humans and be highly fatal in the coming “Great Pandemic,” for which COVID-19 was a mere warm-up.

Redfield declared in a March 2022 interview,

“I think we have to recognize – I’ve always said that I think the COVID pandemic was a wakeup call. I don’t believe it’s the great pandemic. I believe the great pandemic is still in the future, and that’s going to be a bird flu pandemic for man. It’s gonna have significant mortality in the 10-50% range. It’s gonna be trouble.” 

Under the new WHO dictatorial powers, WHO could declare a health emergency on such a fraud regardless of contrary evidence.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

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

Year: 2007

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Different groups advocate for Palestine from a variety of perspectives while developing several common themes.  Advocating for Palestine contains nine presentations looking at Palestine from the viewpoint of students, Jewish activism, indigenous issues, being Palestinian-Arab in Canada, and Zionism and “Euro-Jewish whiteness”.  Several themes are common to all the discussions. 

The book starts with fear in a global perspective, recognizing that advocacy may result in personal attacks from pro-Zionist organizations working from the top down.  In Canada that top down starts with the government of Justin Trudeau, down through the media (much of which is owned by the Asper family who strongly support Israeli objectives), continuing on down through a powerful variety of pro-Israeli NGOs to the identities of a white, Christian, conservative base within the populace.

This fear is connected to “a broader project of liberation from all forms of systemic injustice”, an “anti-racist movement” with “people of all backgrounds who are critical of the globalized Israeli military-industrial complex and its link to global militarism.”  On the other side of fear is “in transforming fear into solidarity, in seeing ourselves as in relation to one another, we can build those futures [of a free Palestine and world] in the present.”

The first essay “The Elephant in the Room” discusses the unseen internalized colonialism that permeates Canadian society and the author’s recognition as to how it affects her encounters within different social situations.  Most of the racism she encounters includes “highly educated scholars, professional writers, journalists, newspaper columnist, clergy and the like.”

This racism is “cobbled together through some combination of Zionist historical narrative and contemporary Israeli propaganda, in combination with the sheer laziness of media commentators who could not …decolonize their viewpoints….This has helped Israel enjoy widespread and institutionalized impunity while committing violations of international law on an ongoing basis.”

The essay “Zionist Loyalty and Euro-Jewish Whiteness” discusses how the Jew “must be understood as simultaneously under attack and as the beneficiaries of racial privilege.”  Jews in Canada maintain a position of eternal victim to an “ascent…into whiteness by permission,” a combination of holocaust memorials and contemporary positioning within the western world today.  “Pro-Palestianism is not tolerated by an institutional Jewish community which strive for acceptance in white settler societies like Canada which are incontrovertibly racist in both their colonial histories and contemporary exclusionist postures and structures.”

The essay “Singled Out” talks about the new antisemitism, being essentially how Israel is singled out, but with comparisons to South Africa showing that criticizing Israel “may not be unique after all but is like that experienced by other states.”  The ‘new’ standard is composed of demonization (negative attacks), double standards (other countries do it to) and delegitimization (right to exist) as the new currents of antisemitism.  However, activism does focus on a particular target and in this case on a state “which refuses to be held accountable.”

“Israel Apartheid Week” [IAW] discuses the problems and successes of Israeli apartheid week and its associated boycott, divestment, and sanctions activism.  In Canada the IAW examines similarities between settler colonialism in Palestine and “Turtle Island” (North America).  As recognized elsewhere, “pro-Israeli attempts t censorship and oppression have only encouraged popular dissent and creative interventions in support of Palestine.”

The Jewish community’s values are examined in “Two Jews, Three Opinions”.  Citing recent Canadian polls, it is found they “undermine the legitimacy of the Canadian government’s claims to be acting on behalf of Jews when it sides with Israel.”  The author concludes “Neither public opinion nor a significant proportion of Jewish Canadians share our government’s uncritical support of Israel.”

Canada is an example of British colonial settlerism that compares readily to the colonial settlerism in Palestine.  The essay “Knowing and Not Knowing – Canada, Indigenous Peoples, Israel and Palestine” examines Canadian history of racism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide and its – mostly – similarities with Israel-Palestine.  Contemporary events still uphold our “enacted values”  which are “for the most part those of the corporate and security-state interests that have guided public policy.”  Violence and dispossession are still elements of current Canadian society against its indigenous people.

The media and its pro-Israel bias is critically examined in “Canadian Media and Pro-Israel Bias – An Insider’s Perspective.”  CanWest Global Communications owns a disproportionate share of Canadian media and its original owner Israel Asper maintained a strong pro-Zionist bias (now within family control).  The CBC, supposedly independent of government, carries the Trudeau government pretence of balance while extolling the virtues of Israel while ignoring Israel’s ongoing settler-colonialism in Palestine.  The word Palestine is not allowed to be used by CBC broadcasters.

“The core journalistic function of informing the public,” the “unwillingness of journalists to address the power imbalances” and the resulting “role in dissuading the public from working to hold Israel to account” when exposed will hopefully “give readers the tools to combat the pro-Israeli Bias.”

The problems and successes of Canadian activism are presented in “Palestinian Solidarity Work in Canada.”  From the discussion of strengths and opportunities the “PSM must try to keep its focus on human rights and international law.”  Part of that is the intersectionality with other groups working against racism and other societal concerns.

The final essay focusses on “Campus Palestine Activism in Ottawa from the 1970s to the 2010s”, comparing two universities and the different levels of activism through the author’s experiences.  The activism derives from Arab student movements, anti-war interests (vis a vis the Gulf wars), the rise and fall of the Oslo process, and the renewed attacks on Gaza after the 2006 elections.  The BDS movement is currently becoming more active as the “now dysfunctional PLO and discredited PA” have been abandoned.

Political rhetoric/programs have transformed to one that is more directed at international law through the BDS movement, the recognition very recently of the apartheid nature of Israel, and the discussions around the vague and poorly stated IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

In their conclusion the editors state, “the Palestinian solidarity movement s described in this book is at its core an inclusionary movement closely linked to anti-apartheid, anti-colonial, and anti-racist values, resonating with people seeking social justice and basic human rights.”

“Advocating for Palestine in Canada” is a valuable and positive examination of the Palestinian solidarity movement located in Canada.  It highlights the government, corporate, and media efforts to disguise Israeli transgressions against human rights and demonstrates that there is an ongoing and growing solidarity and understanding of Palestinian interests in a peaceful equitable solution to Israeli colonial-settlerism.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

The fall and ignominious retreat of Sri Lanka’s Gotabaya Rajapaksa has enlivened one distinct possibility.  Having formally resigned as Sri Lankan President, a point made via email from Singapore, those wishing to see him account for war crimes may get their wish.

There have been various efforts in train regarding a man who ruthlessly concluded his country’s civil war in an orgy of mass killing. The war itself, waged between the forces of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism and the minority Tamils seeking independence, was the rotten fruit of discrimination, exclusion and ethnocratic politics heralded by the passage of the Sinhala Only Act in 1956.  That legislative instrument, implemented by Prime Minister S.W.R.D Bandaranaike, made Sinhalese the country’s official language while banishing Tamils from important positions of employment.

Gotabaya’s entry into Sri Lankan politics was a fraternal affair.  His brother Mahinda, on becoming president in 2005, picked him as defence secretary.  Prior to that, “Gota” worked as a computer systems administrator at Loyola School in Los Angeles, during which time he became a US citizen.

The appointment made him overseer of the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).  “My job,” Gota stated in an interview posted on the Sri Lankan Defence Minister website, “was to understand the priorities, rationally organise those priorities in terms of what was really required for victory and flush out needs and requirements that had zero relevance to our objectives.”

In seeing the 26 year conflict to its conclusion in 2009, an estimate by the United Nations put the death toll of Tamil civilians at 40,000.  (The number may well be as high as 70,000).  The formal line taken by government forces was that the Tamils only had themselves to blame, being used as human shields by the guerrilla forces.

Such killings took place even as US President Barack Obama urged a cessation in “the indiscriminate shelling that has taken hundreds of innocent lives, including several hospitals.”  Hoping for some balance, Obama also urged “the Tamil Tigers to lay down their arms and let civilians go.  Their forced recruitment of civilians and their use of civilians as human shields is deplorable.”

The unabashed statement of command responsibility by the former defence secretary is also supported by the view of US Ambassador Patricia Butenis, whose frank assessment is available via a WikiLeaks cable.  According to Butenis, “responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President [Mahinda] Rajapaksa and his brothers.”

There is also abundant prima facie evidence that Gotabaya is responsible for the execution of a number of political leaders and their families upon surrender, was responsible for bombing civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, and insisted that the would target and kill innocent civilians, if necessary, to defeat the LTTE.

His return to public life as president took place on a populist platform denigrating his opponents for not giving “priority to national security.  They were talking about ethnic reconciliation, then they were talking about human rights issues, they were talking about individual freedoms.”   These remarks to Reuters assumed force in the wake of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings by Islamist militants that caused over 250 deaths.

Over the years, Gotabaya’s resume has been weighed down with blood.  His actions did not begin and end as defence minister.  A May report by the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) and Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS) focused on the ex-President’s role in a number of atrocities committed in 1989.  The account focuses on the role Gotabaya played as District Military Coordinating Officer of Matale District, an area that saw brutal engagements between government forces and those of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).

Between May 1989 and January 1990, Gotabaya oversaw a rule of forced disappearances (the report accounts for 1,042 victims), torture, and killing.  A number of Sri Lankan government commissions took note of over 700 forced disappearances.

His role in the disappearances was also noted by the lengthily titled Presidential Commission into Involuntary Removals or Disappearances of Persons (Central Zone) List of Persons Whose Names Transpired as Responsible for Disappearances – Central Province – Matale District.  (In a list of 24 alleged perpetrators, Gotabaya pops up at 16.)  The tenure was also characterised by an absence of interest in preventing the commission of such crimes or investigating them, “despite complaints being made to him directly by family members of the victims”.

Civil suits have become another avenue of redress in the absence of criminal proceedings, though these have been complicated by questions of state immunity.  Ahimsa Wickrematunge, daughter of assassinated Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge, is one figure seeking damages from the man she accuses of authorising the murder of her father, former editor of the Sunday Leader newspaper, in 2009.

The civil action, filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, alleged extra judicial killing, crimes against humanity and torture.  The action was dismissed because the plaintiff “cited no authority suggesting that Defendant’s citizenship alone should override the fact that all of the allegations against him concern actions taken in an official capacity as the Sri Lankan Secretary of Defense.”  In conclusion, the Court found for Gotabaya, as he was “entitled to common law foreign official immunity.”  There was an absence of “subject matter jurisdiction”.

Former detective with Sri Lanka’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Nishantha Silva also argues that, as secretary of defence, Gotabaya had the means, opportunity and, in the words of his written statement for the People’s Tribunal on the Murder of Journalists, “a clear motive for killing Lasantha Wickrematunge”.

