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.

***

Approximately a year ago, August 2021, Dr Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) wrote an opinion article in which he rhetorically asked What Would Happen to the World Without the United States. That article was and still is an informative, thought provoking and food for thought. It offers an insight into the need for global cooperation, peace and solidarity. It brings into memory the Communist slogans: the world without nuclear, peace and development, friendship and international solidarity.

After the historic fall of the Soviet era, Russia really dreamed of raising its status by joining international organizations. Over the past three decades, it became a member of many global bodies, participating actively at the United Nations. In addition, Russia created the Greater Eurasia Union, BRICS – a group of states comprising Brazil, India, China and South Africa – and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). With the current changes taking place, Russia has exited some of the foreign organizations including, Group of Eight (G-8), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). These have also generated hot debates whether to let it go out of the Group of Twenty (G-20).

Reports have categorically stressed that the course of geopolitical events is becoming irreversible. According to one report:

“Russia does not intend to tolerate the subversive actions carried out by the collective West towards setting up a rules-based order to replace international law trampled upon by the United States and its satellites.”

But today it seems we are almost close to the beginning of nuclear war. The world’s economy has been shattered, with skyrocketing prices, deficit in supplies of oil and gas to some parts of the world. The world has all the untapped natural resources to make people’ lives sustainable, but now an estimated half of the global population is under unbearable fear and deep strain, majority struggling to make a living.

This article seeks to focus specifically on Russia and the world. We attempt to imagine What Happens to Russia Without the United States and Europe. Unbelievably relations have soared these few years and almost at the verge of collapse completely. Another Cold war indeed, is at the door reminiscent of the previous ideological confrontation between the East and the West. We imagine Russia today without the two global powers; the United States and Europe.

What Would Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe? In his article published on RIAC website last August 2021, Dr Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) offered the definition or the descrption of the United States as often referred to as an “indispensable nation.”

The term was first used in January 1997 by President Bill Clinton during his second inaugural address. And thereafter, Madeleine Albright would mention it in her speeches and writings on numerous occasions after that. The underlying idea of “indispensability” here is that it suggests it would simply be impossible to maintain even relative order in the world – let alone resolve fundamental global and regional issues – without the United States. “It is likely no coincidence that the coinage came about and gained traction at a time when we were living in an almost completely unipolar world, when U.S. influence and authority around the globe had risen to never-before-seen heights over an incredibly short period of time,” he wrote in his article.

The situation is now evolving differently and how indispensable are the United States and Europe. Can we do, due to some typical circumstances, without them today? Russia, over the past few months exited out of a number of international organizations, and therefore moving into self-isolation. Russia is globe-trotting to make alliances against the United States and Europe. It leads new alliance first for defeating unipolarism, and second for creating a new world political and economic order. But, what would happen to Russia if the Federation Council and the State Duma (both organs of the Russian Federation) legislate to prohibit the use of Western and European languages, for instance English and French, due to the absolute hatred for these two powers’ hegemony. What if Russia has to prohibit the use of English, especially in its educational institutions, halt English-taught programmes throughout the Russian Federation. What happens if the Skolkovo project, considered as Sillicon Valley, kick out all foreign residents there?

Russia-Europe-United States’ cultural and educational cooperation have ultimately collapsed. It has crippled and ridiculed the work with civil society. Russia has closed the British Council, the American Educational Council with its Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) programme, and Alliance Française and Geothe Institute. These are the largest cultural networks of Britain, the United States, France and Germany. While Russia struggles with its own non-profit NGO Russkiy Mir primarily tasked to popularize Russian language, literature and Russian culture around the world, but on the contrary found it necessary to halt non-political and non-profit educational branches of western ones that operated under their diplomatic missions in the Russian Federation.

The FLEX programme, created as the best way to ensure long-lasting peace and mutual understanding between the U.S. and the countries of Eurasia, enables young people, over 35,000 students who compete annually, to learn about the United States, and to teach Americans about their countries, mostly from the former Soviet republics. These educational and cultural centers have practically helped thousands of Russian students, with government-sponsored grants, to acquire comparative knowledge in various academic fields abroad. While some, after the training programmes, still remain abroad, others returned to contribute their quota in sustainable development in Russia.

What Would Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe?

The United States corporate business engagement is simply not comparable to Russia’s economic footprints in the United States. On April 29, 2021, President Vladimir Putin held videoconference with leaders of several corporate French companies-members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI France-Russia) to discuss some aspects of Russian-French trade, economic and investment cooperation, including the implementation of large joint projects as well as the prospects for collaborative work in the Russian Federation.