Another possibility, one as yet unexercised, is available under the War Crimes Act of 1996, which amended the Federal criminal code to enable the prosecution and punishment of US nationals for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.  Law academic Ryan Goodman, in a pertinent 2014 piece for Just Security, argues that there would be “a legal windfall for any US effort to investigate and prosecute [Gota] across international borders.  His citizenship also expands US policy space – by reducing US vulnerability to accusations of meddling if we go after one of our own.”

As politicians the world over dread the spectacle of an enraged citizenry storming the residences of president and prime minister, taking dips in their pools, sitting at their desks and eating on the lawns as public commons, a number of dedicated human rights lawyers will be readying their briefs and submissions.  Their mission: Get Gota.

*

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

Dr. 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: Gotabaya Rajapaksa (Licensed under GODL-India)

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

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

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

***

Since China’s Arctic extension of the New Silk Road was first unveiled in a January 2018 white paper, a process of Arctic development has been unleashed which represents one of the most important and under-appreciated developments on Earth. Not only will 10 days be saved by goods moving between China and Europe via the Arctic route, but a new set of civilization building measures are now being unleashed in opposition to the anti-human degrowth program attempting to steer the world into a post-nation state system of de-growth and world government.

While NATO’s geopolitical unipolarists obsess over global governance and militarization of the Arctic, Eurasian Arctic policy has taken a very different character with an emphasis on economic development and cooperation.

Of course Russia has not neglected the military component of its northern military policy, but unlike the west which has no economic vision, Russia’s Arctic military posture is definitively defensive and principally diplomatic. As Foreign Minister Lavrov said at the end of last year’s Arctic Summit in Alaska: “Russia is doing and will do a lot to make sure the Arctic develops as a territory of peace, stability and cooperation.”

This conjunction of Russia and China’s northern policies around the Polar Silk Road should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the close strategic friendship between both countries since the 2015 announcement of an alliance between the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union and Belt and Road Initiative. This northern extension of the Maritime Silk Road represents a powerful force to transform the last unexplored frontier on the Earth, converting the Arctic from a geopolitical zone of conflict towards a new paradigm of mutual cooperation and development.

Putin gave a speech at a recent BRI forum stating:

“the Great Eurasian Partnership and Belt and Road concepts are both rooted in the principles and values that everyone understands: the natural aspiration of nations to live in peace and harmony, benefit from free access to the latest scientific achievements and innovative development, while preserving their culture and unique spiritual identity. In other words, we are united by our strategic, long-term interests.”

Weeks before this speech Russia unveiled a bold plan for Arctic development during the conference Arctic: Territory of Dialogue which has since grown in leaps and bounds. This bold plan ties to the “Great Eurasian Partnership”, not only extending roads, rail and new cities into the Far East, but also extending science and civilization into a terrain long thought totally inhospitable. One of the keystone projects driving this program involves the completion of the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) launched as an Indian-Iranian-Russian program in 2002 and which has been given new life in the last several years.

While the west has not built any new cities in several generations, Russia has announced the construction of five major Arctic cities supporting up to 1 million people each in the coming years with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu leading the plan. Reporting on this program Atle Staalesen wrote in Arctic Today:

“Shoigu sees his masterplan for Siberia as closely connected with the markets in nearby China. But the new cities will also be important for the development of the Arctic, he argues, and makes a reference to the famous 18th Century scientist and writer Mikhail Lomonosov who wrote that “Russian power will grow with Siberia and the Arctic Ocean, […]”. According to Shoigu, Lomonosov did not coincidently connect the Arctic and Siberia. “They should be developed together and not separately,” he underlines, and adds that “the focus on the development of the Siberian region is both timely and reasonable.”

Typically framed as an “anti-BRI” megaproject by small-minded geopoliticians, the INSTC and BRI are really two sides of the same program and should much rather be seen as a sister program for Eurasian, Southwest Asian and even African industrial growth. The INSTC currently enjoys the cooperation of 12 participating nations and has recently seen its northern extension moved from St Petersburg further north to the port of Lavna in Murmansk, Russia. China’s western “middle corridor” branch of the east-west BRI stretching through Xinjiang also features several rail and road corridors that tie directly into the INSTC not to mention the obvious Arctic far east connections.

When fully completed, the INSTC will not only circumvent the NATO-controlled zone of the mediteranean zone via the overly congested Suez canal but will cut approximately 10 days and 40% of the transportation costs off the current Suez route.

In 2019 China and Russia signed the first scientific cooperation agreement together setting up the “China-Russia Arctic Research Center” as a part of the Polar Silk Road.

The BRI’s Success So Far

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

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

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

***

The War of Economic Corridors is now proceeding full speed ahead, with the game-changing first cargo flow of goods from Russia to India via the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) already in effect.

Very few, both in the east and west, are aware of how this actually has long been in the making: the Russia-Iran-India agreement for implementing a shorter and cheaper Eurasian trade route via the Caspian Sea (compared to the Suez Canal), was first signed in 2000, in the pre-9/11 era.

The INSTC in full operational mode signals a powerful hallmark of Eurasian integration – alongside the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and last but not least, what I described as “Pipelineistan” two decades ago.

Caspian is key

Let’s have a first look on how these vectors are interacting.

The genesis of the current acceleration lies in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan’s capital, for the 6^th Caspian Summit. This event not only brought the evolving Russia-Iran strategic partnership to a deeper level, but crucially, all five Caspian Sea littoral states agreed that no NATO warships or bases will be allowed on site.

That essentially configures the Caspian as a virtual Russian lake, and in a minor sense, Iranian – without compromising the interests of the three “stans,” Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. For all practical purposes, Moscow has tightened its grip on Central Asia a notch.

As the Caspian Sea is connected to the Black Sea by canals off the Volga built by the former USSR, Moscow can always count on a reserve navy of small vessels – invariably equipped with powerful missiles – that may be transferred to the Black Sea in no time if necessary.

Stronger trade and financial links with Iran now proceed in tandem with binding the three “stans” to the Russian matrix. Gas-rich republic Turkmenistan for its part has been historically idiosyncratic – apart from committing most of its exports to China.

Under an arguably more pragmatic young new leader, President Serdar Berdimuhamedow, Ashgabat may eventually opt to become a member of the SCO and/or the EAEU.

Caspian littoral state Azerbaijan on the other hand presents a complex case: an oil and gas producer eyed by the European Union (EU) to become an alternative energy supplier to Russia – although this is not happening anytime soon.

The West Asia connection

Iran’s foreign policy under President Ebrahim Raisi is clearly on a Eurasian and Global South trajectory. Tehran will be formally incorporated into the SCO as a full member in the upcoming summit in Samarkand in September, while its formal application to join the BRICS has been filed.

Purnima Anand, head of the BRICS International Forum, has stated that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also very much keen on joining BRICS. Should that happen, by 2024 we could be on our way to a powerful West Asia, North Africa hub firmly installed inside one of the key institutions of the multipolar world.

As Putin heads to Tehran next week for trilateral Russia, Iran, Turkey talks, ostensibly about Syria, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is bound to bring up the subject of BRICS.

Tehran is operating on two parallel vectors. In the event the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is revived – a quite dim possibility as it stands, considering the latest shenanigans in Vienna and Doha – that would represent a tactical victory. Yet moving towards Eurasia is on a whole new strategic level.

In the INSTC framework, Iran will make maximum good use of the geostrategically crucial port of Bandar Abbas – straddling the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, at the crossroads of Asia, Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

Yet as much as it may be portrayed as a major diplomatic victory, it’s clear that Tehran will not be able to make full use of BRICS membership if western – especially US – sanctions are not totally lifted.

Pipelines and the “stans”

A compelling argument can be made that Russia and China might eventually fill the western technology void in the Iranian development process. But there’s a lot more that platforms such as the INSTC, the EAEU and even BRICS can accomplish.

Across “Pipelineistan,” the War of Economic Corridors gets even more complex. Western propaganda simply cannot admit that Azerbaijan, Algeria, Libya, Russia’s allies at OPEC, and even Kazakhstan are not exactly keen on increasing their oil production to help Europe.

Kazakhstan is a tricky case: it is the largest oil producer in Central Asia and set to be a major natural gas supplier, right after Russia and Turkmenistan. More than 250 oil and gas fields are operated in Kazakhstan by 104 companies, including western energy giants such as Chevron, Total, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

While exports of oil, natural gas and petroleum products comprise 57 percent of Kazakhstan’s exports, natural gas is responsible for 85 percent of Turkmenistan’s budget (with 80 percent of exports committed to China). Interestingly, Galkynysh is the second largest gas field on the planet.

Compared to the other “stans,” Azerbaijan is a relatively minor producer (despite oil accounting for 86 percent of its total exports) and basically a transit nation. Baku’s super-wealth aspirations center on the Southern Gas Corridor, which includes no less than three pipelines: Baku-Tblisi-Erzurum (BTE); the Turkish-driven Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP); and the Trans-Adriatic (TAP).

The problem with this acronym festival – BTE, TANAP, TAP – is that they all need massive foreign investment to increase capacity, which the EU sorely lacks because every single euro is committed by unelected Brussels Eurocrats to “support” the black hole that is Ukraine. The same financial woes apply to a possible Trans-Caspian Pipeline which would further link to both TANAP and TAP.

In the War of Economic Corridors – the “Pipelineistan” chapter – a crucial aspect is that most Kazakh oil exports to the EU go through Russia, via the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). As an alternative, the Europeans are mulling on a still fuzzy Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, also known as the Middle Corridor (Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey). They actively discussed it in Brussels last month.

The bottom line is that Russia remains in full control of the Eurasia pipeline chessboard (and we’re not even talking about the Gazprom-operated pipelines Power of Siberia 1 and 2 leading to China).

Gazprom executives know all too well that a fast increase of energy exports to the EU is out of the question. They also factor the Tehran Convention – that helps prevent and control pollution and maintain the environmental integrity of the Caspian Sea, signed by all five littoral members.

Breaking BRI in Russia

China, for its part, is confident that one of its prime strategic nightmares may eventually disappear. The notorious “escape from Malacca” is bound to materialize, in cooperation with Russia, via the Northern Sea Route, which will shorten the trade and connectivity corridor from East Asia to Northern Europe from 11,200 nautical miles to only 6,500 nautical miles. Call it the polar twin of the INSTC.

This also explains why Russia has been busy building a vast array of state-of-the-art icebreakers.

So here we have an interconnection of New Silk Roads (the INSTC proceeds in parallel with BRI and the EAEU), Pipelineistan, and the Northern Sea Route on the way to turn western trade domination completely upside down.

Of course, the Chinese have had it planned for quite a while. The first White Paper on China’s Arctic policy, in January 2018, already showed how Beijing is aiming, “jointly with other states” (that means Russia), to implement sea trade routes in the Arctic within the framework of the Polar Silk Road.

And like clockwork, Putin subsequently confirmed that the Northern Sea Route should interact and complement the Chinese Maritime Silk Road.

Russia-China Economic cooperation is evolving on so many complex, convergent levels that just to keep track of it all is a dizzying experience.

A more detailed analysis will reveal some of the finer points, for instance how BRI and SCO interact, and how BRI projects will have to adapt to the heady consequences of Moscow’s Operation Z in Ukraine, with more emphasis being placed on developing Central and West Asian corridors.

It’s always crucial to consider that one of Washington’s key strategic objectives in the relentless hybrid war against Russia was always to break BRI corridors that crisscross Russian territory.

As it stands, it’s important to realize that dozens of BRI projects in industry and investment and cross-border inter-regional cooperation will end up consolidating the Russian concept of the Greater Eurasia Partnership – which essentially revolves around establishing multilateral cooperation with a vast range of nations belonging to organizations such as the EAEU, the SCO, BRICS and ASEAN.

Welcome to the new Eurasian mantra: Make Economic Corridors, Not War.

*

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

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

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

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

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

***

“A 60 Minutes team [should] actually come to Nicaragua to interview the people that live here whose lives have improved amazingly since 2007 with free universal education and health care.”

*

Dear 60 Minutes:

I was appalled to see your program on Nicaragua of June 19, 2022.

I have enjoyed many other 60 Minutes programs, but this one was totally one-sided and false. I have lived in Nicaragua since 2004, and traveled here many times in the 1980’s and 1990’s. So I have lived among people with a totally different reality than those you interviewed.

The two women you interviewed are the wives of Juan Sebastián Chamorro and Felix Maradiaga, from among the wealthy, closely connected with the U.S. government, who studied in U.S. universities and who speak English. Berta Valle, wife of Maradiaga, happens to be from the family down the block from me in Ciudad Dario, Matagalpa, Nicaragua.

The Chamorro and Maradiaga non-profits (IEEPP and FUNIDES respectively) were funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), founded to do overtly what the CIA has done covertly and also by other U.S. organizations like the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. foundations, and similar European organizations.

The USAID has given more than half a billion dollars to Nicaraguan nonprofits like these since the Sandinistas regained the presidency in 2007. The USAID also organized and funded a destabilization plan known as RAIN (Responsive Action in Nicaragua) for the pre and post November 2021 election periods which is likely still functioning.

In August 2021 the Public Prosecutor’s office accused Maradiaga and Chamorro of being part of a major group conspiring with the U.S. against Nicaragua continually since 2009 and headed by Manuel Orozco Ramírez. Orozco is an associate of Creative Associates International (CAI), a global agency funded by USAID to “engineer political transitions” with over US$2 billion in U.S. government contracts as reported by Mintpress.

According to the Prosecutor’s Office, Orozco was in charge of triangulating resources from international organizations to Nicaraguan pro-coup foundations, among them IEEPP, Fundación Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, FUNIDES, CINCO and Movimiento Puente por Nicaragua. In turn, these organizations channeled resources to armed groups, and to gangs of communication assassins (call centers of people paid to spread lies that would favor the destabilization of Nicaragua), coordinated to overthrow the constitutional government of Nicaragua.

Violetta Chamorro speaks before foundation. [Source: radio-corporacion.com]

Orozco formed a criminal group with the accused José Pallais Arana, Felix Maradiaga Blandón, José Adán Aguerri Chamorro, Juan Sebastián Chamorro García, Arturo Cruz Sequeira, Violeta Granera Padilla, Tamara Dávila Rivas and others under investigation, who received money to manage U.S. aggression against the State of Nicaragua. Likewise, they incited foreign interference in the country’s internal affairs, the destabilization of the country with foreign financing and actions to discredit the legitimately elected Government of Nicaragua.

The nonprofits funded by the U.S. also include pro-U.S. media that the United States not only funds but helped to found; these are used to attempt to destabilize Nicaragua with constant disinformation and lies then picked up by the U.S. corporate media.

Maradiaga and Chamorro’s nonprofits were involved in channeling funds for the 2018 U.S.-directed coup attempt against Nicaragua. This was a very violent three-month long attempt to get the democratically elected Sandinista government out of power—many people were kidnapped, tortured and killed by U.S.-paid thugs, people’s homes and government buildings were burned. People in Nicaragua are still terribly traumatized by the level of violence that took place.

The reason these men were arrested in 2021 is because they committed treason and fraud and laundered money to try to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. That is a crime in any country. It is a lie that they were pre-candidates for the November 2021 election. They represented no party and had no followers or platform, so could not register to run.

No one here would vote for them, because they were part of the attempted coup in April-July 2018, which not only tried to remove President Ortega, but attempted to ruin the economy by setting up road blocks everywhere that prohibited travel to school, work, hospitals, anywhere—to get past, you had to “pay”; Many people were captured, kidnapped, torturing, robbed and killed at these roadblocks. There is a video of Maradiaga with gun-toting thugs at a university in Nicaragua, the Universidad Politécnica (UPOLI), taken over in April 2018 and used as one of the headquarters for those carrying out the coup attempt.

The U.S. government has, since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, tried to control all of Latin America, but especially Nicaragua: William Walker in the 1850’s, the U.S. Marines who occupied and ran Nicaragua, including most elections between 1909 and 1933, the U.S. backed Somoza dictatorship from 1936-79, the Contra War (Nicaraguans call it Reagan’s war) of the 1980’s, and the neo-liberal governments in favor of the wealthy and U.S. interests from 1990 to 2007.

U.S. Marines who occupied Niaragua in 1932. They are holding the flag of captured nationalist Augusto César Sandino. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Then we had the attempted coup, previously planned according to Gene Sharp’s theories and carried out by his disciples, U.S. agents, including Felix Maradiaga and Juan Sebastian Chamorro.

Chamorro, nephew of U.S.-backed president Violeta Barrios de Chamorro (1990 – 1997), was chosen by the U.S. to head the Millennium Challenge Corporation under President Bolaños where he was known for giving contracts to his friends.

The correction of this travesty of reporting from 60 Minutes requires a 60 Minutes team to actually come to Nicaragua to interview the people that live here whose lives have improved amazingly since 2007 with free universal education and health care; 99.2% of homes have electricity; about 90% have running water; the best roads in the region; housing programs; more than half a million people have received a registered title to their land. The primary goal of the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity is the elimination of poverty.

Photo of new hospitals built recently from Nicaragua Sandino.[Source: facebook.com]

Your team needs to see with your own eyes the truth and reality here, that this government of Daniel Ortega was elected by over 75% of voters in a legal election, with six other parties participating and nearly 300,000 people involved in making sure the election was free and fair. Why? Because the population sees that he cares about the future of the country and the well-being of its citizens.

I bet U.S. citizens would prefer a government that uses their taxes for housing, health care and education, instead of starting conflicts all over the globe, spending more than half of the national budget on weapons and war, for the benefit of corporations who make weapons.

*

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.

Susan Lagos worked as a Spanish and ESL teacher for 30 years. She has lived in Ciudad Dario, Matagalpa, Nicaragua, for 18 years; and also lived in other Latin American nations for 16 years. Susan can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from havanatimes.org

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

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

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

***

Peace advocates on Tuesday derided a New York City public service announcement meant to prepare residents for a nuclear attack as a 21st-century version of the absurd Duck and Cover civil defense film of the early Cold War era.

“So, there’s been a nuclear attack,” the narrator of the NYC Emergency Management video begins. “Don’t ask me how or why, just know the big one has hit.”

“So what do we do?” she continues before instructing viewers to “get inside, fast,” “stay inside… and get clean immediately,” and “stay tuned; follow media for more information.”

“All right? You’ve got this,” the woman assures viewers.

Is this for real??? The Onion crowd? Hard to believe the City of NY would produce this!

— Marcy Winograd (@marcywinograd) July 12, 2022

While New York City Mayor Eric Adams called the PSA a “great idea,” some critics accused officials of unwarranted fearmongering amid increased nuclear tensions with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine and NATO’s response.

Others lambasted the PSA as latest in a line of nuclear war informationals like the U.S. Civil Defense Administration’s Duck and Cover and the British government’s Protect and Survive films that offer little more than delusive contentment for millions of people who likely would not survive a full-scale thermonuclear attack.

“The reality is, if this comes to pass, you don’t ‘got this,'” tweeted the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work leading to a landmark treaty outlawing nukes.

Calling the PSA “outrageously misguided,” ICAN said it’s difficult to get inside fast during a nuclear explosion “when, in a matter of seconds, houses up to 175 kilometers away from the epicenter crumble like they are made of cards.”

🧵1/@nycemergencymgt just released a video advising New Yorkers of steps to follow in the event of a nuclear attack. “You’ve got this”, they say. Reminiscent of Cold War era “duck and cover” PSAs, it’s outrageously misguided! #nuclearbanhttps://t.co/qQMzb9aXVQ pic.twitter.com/43qtOoLiEy

— ICAN (@nuclearban) July 12, 2022

“The PSA goes on to advise to ‘stay inside, remove clothing, and shower,'” ICAN added. “As if taking a shower will be feasible during a nuclear attack, or effective to protect you against radioactive ash. And ‘stay tuned’—as if communications infrastructure will be functional.”

The United States and Russia have over 11,000 nuclear warheads in their combined arsenals. China, France, and Britain have hundreds of warheads each, while India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea each have between 50-165 nukes.

According to NukeMap, a single Russian 800 kiloton warhead airburst over midtown Manhattan would destroy or severely damage much of New York City and cause an estimated 4.5 million casualties.

A higher-yield weapon, like the five-megaton warheads atop China’s Dong Feng-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles, would destroy most of the city while killing or wounding around eight million people. In an actual full-scale nuclear war, multiple warheads would likely be launched against a target as important as New York.

Millions of people not instantly incinerated or obliterated by the fireball—which is hotter than the sun’s core—and immense blast wave of a nuclear explosion would suffer severe burns, blinding, lacerations, blunt-force injuries, and, for many, the slow death of radiation poisoning.

“The living,” Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev reputedly said, “will envy the dead.”

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 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: “You’ve got this,” the narrator of a New York City Emergency Management public service announcement assures residents facing a hypothetical nuclear attack. (Photo: YouTube screen grab)

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

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

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

***

Russia plans to create its own national oil benchmark in 2023 as a means to protect its oil export revenue while the West is stepping up sanctions against Russian oil, a document seen by Bloomberg News showed on Friday.

Russia’s oil producers, its central bank, and relevant ministries are working to launch a national trading platform for Russian oil in October this year. The goal would be to attract enough foreign partners to buy Russia’s crude and generate enough volumes so as to set up a national oil benchmark at some point between March and July next year, according to the document Bloomberg News has seen.