From the historical records, France was described as a key economic partner for Russia, holding the 6th place among the EU countries (European Union is made up of 27 member-countries) in the amount of accumulated investment in the Russian economy and 5th place in the volume of trade. Over 500 companies with French capital are operating in various sectors of the Russian economy. Despite a certain decline in mutual trade in 2020, the ultimate figure quite acceptable at US$13 billion. But French investment in Russia was hovering around US$17 billion, while Russian investment in France, very tiny at US$3 billion.

There are EU countries such as Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain playing significant economic roles in Russia. Their level of business are far higher than that of Russia in the European Union. Undeniably, Russia is only an energy supplier, but its economic involvement is comparatively little. Many Western and EU companies are suspending their business operations. The Kremlin and Russian authorities say the United States and European Union bloc are taking systematic and well-thought-out measures to destabilize the economy of Russia. Several “systematic, very serious measures corresponding to the extraordinary unfriendly conditions that were placed upon us by unfriendly actions (of other countries), well thought out measures,” are being taken, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said during one of his media conferences.

‘United Russia’ – the largest political party in Russia, which supports President Putin’s policies – has proposed to nationalization of the enterprises of those Western companies that refused to operate in the Russian Federation. On March 7, Secretary of United Russia’s General Council Andrey Turchak said that the state legislative commission approved the initiative providing for the possibility of nationalizing the property of foreign corporations leaving the Russian market.

On the other hand, Dr Andrey Kortunov proposed to take a thought experiment: imagine if the United States were to completely depart from world politics, break all the international agreements to which Washington is a party, renounce all the obligations the country has undertaken, withdraw from all global and regional organizations, close the borders, shut down the embassies and consulates, freeze immigration and put all communication with the outside world on hold until things are looking better, focusing all its attention on building its biblical shining city upon a hill.

Dr Andrey Kortunov’s question: “What Would Happen to the World if the United States were erased from the map?” To begin with, there would only be one nuclear superpower left in the world, and that would be Russia. Accordingly, the last foundations of bilateral U.S.–Russia strategic arms control will collapse. It is unlikely that other nuclear powers would be particularly interested in entering into negotiations with Moscow on nuclear weapons, as the gap between Russia and all the other players is simply too great. It is even less likely that Moscow will agree to relinquish its unique nuclear advantage over the rest of the world. However, unconditional nuclear superiority does not automatically mean that Moscow would be able to freely dictate its will in global politics. The nuclear arsenals of other countries would continue to be effective deterrence instruments, and a war between the members of the “nuclear club” would be just as implausible as it is today.

That said, nuclear proliferation is likely to significantly aggravate. In the absence of the “extended deterrence” of the United States, many of its former allies and partners would think about acquiring nuclear weapons of their own. This primarily implies countries in East Asia (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt). The idea of building up a nuclear arsenal may also take hold in Germany. Some five or six new nuclear powers could appear in short order.

While it is unlikely that nuclear proliferation in East Asia would lead to a sharp escalation of military and political risks, the emergence of new nuclear states in the Middle East would be fraught with dire consequences – both for the region and for the international community as a whole. That said, we should acknowledge that the threat of nuclear proliferation exists even today, and this can in large part be put down to the approach of the United States to resolving issues related to the Iranian nuclear programme.

The question is: Would NATO be able to Survive in a World Without the United States? Theoretically, yes, but only if the European great powers – the United Kingdom, Germany and France – put the maximum political, economic and military effort into it.

The remaining countries in the bloc will have to increase their defence contributions by more than the two per cent on which Washington insists today to some four or five per cent. Even this, though, would not offset the losses that NATO would incur as a result of the U.S. withdrawal. Without American leadership, NATO would likely turn into a regional military and political instrument of the European Union – while London’s role in the organization would be unclear seeing as it is no longer in the EU – and NATO would have a far more modest role in world affairs than it has today. Without the United States, it is unlikely that NATO would continue to pursue its current global ambitions, and the remaining members may be rather reluctant to endlessly expand the organization’s zone of geographic responsibility.

In a world without the United States, China would almost automatically become the undisputed leader in global technology. Although Europe, Japan, India and Southeast Asian nations would likely have greater incentive to join forces to challenge China’s hegemony in this area. With this in mind, it is hard to say whether it would be possible to create a global technological ecosystem that would be independent of Beijing without the United States. This would largely depend on how rigid or flexible Beijing’s hegemony would actually turn out to be as well as on the extent to which China would manage to avoid monopolizing the new technologies that are fundamental to the global community at large.