Russia’s efforts to create a national oil benchmark come as the Western allies are looking at ways to impose a price cap on Russian oil traded globally. The price cap is expected to hurt the huge oil revenues Vladimir Putin is currently getting from energy exports.

Russia, for its part, is looking to protect its oil revenues, and one of the ways it has come up with is a national oil benchmark.

After their summit in Germany last month, the leaders of the G7 group of the world’s leading industrial nations invited all importing countries to consider a cap on the price of Russian oil.

“We will consider a range of approaches, including options for a possible comprehensive prohibition of all services, which enable transportation of Russian seaborne crude oil and petroleum products globally, unless the oil is purchased at or below a price to be agreed in consultation with international partners,” the G7 leaders said in their final communique.

“We invite all like-minded countries to consider joining us in our actions,” they added.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is on a tour of Asia with stops in Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia this week to seek support for the U.S. idea of capping Russian export crude oil prices.

Secretary Yellen even pitched China the idea of capping the price of Russian oil during a virtual meeting last week.

A price cap on Russian oil will “aid in maintaining the global supply of oil, helping put downward pressure on prices for consumers in America and globally at a time when energy prices are spiking,” Secretary Yellen said on Thursday at the Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in Bali, Indonesia.

*

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.

Tsvetana is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing for news outlets such as iNVEZZ and SeeNews. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

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

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

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

***

French President Emmanuel Macron suffered a humiliating setback in parliament after his vaccine passport scheme was defeated.

Macron’s minority government wanted to extend the policy whereby anyone entering France has to show proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test.

However, the right-wing populist National Rally (RN), the hard-left La France Insoumise (LFI) and the right-wing Republicains (LR) all united to vote against the policy.

Macron’s government lost the vote by a margin of 219 votes to 195.

“The bill’s defeat was met with wild cheering and a standing ovation from opposition lawmakers, in footage that was widely circulated on social media,” reports the Telegraph.

🇫🇷 Yesterday the French National Assembly prevented the reintroduction of the vaccine passport for minors, international, & domestic travel after an amendment was put in by @dupontaignan. A major defeat for despot @Macron and a major win for the people!
pic.twitter.com/UDLEUvDQFA

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) July 13, 2022

France… Absolutely epic scenes as Marine Le Pen's National Rally and Jean-Luc Melenchon's La France Insoumise defeat Emmanuel Macrons, Covid Travel Passport pic.twitter.com/0ylnjtbgAA

— Pelham (@Resist_05) July 12, 2022

The bill was one of the first put to parliament by the new minority government, highlighting how Macron will find it incredibly difficult to get new laws passed in the country.

Elisabeth Borne, the French Prime Minister, condemned the vote.

“The situation is serious. By joining together to vote against the measures to protect the French against Covid, LFI, LR and RN prevent any border control against the virus. After the disbelief on this vote, I will fight so that the spirit of responsibility wins in the Senate,” she tweeted.

As we previously highlighted, the French Minister of Health admitted that vaccine passports are a “disguised” form of mandatory vaccines, despite President Macron claiming vaccine mandates “will not be compulsory.”

On the first day the new program was in place, police in Paris were visibly patrolling bars and cafes demanding customers show proof they’ve had the jab.

It later emerged that many businesses were refusing to enforce the scheme.

Les premiers contrôles de #Police ont démarré à titre préventif à #Paris dans les cafés et restaurants où le #PassSanitaire est obligatoire dès aujourd'hui. Verbalisation de 135 euros à partir de la semaine prochaine, jusqu'à 9000 euro en cas de récidive.#Passanitaire #reuters pic.twitter.com/Vvyh75sun3

— Antony Paone (@PaoneAntony) August 9, 2021

*

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

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

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

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

***

“At the summit we will strengthen our forward defences. We will enhance our battle-groups in the East in part of the Alliance, up to brigade levels. We will transform the NATO response force and increase the number of our high readiness forces to well over 300,000…Together, this constitutes the biggest overhaul to our collective defence and deterrence since the Cold War.”

– Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General speaking at the NATO Summit in Madrid. (June 27, 2022) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

Following the talks of the NATO leaders in Madrid, in late June, there was a lot more agreed to than mobilizing the troops in preparation for warfare, with increased costs to individual NATO members. There was also the endorsement of a new Strategic Concept giving direction to the Alliance not only during this new phase of battle with Russia. They have highlighted a special approach for dealing with terrorism, cyber and hybrid. And for the first time, it also mentions the challenges posed by China! [2]

A more and more dynamic and destructive military device, directed by former colonial nations. Nations with a hand in, for example, dismantling of Haiti from the time it overthrow slavery more than 200 years ago and has since continued undermining governance of the people, by the people, for the people. [3]

This beast, revved up with hundreds of billions in resources, would potentially run amok around the globe. Like Frankenstein’s monster, it could cut its own puppet strings and be a concern even to some of its members with short term aims it set out to resolve. Like a cancer, it would continue to absorb critical financial resources better needed to advance various social and environmental aims.

But there are many people living in NATO countries who are signaling their opposition to the NATO agenda. On July 1, several of the more articulate opponents were guests on a special edition of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute. In a Zoom discussion moderated by director Bianca Mugyenyi, the team addressed the topic of NATO, its relationship to wars, colonial violence and structural white supremacy, and efforts at resistance.

See the unabridged discussion here:

&nbsp
Janine Solanki, an activist from Vancouver, BC discussed the record of NATO and its absurd claim of being a defensive (not offensive) organization. Danny Haiphong follows with a review of NATO’s provocative actions directed toward not only Russia, but China. Djibo Sobukwe follows with an account of past and ongoing violence directed toward Africa. Finally, Tamara Lorincz chimes in with an optimistic summary of current mobilization against NATO, all while the summit in Madrid was underway.

See the unabridged discussion here.

Janine Solanki is an executive member of Mobilization Against War and occupation and an editorial board member of FIRE THIS TIME newspaper. She also writes on social justice causes including CUBA solidarity and a variety of antiwar issues.

Danny Haiphong is a contributor to the Black Agenda Report, and co-editor of Friends of Socialist China. He hosts a Youtube show, The Left Lens. His work can be followed on twitter at Spirit of Ho. And on telegram at the Haiphong Press.

Djibo Sobukwe is on the research and political education team of Black Alliance for Peace. He is also a former central Committee member of the all-African People’s Revolutionary Party who worked with Kuame Ture on the political education committee.

Tamara Lorincz is a PhD candidate at the Balsillie School for International Affairs. She is a member of Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom , the Canadian Pugwash Group, and the No to NATO Network. She is also on the international advisory council of World Beyond War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

Bianca Mugyenyi is an activist, a journalist and the director of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Kf9PpUt3I
2. https://menafn.com/1104469051/Madrid-Summit-Ends-With-Far-Reaching-Decisions-To-Transform-NATO
3. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-coup-against-president-aristide-15-years-later-the-clintons-the-canadians-and-western-ngos-all-complicit-in-a-never-ending-tragedy/5670262

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 10, 2021

***

Coincidence? The Key Word 

Several months ago, we expressed at least “theoretical reservations” about vaccinating cancer patients or former patients who had been cured, because of the underlying mechanism of the gene injection on immunity.

Several geneticists had also expressed their concerns about the possible interference between active or dormant cancer cells and the activity of gene therapy on lymphocytes in particular.

Months have passed, and the vaccine madness has amplified, leading to the refusal of patients without a passport in hospitals (which, as is well known, are intended to receive only healthy people) and to the demand that patients be vaccinated  before receiving any treatment, including cancer patients.

We are in a world gone mad and yet these stories are multiplying, such as this young man of 22 years who had a chronic cough leading to an X-ray discovering a mediastinal mass. The two big Paris hospitals that received him refused to start the treatment (without it being explained in detail) if the patient refused the experimental injection, of absolutely unknown effects on the development of cancers.

The doctors’ justification? None: “that’s the way it is”, and we have accepted it!

Silence on the colleagues suspended for lack of obedience and even more on the objective reasons that made them prefer to lose their jobs, their remuneration, their houses, their families intolerant to these decisions as well, rather than submit to the presidential ukase to accept experimental drugs…

Would more than three hundred thousand caregivers (a figure that is probably highly underestimated given the number of hospitals and clinics currently forced to close beds and postpone interventions due to lack of personnel) be crazy, conspiratorial or delusional to the point of putting themselves in great personal, social, family, professional and psychological danger?

Have the doctors who claim that vaccination is safe taken the time to look at the statistics of the effects reported and accepted by the official agencies? Are the FDA, EMA, MHRA also “conspiratorial” when they release statistics as in the case of VAERS, which is entity of the CDC:

VAERS as of September 26, 2021

More than 726,000 Covid vaccine-related adverse events reported to VAERS as CDC and FDA overturn advisory committee recommendations on Pfizer’s third vaccine.

VAERS data released by the CDC included a total of 726,965 adverse event reports from all age groups following Covid vaccines, including 15,386 deaths and 99,410 serious complications between December 14, 2020, and September 17, 2021.[1]

Or Eudra Vigilance pharmacovigilance body of the European Medicines Agency

Or even the ANSM, our French agency, which shows more than 1200 deaths accepted as at least possibly related to these experimental injections.

All therapeutic trials for fifty years were stopped after a few deaths for investigation (53 deaths stopped the H1N1 vaccine). Here, thousands of deaths throughout the world and children are shamelessly attacked[2]. How can we continue to believe that this is a health policy?

Why this denial of the most solid sects on the part of theoretically educated doctors, capable of obtaining information directly from reliable sources and equipped with a brain?

Fear of the boss, of the director, who in a few months’ time will inevitably be called into question, since many countries are backtracking and even Germany wants to get out of vaccine terrorism, perhaps on the occasion of Mrs Merkel’s departure[3].

“The leading organizations of contracted physicians in Germany are demanding an immediate end to the “anti-corona” measures and an end to the “horror rhetoric and panic politics”. Obviously, French hospital doctors in Paris and elsewhere do not read German newspapers and are terrorized by the threats of their professional association, their minister, and become kapos[4] and terrorize their patients.

More and More Testimonies are Coming In 

Whatever their unacceptable reasons, testimonies are multiplying.

A young girl accompanies her friend to her mother’s funeral… such a mother, mother of a high school friend, 34 years old, in remission from breast cancer for two years, who is injected with the vaccine and collapses a few days later in a coma and dies after three days of hospitalization… Politically correct explanation: the cancer exploded and took her away. Close the chapter and the coffin.

What would Maigret have said? [Historic Police Investigator] 

But too many coincidences shock the police investigators in front of a corpse. Only doctors would not have the right to think about coincidences of time, for example: “temporality” is their key word…

Like the misleading slogan, “the numbers are always right”. Yes, if they are true and observed in the real world.

But how much confidence can we have in the rigged simulations that the government and the media feed us without ever specifying that they are only predictions or estimates? 5] But one can do what one wants with the figures, when one chooses them, or creates them to justify the chosen hypothesis, and the the results are totally blurred.

In any case, as far as “cancer and gene injection” is concerned, the vagueness unfortunately dissipates in front of the multitude of terrible stories.

From the colleague who sees multiple “balls” appearing under her armpits, which the check-ups in the hospital do not explain… Obviously no possible link with the vax. And yet the ganglions that appear some time after the injection are a frequent observation after these vax.

So clearly there seems to be three situations:

• The appearance of a cancer rapidly after the injection (two weeks to a few months) and very progressive, in a person who was previously free of known carcinological pathologies.
• The resumption of cancer in a patient who has been in complete remission for several months or years.
• The rapid, even explosive, evolution of a cancer that is not yet controlled.

Beyond the testimonies that are pouring in from relatives and friends and on social networks, a Swiss newspaper has finally addressed the subject in a broader way.

Here are some excerpts from their article[6] and their references[7]:

“Can covid vaccines cause cancer?

In some cases, the answer seems to be yes. Certainly, there is no evidence that the covid vaccines themselves are carcinogenic. However, it has been shown that in up to 50% of vaccinees, covid vaccines can induce temporary immunosuppression or immune dysregulation (lymphocytopenia) that can last for about a week or possibly longer.

Furthermore, covid mRNA vaccines have been shown to “reprogram” (i.e., influence) adaptive and innate immune responses and, in particular, to downregulate the so-called TLR4 pathway, which is known to play an important role in the immune response to infections and cancer cells.”

Thus the authors conclude that it is quite possible that these immune changes could have unintended consequences on the condition of the recipient of the gene injection. A matter of common sense indeed!

“Thus, if there is already a tumor somewhere – known or unknown – or if there is a predisposition to a certain type of cancer, such a state of vaccine-induced immune suppression or immune dysregulation could potentially trigger sudden tumor growth and cancer within weeks of vaccination. It should be noted that lymphocytopenia was also frequently observed in cases of severe covid.

Post-vaccination reactivation of latent viral infections, including shingles virus, EBV (Epstein-Barr) and hepatitis virus, has also been observed.

“Vaccine-induced temporary immunosuppression is also a factor that may contribute to the post-vaccination spike in coronavirus infections seen in many countries.”

Frequency of Vaccine Related Adverse Event in Cancer 

There are already a few thousand observations in official adverse event reporting and online patient groups. There are certainly true coincidences or diagnostic delays due to delayed diagnosis related to containment. But we should not dismiss the huge problems that these real people affected in their daily lives and even more the responsibility that cancer doctors take by imposing the injection before any treatment or protocol continuation. Their main argument: “we did it right, without discussion” does not seem worthy of a once thoughtful profession.

In August 2021, Dr. Ryan Cole,[8] an American pathologist for many years, described a significant increase in certain types of cancer (e.g. endometrial cancer, uterine cancer) since the beginning of the covid mass vaccination campaign. More recently, German pathologists have also noted the problem of post-vaccination immune dysregulation and sudden tumor growth in some patients.

On the French networks, several testimonies coincide with the reappearance of vaginal hemorrhages in women over 85 years of age leading to the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and rapid death… The spike protein produced by the body following the injection is particularly attracted to the genitals, and this would be a new demonstration of this.

So until we know more, let’s be careful, both doctors and caregivers, and not play the sorcerer’s apprentice!

Caution is required with all experimental treatments and even more so when they are the result of a technique never used before in infectious pathology. First, do no harm must guide the decisions of any physician faithful to his Hippocratic oath.

Dr. Nicole Delépine: Pediatrician, oncologist, former head of the pediatric oncology department at the R Poincaré Garches Hospital APHP France

Website www.docteurnicoledelepine.fr and ametist.org for the defense of children with cancer

Featured image: cancer cells. Source: Flickr.com

Notes:

[1] More Than 726,000 COVID Vaccine Injuries Reported to VAERS as CDC, FDA Overrule Advisory Committees’ Recommandations on Third Pfizer Shot • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

[2] Les simulations, alibi truqué de la vaccination extorquée aux enfants — Docteur Nicole Delépine

[3] Les médecins libéraux allemands pour la fin de « la politique de la panique »
le 27/09/2021 Dr Stephan Hofmeister, Dr Andreas Gassen, Dr Thomas Kriedel
KBV Lopata/axentis.de     France-Soir
Les principales organisations de médecins conventionnés en Allemagne exigent la fin immédiate des mesures « anti-corona » et la fin de « la rhétorique de l’horreur et la politique de la panique ».
Lors de la convention des délégués des médecins conventionnés allemands, le directeur adjoint de la Kassenärztlichen Bundesvereinigung (KBV, association nationale des médecins de l’assurance maladie) le Dr Stephan Hofmeister, et le président, le Dr Andreas Gassen, ont exigé la fin des mesures dites « anti-Corona » en Allemagne et la fin de la « politique de la panique et la rhétorique de l’horreur ».
Le communiqué de presse de la KBV déclare : « tous ceux qui souhaitent se faire vacciner ont la possibilité de le faire. Désormais ce n’est plus une décision qui revient à l’État : chacun doit décider à titre individuel pour lui-même. » Selon le Dr Hofmeister les sondages indiquent que plus insistantes se font les pressions politiques, plus les gens refusent toute vaccination en signe de protestation. « C’est une confusion malsaine », a-t-il dit en exigeant que l’on arrête cette politique de la peur.

[4] Ainsi étaient appelés les déportés qui, en échange de quelques avantages, devenaient complices des nazis et se montraient parfois aussi inhumains que leurs bourreaux.

[5] RETOUR SUR LA MANIPULATION VIA DES SIMULATIONS AU COURS DE LA « PLANDEMIE » COVID – Docteur Nicole Delépine

[6] Covid Vaccines and Cancer – Swiss Policy Research (swprs.org)

[7] The Testimonies Project – Israeli Jab Victims Speak Out [VIDEO] | Europe Reloaded

[8] Dr Ryan Cole sur le cancer post-vaccination :
Le docteur Ryan Cole constate une recrudescence de cas de cancers comme jamais auparavant. Vidéo. | Pro Fide Catholica

The original source of this article is Nouveau Monde

Also published by mondialisation.ca. Translated from French by Global Research

Copyright © Dr Nicole Delépine, Nouveau Monde, 2021

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 by GR on August 10, 2021

Hell is Empty and the Devils are All Here, William Shakespeare, The Tempest, 1610- 1611

Introduction

There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions which in the course of the last 18 months are literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide. 

“Fake science” is used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings,  cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, all of which are upheld as a means to repealing the “killer virus”. 

Who is this “Killer Virus” which has been personified by both the media and our governments, held responsible for triggering economic and social chaos Worldwide? 

You might recall that at the height of the February 2020 financial collapse, “V the Virus” was held responsible for the largest stock market crash since 1929. 

Has the “Killer Virus” been Identified. Has SARS-CoV-2 been Isolated?

This article will review this contentious issue starting at the outset of the crisis in January 2020. Part of this analysis is based on research conducted in early 2020. 

The central question raised in this review is the following: is there reliable evidence provided by the WHO and national  health authorities that the alleged SARS-CoV-2  virus has been isolated/purified  from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”? 

While the alleged virus was initially defined as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of  2019-nCoV.

And because details concerning isolation / purification were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Test using the alleged “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the novel 2019-nCoV. 

What this decision entails is that novel 2019-CoV-2 is NOT a novel virus. It was categorized by the Chinese authorities and the WHO as “similar” to the 2003 SARS-CoV as well as to MERS. 

2003 SARS-CoV was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1.

History: Isolation of the Virus 

Chinese Health Authorities

The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that “a new type of virus”  had been identified  “similar to the one associated with SARS and MERS” (related report , not original Chinese government source).  The underlying method is described below:

We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing.

Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. (emphasis added)

The  following article entitled “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China, (Nature, February 3, 2021) was among the first to report on China’s novel coronavirus:

It is unclear from the above quotations as well as from the documents consulted, whether the Chinese health authorities undertook an isolation / purification of  a patient’s specimen.

US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Following the Chinese announcement  on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novel corona virus had been isolated.  The CDC statement dated January 28th, 2020 (updated December 2020) is unequivocal:

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.

….

Timeline:

• On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
• On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.
• On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.
• An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

…

One important way that CDC has supported global efforts to study and learn about SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory was by growing the virus in cell culture and ensuring that it was widely available. Researchers in the scientific and medical community can use virus obtained from this work in their studies.

SARS-CoV-2 strains supplied by CDC and other researchers can be requested, free, from the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research (BEI) Resources Repositoryexternal icon by established institutions that meet BEI requirements. These requirements include maintaining appropriate facilities and safety programs, as well as having the appropriate expertise. BEI supplies organisms and reagents to the broader community of microbiology and infectious disease researchers.  (Emphasis added).

See also related study which was posted on the CDC website.

The CDC Acknowledges that SARS-CoV-2 has not been  Isolated.

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

***

See the analysis of CDC responses in the section below on Freedom of Information Requests initiated by Christine Massey.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Did Not Undertake The Isolation / Purification of a Specimen

From the documents quoted below, the Chinese authorities did not provide the WHO with a specimen of isolated /  purified  SARS-CoV-2.

And because details concerning isolation were not available, the WHO  decided to “customize” its Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR)  test using a so-called isolate of the “similar” 2003 SARS corona virus (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1) as “a point of reference” (or proxy) for detecting genetic fragments of the 2019 SARS-CoV-2.

The WHO sought the advice of   Victor M. Corman, Christian Drosten, et al  of the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital. The study entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” ) was subsequently submitted to the WHO. 

While Corman, Drosten et al’s study confirmed that “several viral genome sequences had been released”, in the case of 2019-nCoV, “virus isolates or samples from infected patients were not available … ”

The recommendations to the WHO were as follows:

“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].

 We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”  (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).

What this bold statement suggests is that the isolation / purification of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “validation” would be enabled by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”

The recommendations of the Corman- Drosten study (supported and financed by the Gates Foundation) pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test applied to 2019-nCoV were then firmly endorsed by the Director General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, E-Book, Chapter II).

Freedom of Information: No Record of SARS-CoV-2 Isolation-Purification. Christine Massey

An important ongoing and detailed investigative project by Christine Massey, M.Sc. of Ontario, Canada is entitled:

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification  (work in progress since 2020), 

by Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

A related text shows the list of institutions contacted

90 Health/Science Institutions Globally All Failed to Cite Even 1 Record of “SARS-COV-2” Purification, by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever 

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

The investigative report provides detailed documentation based on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests addressed to ninety Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.

The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”

“The 90 Health /Science institutions that have responded thus far have provided and/or cited, in total, zero such records:

Our requests [under “freedom of information”] have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”) isolation/purification performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.”

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

The CDC was contacted by the author of this report in the form of four separate requests: November 2, 2020, March 1, 2021, March 3, 2021, which are reviewed below:

On November 2, 2020.

The CDC admitted they have no records of actual isolation/purification by anyone, anywhere, ever, by any method” :

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-1-2021-SARS-COV-2-Isolation-Response-Redacted.pdf

CDC again failed to provide/cite any records describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification by anyone anywhere ever… but would no longer simply say so (as they did on November 2nd); instead they gave song and dance citing the study by Harcourt et al. which is the same one posted on CDC’s website:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-3-2021-SARS-COV-2-purification-FOI-response.pdf

June 7, 2021:

CDC admitted they have no record of “SARS-COV-2” purification from a patient sample via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge, by anyone, anywhere, ever:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CDC-FOIA-request-response-no-records-SARS-COV-2-purification.pdf

Conclusive Results of the Investigation

What the author of this incisive and detailed report has confirmed is that:

Every institution has failed to provide even 1 record describing the isolation aka purification of any “COVID-19 virus” directly from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with other sources of genetic material. (Those other sources are typically monkey kidney aka “Vero” cells and fetal bovine serum).

Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021

Screenshot of a selected responses are provided below : New Zealand, Canada, UK.

Consult the full archive of letters and responses. This work was undertaken over a period of more than 12 months.

Response Public Health England

It follows from the above detailed study that there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated/purified from a patient’s sample, as  evidenced by the responses “under freedom of information” (FOI) from some 90 health / science institutions Worldwide.  

Thus far (July 9, 2021) 27 Canadian institutions have provided their responses. (click to access list)

Republic of Ireland:  “The Virus does not Exist”

“⁣Gemma O’Doherty is an Investigative Journalist in Ireland.

“This Irish Investigation into Covid shows that The Department of Health refuses to confirm the existence of a “virus” in writing. Confirmation that the virus was never isolated.”

VIDEO

“As part of our legal action we had been demanding the evidence that this virus actually exists [as well as] evidence that lock downs actually have any impact on the spread of viruses; that face-masks are safe, and do deter the spread of viruses – They don’t. No such studies exist; that social distancing is based in science – It isn’t. it’s made up; that contact tracing has any bearing on the spread of a virus – of course it doesn’t. This organization here – is making it up as they go along.” – Gemma O’Doherty 

Isolation of the Virus. The Legal Battle in Alberta. Patrick King

Patrick King. The Virus Has Not Been Isolated! “No I Did Not Win The Court Case”. “They Do Not Have the Evidence”.

The following video features Patrick King in his legal Battle against the Alberta Government.

SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated. Does the virus Exist?

Neither the Chinese authorities nor the CDC, the WHO, national governments, scientific /  health authorities have provided evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been  isolated /purified.

Based on the investigative research of Christine Massey we have access to the responses of numerous governments and health authorities, including that provided by the Republic of Ireland to journalist Gemma O’Doherty.

What this means is that the entire covid narrative falls flat.

We have been systematically misled.

Everything you have been told by your governments is a lie, a complexity of lies and falsehoods.

There is no pandemic. The isolation / purification of the virus has not been undertaken.

All the policies adopted by governments worldwide allegedly to “save lives” are illegal, socially destructive and in violation of fundamental human rights.

These policies have been instrumental in “destroying people’s lives”.

Dr. Stephen Frost  refers to the alleged “Covid pandemic” as “The Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”.

From the outset in January 2020, the flawed and invalid RT-PCR test was used to “detect” the alleged 2019 SARS-CoV-2 virus,  despite the fact that details regarding the isolation/purification of the original virus were not available.

All far-reaching policy decisions imposed on people Worlwide were based on a data bank of fake  case positives coupled with false mortality data pertaining to Covid-19 related deaths.

Curbing the alleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through the imposition of face masks, social distancing, closing down of national economies has absolutely no validity,

The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 has not be isolated /purified: How does that affect the process of so-called “detection” of the “deadly variants” of the original virus?

Mortality and Morbidity: While there is “No Killer Virus”, there is a “Killer Vaccine”.

While the SARS-CoV-2 virus is presented by the media and the governments as a “killer virus” (when in fact the WHO and CDC describe it as “similar to seasonal influenza”), a totally invalid and dysfunctional Covid -19 vaccine is currently being imposed on the entire population of Planet Earth: 7.9 billion people.

It’s a multibillion dollar endeavour with Pfizer in the lead, establishing a near Worldwide monopoly for the sale and distribution of the mRNA killer vaccine.

Important Question: 

How did Big Pharma manage to develop a vaccine (sponsored by the WHO, GAVI, the Gates Foundation, et al) with a mandate “to protect people” against a virus which has not been isolated/ purified  from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?

Vaccine in relation to What? The virus has not been identified.

Moreover, 2019 SARS-CoV-2 has been categorized as similar to the 2003 SARS-CoV which means that the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel virus. 

The legitimacy of the Covid vaccine project hinges upon the validity of hundreds of thousands of RT-PCR fake positive cases Worldwide combined with fake Covid related mortality data.

Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccine has resulted in countless deaths and injuries Worldwide which are barely reported by the mainstream media. 

While we do not have figures for the entire Planet, the latest official figures for the European Union and the U.S are revealing. Bear in mind they vastly underestimate the real trends in vaccin related mortality and morbidity:

UK to 21 July 2021 – 1,517 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.

USA to 23 July 2021 – 11,940 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 2.4 million injuries, per VAERS database.

TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 34,052 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 5.46 million injuries reported as at 1 August 2021

Nota Bene: It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage of the actual figures. Furthermore, people continue to die (and suffer injury) from the injections with every day which passes.  (D4CE

So why are governments pressuring people to get vaccinated?

Heads of State and heads of government Worldwide are being pressured, bribed, coopted and/or threatened by powerful financial interests into accepting the Covid vaccine consensus. The vaccine passport is the endgame, which constitutes a transition towards digital tyranny.

The study and reports analyzed in this article should be used to confront politicians as well as inform and sensitize people in towns and villages, across the land, nationally and internationally.

At this stage in our history, solidarity is absolutely fundamental. 

Does the Virus Exist?

The governments and the WHO do not have a Leg to Stand On. And neither does Bill Gates.

What we must seek is to confront a very fragile covid-19 consensus, which is based on fraud and deceit.

***

See also Michel Chossudovsky’s E-book (10 chapters) entitled:

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky,

***

Author’s Note. I remain indebted to Christine Massey for her extensive research and investigation on the issue of isolation /purification.

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of twelve books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

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

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

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

First published on June 16, 2022

***

When Henry Kissinger surprised the world with his address at the recent World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (22-26 May 2022), by telling Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy, he had to make some concession in return for Peace, he was right.

The Master of “Realpolitik”, Nixon’s Chief Diplomat with the reputation of “opening up” China for the US and the rest of the world in the early 1970s, this very Henry Kissinger, Peace Nobel Prize winner – and let’s not forget, one of the world’s most notorious war criminals still alive – yes, this Henry Kissinger, surprised the world, but he had foresight. There is no Peace without Zelenskyy’s concessions. See this.

There is so much wrong with Ukraine, crime and corruption at all levels, plus MSM-unreported direct NATO interference, plus US funded war-degree (Grade 3) bio-labs throughout Ukraine, Russia would never give in. The war would become either a never-ending war of attrition (à la Afghanistan), or develop into a (nuclear?) WWIII scenario.

At this point, nobody is interested in a WW, let alone a nuclear WW. There would be no winners, as President Putin said many times. It would most probably become a Reset, far, very far, from Klaus Schwab’s dream.

So, yes, addressing the WEF’s keynote speaker, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom Klaus Schwab invited to give the Forum’s opening speech, Kissinger said in no mistaken words, that Ukraine has to make some concessions, in return for Peace. He didn’t specify. But looking at the Big Picture, it is pretty clear what type of concession Kissinger was thinking about.

What is more surprising a few days later, President Joe Biden, used almost exactly the same words, addressing Zelenskyy’s relentless requests for more money – billions not millions, and more weapons, always more weapons. Paraphrasing Biden’s words, “Ukraine has to make some concessions for Peace”.

By now, almost everybody knows that Ukraine has no trained military to handle the sophisticated weaponry coming from the US and from NATO countries. Most of these weapons may – or will rather – end up in the hands of criminal mafiosi gangs, so-called terrorist groups.

The billions of dollars of cash Ukraine gets from the west, let alone the 40 billion from the Biden Administration, can under no circumstances be absorbed by a country as bankrupt and corrupt as is Ukraine. The West knows that. Yet, they keep funding the Ukraine’s “fighting” against Russia. The flow of funds is kept alive, with intense lie-propaganda, that Ukraine will win the war against Russia.

All these billions are accumulating as debt, somewhere, especially in the US Treasury and the European Central Bank. But don’t forget, in the US and the EU, debt doesn’t count. Debt will never be paid back. The western monetary system is an enormous, debt-based pyramid system.

How ludicrous is the propaganda assertion that Ukraine will win the war against Russia!  If not stopped, it will become a hopeless and endless war – with tens or hundreds of thousands mostly Ukrainians killed.

Maybe the economic support and weapons money doesn’t even leave the US and NATO countries’ treasuries, but goes straight into selective bank accounts, including of the military industrial complex on both sides of the Atlantic.

Just a few days ago, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, said at the Kultaranta Talks in Finland, following a meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto, that the US-led bloc [NATO] aims to strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, but added that any peace deal would involve compromises, including on territory. See this.

Is it Kissinger’s Realpolitik observation at the WEF Davos Conference in May that prompted key “decision-makers” like Biden and Stoltenberg, to come to their senses and tell Zelenskyy that Peace has a price?

Or is it the other way around? The US / NATO military controllers, Biden and Stoltenberg, sent Kissinger as a messenger to tell Zelenskyy just that? In which case it looks like a plan that integrates fully into the Great Reset. A war that kills some tens of thousands of people, destroys vital infrastructure of a country, called Ukraine – however corrupt – in the end the people have to pay the price in lives and money.

Maybe Ukraine can be rebuilt as a country of integrity, with a new non-corrupt leadership?

Independently of who does the bidding, Kissinger or the Biden / Stoltenberg hawks, Russia will be able to control not only the Russian speaking and inhabited Donbas area, but also cut Ukraine virtually off sea and waterways access, as Russia controls the Port of Mariupol, the Sea of Azov, the Kerch Straight, linking Crimea with mainland Russia via a newly built bridge. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Black Sea Geopolitics and Russia’s Control of Strategic Waterways: The Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov)

Russia may also have much influence over the control of the Dnieper River – a huge navigable water way – that runs from Belarus through Ukraine to the port of Kherson, Ukraine, at the Black Sea.

The Black Sea is virtually controlled by Russia, as Odessa, Ukraine’s largest port, for the time being is practically non-operable, because it has been mined by Ukraine’s own forces, preventing Ukraine from exporting up to 75 million tons of grains this year.

Russia has already said, they would demine the Black Sea to assist Ukraine shipping her grain to the Middle East and Europe.

Maybe that’s not what the West wants, because the plan is to bring about a tremendous famine to North Africa the Middle East and Europe.

Sadly, this is part of the Great Reset’s and the UN Agenda 2030’s agenda of depopulation and mental submission to the emerging One World Order (OWO). Many people may die. The survivors will suffer various degrees of famine, famine-related diseases and will be weakened, not only physically, but also in mind and spirit. They won’t have the energy to resist, thus become vulnerable for manipulations by the Dark Cult, or the Deep State, whatever term suits you best.

If Kissinger was indeed only a messenger, it would confirm that the Ukraine war – the NATO provocation of crossing Russia’s Red Line – was but an instrument to:

(i) allow Russia to save the population of the Donbass Region from Kiev’s and the Nazi-Azov Battalions’ atrocities. Since the US-instigated Maidan Coup in February 2014, more than 14,000 civilians, the majority women and children, were killed by Ukrainian (Kiev) forces and the infamous Nazi-Azov Battalions; and

(ii) to draw the world’s attention on the US – Russia proxy-war, so that the seamless continuation of UN Agenda 2030, alias the Great Reset, could be planned and implemented undisturbed behind the noise of bombs and canons.

An important element of this plan is to convert the World Health Organization (WHO) into an all-overarching, tyrannical world health-dictator, abolishing individual nations’ health sovereignty, by pushing through the infamous “Pandemic Treaty”. The first attempt, the first vote at the World Health Assembly (WHA) a couple of weeks ago, failed thanks to a block of 47 African countries, voting vehemently against it.

Incidentally, the WHA conference took place in Geneva, in parallel with the WEF. Strangely, Switzerland is hosting both, the WEF and the WHO. No questions asked about their criminal, world-destructive plans.

While no war is ever justified, ever – it maybe important to illustrate what may have led to this armed conflict in Ukraine. From the very beginning, and after the US instigated Maidan Coup in February 2014, Kiev did not adhere to the Ukraine France Germany Russia Belarus February 2015 Minsk 2 Agreement which, inter-alia, guaranteed autonomy within Ukraine to the Donbas Provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.

 February 2015, Minsk 2 Agreement

In addition, after months of lies and denials, the US Department of Defense finally admitted having funded and built 46 military-grade (grade 3) bio-labs in Ukraine. See this.

These bio-labs were a national security threat for Russia. Neutralizing them was a priority for Moscow.

What’s next?

This morning – 16 June 2022 – the three principal leaders (sic) of Europe, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Draghi, arrived in Kiev by train from Poland for “talks” with President Zelenskyy and supposedly other high-ranking government officials. An official agenda is not known. But it could very well go into the same direction of Biden’s, Stoltenberg’s and Kissinger’s verdict: Peace has a price. Concessions, including territorial concessions are a must.

They may also want to know, totally legitimate, where all the billions, (dollars and euros) go; and by whom and how the weapons were dealt with.

There are forces within the Dark Cult pulling in different directions. While those behind the WEF, mostly the banking and financial giants, seem to cling to their “globalization” mantra, there are those, like the military and “real-politicians”, who realize that globalization is going nowhere, that globalization has alienated the public to a degree that massive peoples’ upheavals may derail their plan of shifting and controlling capital from the bottom and center to the top.

So, a loosening of the grip on society – if only temporary in their minds – may be in order. This is the opportunity for the public at large, for We, The People, to wake up and take matters – responsibility for freedom, people’s and national autonomy and cultural sovereignty – in our own hands.

It is high time and not too late.

Remember – We Shall Overcome!

*

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

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.

This article was originally published on November 9. 2020

OK, here we go. Smoking gun. Jackpot.

Right from the horse’s mouth. Right from the man we’re told is the number-one COVID expert in the nation. What Fauci says is golden truth.

Well, how about THIS?

July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology”: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.

Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at about the 4-minute mark [1]):

“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.

Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.

That’s called a false positive.

What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.

Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…

Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and…

The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.

The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.

If anyone in the White House has a few brain cells to rub together, pick up a giant bullhorn and start revealing the truth to the American people.

“Hello, America, you’ve been tricked, lied to, conned, and taken for a devastating ride. On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”

If anyone in the Congress has a few brain cells operating, pull Fauci into a televised hearing and, in ten minutes, make mincemeat out of the fake science that has driven this whole foul, stench-ridden assault on the US economy and its citizens.

All right, here are two chunks of evidence for what I’ve written above. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled [2]: “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” See page 35. This document is marked, “Effective: 07/13/20.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of July 2020. “For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”

FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct).”

Naturally, MANY testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”

Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” [3] Here are money quotes:

“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”

“Set the limit” would usually mean, “We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.”

The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients…”

Boom. That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.

Get the picture?

I hope so.

If a lawyer won’t go to court with all this, or if a judge won’t pay attention and see the light, they should be stripped of their jobs and sent to the Arctic to sell snow.

*

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.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Notes

[1] https://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE?t=260

[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[3] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

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

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

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

First published on June 9, 2022

***

When is the last time you were outside in the morning to experience a glorious dawn? Or sat watching the sun set across the ocean horizon?

How do you feel when you touch the skin of someone you love? A grandparent, parent, lover or child?

Have you ever seen a spider’s web full of morning dew, or after the rain, when the sun is shining through the droplets in the web to reveal the flashing diamonds, sapphires, rubies and emeralds hidden within?

Have you ever stood in a natural environment – a beach, desert, rainforest… – far from a city and noticed that strange and subtle feeling of freedom tremor through your body?

Have you ever marveled at the breathe of wind that cools your face on a hot Summer’s day? Or been intoxicated by the smell of blossom in Spring?

Have you gaped in wonder at the birth of new life: a chick pecking out of its shell, a seed germinating or a baby being born?

Or paused to ponder the sheer magic of being alive yourself?

Or do you find life in the real physical world too constricting, painful, frightening and demanding: something from which you seek to escape, with some distraction or another (work, television, sport, a novel, a drug…), as often as you can?

Well, very soon now, we are promised, you will be able to escape reality far more effectively than those primitive means of distraction made possible previously. And far more effectively than even the outcomes promised in those dystopian novels.

So the fundamental questions we must ask ourselves are simple:

• Do you want real life, with all of the pains, sorrows, fear and fury that go along with beauty, freedom and love?
• Or do you believe what they tell us and want everything unpleasant to go away? Permanently. And to live in delusion thereafter, given synthetic versions of all of the pleasant feelings and experiences described above?

Remember the dialogue between the Savage and Mustapha Mond during the closing stages of Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World?

‘But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.’

‘In fact,’ said Mustapha Mond, ‘you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.’

‘All right then,’ said the Savage defiantly, ‘I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.’

‘Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.’

There was a long silence.

‘I claim them all,’ said the Savage at last.

Well, after nearly one hundred years, the dystopian future described by Huxley is almost upon us and, if we are to defeat it, we need a lot more ‘savages’ willing to forego the promised ‘comforts’.

Because if those who see themselves as our global masters get their way, we are about to enter a virtual world that will become more complete by the day and from which there will be no escape.

The Metaverse

Based on many years of effort, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has recently launched its plan to create our new all-digital world, called the ‘metaverse’. See ‘Defining and Building the Metaverse’.

So if you find natural phenomena – ranging from rainforests, beaches and weather variations to ill-health, danger and unhappiness – annoying, you will soon be able to escape them, compliments of the metaverse. Or so we are promised. And you won’t be troubled by anything resembling what might be called ‘free will’ either. You will be content to do as you are told, even more than you are content to do already.

See ‘Terrified of Freedom: Why Most Human Beings are Embracing the Global Elite’s Technotyranny’.

After all, your mind will no longer be your own.

And while the usual descriptions, written by elite agents, fail to mention it, a quick flash of metaverse-induced fear will make sure that you comply, whatever you are required to do.

The point is this: You won’t be escaping all of those unpleasant feelings after all. They can just be used to control you more directly, to fulfill an elite-determined purpose. But that is a fact they are not advertising.

In their iconic hit song ‘In the Year 2525’, written in 1964 by Rick Evans and later recorded by he and Denny Zager to become a No.1. hit around the world in 1969, Evans captured key elements of what is already upon us somewhat ahead of the schedule mapped out in the song.

[Chorus 2]

In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do, and say
Is in the pills you took today

[Chorus 3]

In the year 4545
Ain’t gonna need your teeth, won’t need your eyes
You won’t find a thing to chew
Nobody’s gonna look at you

[Chorus 4]

In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine’s doing that for you

[Chorus 5]

In the year 6565
Ain’t gonna need no husband, won’t need no wife
You’ll pick your sons, pick your daughters too
From the bottom of a long glass tube
Whoa-oh-oh

So what is the Metaverse?

According to the WEF:

‘The metaverse is a future persistent and interconnected virtual environment where social and economic elements mirror reality. Users can interact with it and each other simultaneously across devices and immersive technologies while engaging with digital assets and property.’ See ‘Defining and Building the Metaverse’.

Moreover, ‘if technologists are right that 2022 will separate thinkers from builders, then last years’ technical advances will produce this year’s first steps towards making the metaverse a reality….

‘But from the perspective of the human experience, one development stands out above all others: extended reality (XR) technologies. These include virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and brain-computer interfaces (BCI), which together position themselves as the next computing platforms in their own right.’

Nevertheless, it is clear that a precise definition of the term ‘metaverse’ (for a start: is it a product, service, place or moment in time?), upon which there is broad agreement even among those who routinely use the term, is yet to emerge. See ‘3 technologies that will shape the future of the metaverse – and the human experience’.

Having written that, here is one definition elaborated in the article above that reveals just how far some of those heavily involved in this work have become disconnected from any sense of themselves and, hence, reality: ‘Specifically, the metaverse is the moment at which our digital lives – our online identities, experiences, relationships, and assets – become more meaningful to us than our physical lives.’ The original quotation can be read here:

‘Spheres of Self: Performativity and Parasociality in the Metaverse’.

And, as Cathy Li describes it, the metaverse is ‘most useful as a lens through which to view ongoing digital transformation. The belief is that virtual worlds, incorporating connected devices, blockchain and other tech, will be so commonplace that the metaverse will become an extension of reality itself.’ See ‘Who will govern the metaverse?’

Let me reiterate two points from the paragraphs immediately above: ‘our digital lives… become more meaningful to us than our physical lives.’ And ‘the metaverse will become an extension of reality itself.’

Really?

While statements such as these reveal the breathtaking level of insanity that underpins this entire enterprise – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ – it does not mean that we are not under enormous threat. Just as vast arsenals of nuclear weapons, by some insane ‘logic’, are supposed to provide us with ‘security’ while actually threatening the existence of all life on Earth, the metaverse is part of a substantial package of measures that will reduce human life to one not worth living.

Why? Well, as noted by authors such as Tom Valovic: The metaverse is one element in the path to implementing technocratic governance over all of humanity.

‘As Planet Earth and our physical world continue to experience massive biospheric degradation and disruption, the elites that are now in many cases pulling the strings of governance at the country level are heading for the exit doors. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are exploring the realm of space and Musk has a Mars mission planned. Globally oriented elites… looked out for themselves which is what they do best….

‘Paralleling the notion of space flight as a form of existential escapism is the metaverse. So what if our cities are crumbling, infrastructures falling apart, and the biosphere is seriously degrading? So what if our wasteful consumer-driven lifestyle has created unprecedented levels of pollution so extensive that it’s now the number one cause of health problems globally? No problem… we’ll just kick back and don our Meta headsets (or worse get a brain implant) and escape into an artificially fabricated world that lets us turn our back on the massive ecological and environmental problems we now face.’ See ‘Why We Should Reject Mark Zuckerberg’s Dehumanizing Vision of a “Metaverse”’.

‘Education’ in the Metaverse

Of course, the metaverse is deeply interwoven with other components of their plan, such as those in relation to what they call ‘education’, which is more accurately described as the process by which young transhuman slaves are programmed to perform their function in the technocratic economy that is being imposed upon us. Of course, ‘education’ sounds better than ‘virtual programming of young transhuman slaves’ so, in the interests of not raising obvious concerns, the word ‘education’ has been used.

As noted by Dr. Michael Nevradakis, discussions on this subject at the recent gathering of the World Economic Forum emphasized the importance of virtual reality (VR) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies with participants touting the purported educational and economic benefits that would derive from use of these technologies in the classroom by helping, according to Dr. Ali Saeed Bin Harmal Al Dhaheri & Dr. Mohamad Ali Hamade, to ‘increase accessibility, enhance quality and improve the affordability of education globally’.

See ‘Experiential learning and VR will reshape the future of education’.

However, as Nevradakis also noted, these discussions had ‘little to say about the need to protect children’s data or digital identities – or, for that matter, providing the types of early-life experiences children require as part of their socialization.’

See ‘Future of Education? WEF’s Vision – Heavy on Virtual Reality and AI Technologies, Light on Privacy Concerns’.

Of course, there is no need for concern about the ‘early-life experiences’ of those young transhumans who are being programmed for decades of servitude prior to being terminated when they are no longer functional.

Beyond claimed educational and economic benefits, however, some authors argue that digitalizing education can play a role in easing pressures on the environment and climate. How so? Nevradakis again: ‘Indeed, the WEF said the use of “textbooks, notebooks and pencils as critical learning tools” is on the way out, due to “environmental pressures and COP26 goals (from the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference),” which “will drive the digitalizing of education streams.”’

See ‘Future of Education? WEF’s Vision – Heavy on Virtual Reality and AI Technologies, Light on Privacy Concerns’.

But it is clearly delusional to suggest that the use of textbooks, notebooks and pencils has greater adverse impact on the environment and climate than the environmental cost and climate impact of producing sophisticated technology for each student. And despite claims of ‘improved affordability’ it is equally delusional to ignore the economic and social cost, for example, to the child ‘laborers’ in the Congo working in appalling conditions to extract strategic minerals to produce this technology.

See ‘Humanity’s “Dirty Little Secret”: Starving, Enslaving, Raping, Torturing and Killing our Children’.

Besides, as touched on below, education is already a monstrous experience, destroying the Selfhood of the child so that they become submissively obedient. Removing the bulk of education’s remaining social component by technologizing it can only make it even worse.

Babies in the Metaverse

Then again, maybe ‘children’ will no longer be put through school. It simply won’t be necessary because children, for transhuman slaves at least, will no longer exist.

By 2070, the metaverse will offer you virtual babies, ‘environmentally-friendly digital children’, according to UK artificial intelligence (AI) expert Catriona Campbell. ‘Parents will see and interact with their offspring through next-generation AR [augmented reality] glasses and haptic gloves.’ The latter devices enable users to experience ‘a realistic sense of touch when handling virtual or holographic objects’. As a bonus, these children take up no space, cost nothing to feed and remain healthy, if that is what you want, for as long as they are programmed to ‘live’. A subscription might cost as little as $25 each month.

And if this seems like a monumental leap out of reality to you, Campbell also believes that ‘within 50 years technology will have advanced to such an extent that babies which exist in the metaverse are indistinct from those in the real world…. As the metaverse evolves, I can see virtual children becoming an accepted and fully embraced part of society in much of the developed world.’

See ‘“Virtual babies” who grow up in real time will be commonplace by 2070, expert predicts’.

That’s right, Campbell is claiming that ‘within 50 years… babies which exist in the metaverse are indistinct from those in the real world’! Pause a moment. How does that sound to you?

Just in case you cannot wait, you are welcome to start using early versions now. See, for example, Virtual Baby, Adopt a Virtual Baby and My Virtual Child.

Oh, and by the way, you won’t be having sex either, whether for reproductive purposes or otherwise. You will prefer virtual sex.

See ‘Sex And Pornography Aim To Strike Gold In The Metaverse’.

Critiquing the Metaverse

Beyond the criticisms already noted above, there are a great many other criticisms of the metaverse and the role it will play in the overall elite program being implemented under what the WEF calls its ‘Great Reset’. This comprehensive program will transform human society and human life for those people left alive after the eugenics component has been fully implemented.

See ‘The Final Battle for Humanity: It is “Now or Never” in the Long War Against Homo Sapiens’.

If you like, you can read a little more about what the masters of this metaverse intend for us, as well as critiques of it, by authors such as these.

Derrick Broze: While some people ‘

may not intend for The Metaverse to become an all encompassing reality that supersedes physical reality, for the Zuckerbergs, Microsofts, and WEFs of the world, that is exactly what they intend for The Metaverse…. For the billionaire class and their puppet organizations, such as the WEF and the United Nations, the Metaverse offers up the potential to commandeer all life into digital prisons where the people can be charged for services and products in the digital realm…. With the people of the world safely tucked into their digital beds, the Technocrats could complete their total takeover of natural resources, the economy, and humanity itself.’ See ‘The Great Narrative And The Metaverse, Part 2: Will The Metaverse End Human Freedom?’

Dr. Michael Nevradakis:

‘Who will govern the ‘metaverse’?… According to the WEF, “real-world governance models” represent one possible option for metaverse governance. However, far from referring to constitutionally defined institutions of governance, with checks and balances, the WEF cites Facebook’s “Oversight Board” as an example of such a “real-world governance model.”’ See ‘WEF Launches “Metaverse” Initiative, Predicts Digital Lives Will Become “More Meaningful to Us Than Our Physical Lives”’.

But an earlier World Economic Forum report from its Global Redesign Initiative was more blunt:

‘The report postulates that a globalized world is best managed by a coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system) and select civil society organizations (CSOs).’ See Sustainable Development Goals and Human Rights p. 209, citing ‘Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World’.

So if you believe that you and I are destined to have a say in the metaverse that is unfolding, you would be wise to keep investigating. Elite proposals are invariably very distant from the type of governance models usually considered by ‘ordinary’ people in a multiplicity of contexts, where the emphasis is on facilitating widespread grassroots participation, not rule by technocrats.

You can read considerably more about what our technocratic overlords have in mind – including the existing trade in such things as virtual real estate, virtual clothing and virtual art – and what is wrong with it, in the articles on the metaverse published by Patrick Wood on ‘Technocracy News & Trends’: ‘Metaverse’. And there is more in articles such as these:

‘The Top 10 Creepiest and Most Dystopian Things Pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF)’ and

‘“How Our Lives Could Soon Look”: The World Economic Forum Posts An Insane Dystopian Video’.

And here’s another simple issue to ponder. Remember how I mentioned above that a quick flash of metaverse-induced fear would ensure that you complied with an elite-determined directive, how does the idea of eating bugs, processed sewage and human flesh appeal? Well, given that your mind will no longer be your own, what appeals now, or doesn’t, will be irrelevant once the metaverse is determining how you perceive things.

See ‘Canadian Company Pledges To Produce TWO BILLION BUGS Per Year For Human Consumption’ and ‘Will You Eat Cultured Meat Grown From Human Cells?’

You will eat ‘Soylent Green’ because that is what the program tells you.

So why are people embracing the Metaverse?

In a recent article in which he described taking his son to watch a film through 3D glasses, Charles Eisenstein noted ‘The on-screen reality was so vivid, stimulating and intense that it made the real world seem boring by comparison.’ See ‘Transhumanism and the Metaverse’.

How can this happen?

Because we terrorize our children into submissive obedience, devoid of the unique and powerful individual Self they were gifted by evolution at birth. See ‘Why Violence?’, ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’and ‘Do We Want School or Education?’ Why? Essentially to keep them performing tasks that bore them senseless throughout their school and working life.

Fundamentally, this terrorization works because it compels our children into suppressing awareness of how they feel. As a result, only the most intense experiences register emotionally: The capacity to experience a subtle feeling has been lost. And without this capacity, they cannot develop into the powerful, courageous Self-willed individuals that evolution intended. They are human relics. Ready and willing to be turned into a transhuman slave in the unconscious hope they will be finally able to experience, in the metaverse, what was taken from them in the real world as a child.

But they won’t get that experience, even in the metaverse. It is not what the elite has in mind for us.

Resisting the Metaverse

Of course, the metaverse is just one feature of the Global Elite agenda that is being imposed upon us. And it is not enough to resist individual features of the ‘Great Reset’ program. We must strategically resist its most fundamental elements so that the entire agenda is defeated.

If you are inclined to join those strategically resisting the ‘Great Reset’ and its related agendas, you are welcome to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign which identifies a list of 30 strategic goals for doing so.

In addition and more simply, you can download a one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 16 languages (Czech, Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish & Slovak) with more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’.

If strategically resisting the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram group (with a link accessible from the website).

And if you want a child who is powerfully able to perceive the dysfunctional lure of the metaverse, and is able to join you in resisting it, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.

Conclusion

So, for just a little longer, the choice is yours.

You can live your life with all its challenges and problems, joys and achievements. Or you can live the virtual life that someone else programmed for you, including whatever comes with it that they didn’t tell you about.

In short, like Neo in the film ‘The Matrix’, you have a choice. You can choose the Blue Pill and proceed to live in a synthesized, fictional, computer-generated world. Or you take the Red Pill and, in this case, join the fight with those of us determined to defend the real world and avert descent into the metaverse.

But you must make that choice while you still have free will.

So you must make that choice soon.

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from WEF