Dr Andrey Kortunov wrote that the euro would inevitably become the main reserve currency once the dollar exits the global financial system. The Chinese yuan is not entirely convertible, which means that it would be a long time before China could compete with the European Union in the financial sphere. Other global currencies – such as the British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc – could gain in importance. European and Asian financial centres (London, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Singapore, etc.) would receive additional powerful incentives for development.

International financial institutions (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund), where the United States has traditionally played a leading role, would undergo sweeping – and likely very painful – reforms. As a sidenote, we shall argue that the United Nations would also suffer a profound institutional crisis, losing both its current headquarters in New York and approximately 22 per cent of its base budget, as well as the U.S. contributions to individual UN departments and programmes. The Arctic Council would suffer less, as the American sector of the Arctic is far smaller than that of Russia and Canada. What is more, the United States has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which somewhat complicates Washington’s position in the Arctic Council.

The absence of the United States on the world’s energy markets could lead to a temporary revival of OPEC and a strengthening of Russia’s positions. The “green” and “shale” revolutions will continue unabated, however. Washington’s departure from the global arms and foodstuff markets would also result in a significant restructuring of these markets. Even with the joint efforts of the remaining players, the gap left by the United States in the arms market would be extremely difficult to fill.

With Hollywood no longer the centre of the global film industry, cities that used to hold that position -primarily Paris and Rome – would have the chance to revive their former cinematic glory. However, European filmmakers would face tough competition on the global entertainment market from filmmakers of Indian and, in particular, Chinese origin The disappearance of New York from world fashion would give a second wind to Paris and Milan, while the United Kingdom would probably become the centre of musical life for a long time to come.

According to Dr Andrey Kortunov, the departure of Apple – and its iPhones and MacBooks – from the portable electronics markets would create a vacuum that a dozen of the biggest electronics giants in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan would fight to fill. America’s self-imposed isolation would send shockwaves through higher education and science markets globally to reverberate for decades to come.

Quite naturally, the world would not lapse. It would survive the departure of the United States just like it survived the extinction of the dinosaurs and woolly mammoths. It would be difficult and extremely uncomfortable at first, especially for those international players who have been hiding in the shadow of the American superpower for decades. The withdrawal of the United States would lead to a number of crises and conflicts and a long period of instability and uncertainty as the struggle for the “American legacy” would inevitably be long and tense. Somehow, we would still get through it! Plus, the world already had a preview of Washington as an unpredictable and unreliable partner during Donald Trump’s presidency. It will actually be easier to resolve certain problems without Washington, since the U.S. is often part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

According to Dr Andrey Kortunov, the world would miss the United States. “We would miss the American optimism, the American energy and the American drive. We would miss the high-rise buildings of Manhattan, the narrow streets of the French Quarter in New Orleans and the expansive prairies of the Great Plains. We would miss the country music, the Chicago-style steaks and the Californian nutmeg chardonnay. We would miss Halloween, Thanksgiving and, perhaps, Independence Day. Just like the entire world would miss Russia, Argentina, Ethiopia and New Zealand. Every single country is unique and indispensable in its own way. In this sense, the United States truly is an indispensable nation,” he asserted in his conclusion.

European Russia accounts for about 75% of Russia’s total population. But demographical documents further indicate that 1.8 million Russians live in the European Union (majority in Britain, Germany and France), 1.3 million Russians live in the United States (majority in New York and Washington) and in Canada. Both the United States and Canada, and European Union have provided better living conditions for Russians more than for American, Canadian and European citizens (in fact very small number) who live in the Russian Federation.

But then, the rhetorical questions are: What Would Really Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe? Can Russia lead the emerging global economic order? Is Russia ready to support developing countries where the United States and Europe have failed? Is Moscow a financial hub and host to international organizations’ representation offices as in New York and Washington, and in Europe? Can Russia turn into superpower with hegemony characteristics, and provide the same conditions for foreigners as obtained in the United States and Europe? Is this the end of Russians’ American and European Dream?

Dr Andrey Kortunov’s distinctive question is: What Would Happen to the World Without the United States? Special gratitude for food-for-thought and thought-provoking question from Dr Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of RIAC. The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) is a non-profit academic and diplomatic think tank that was established in February 2010. The RIAC makes strengthening peace, friendship and solidarity its direction of activities, and works closely with the state, academic community, business, and civil society in an effort to find foreign policy solutions to complex diverse issues.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image is from the author

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 Suicide Spectacular Summer Show, currently on screen across Europe, proceeds in full regalia, much to the astonishment of virtually the whole Global South: a trashy, woke Gotterdammerung remake, with Wagnerian grandeur replaced by twerking.

Decadent Roman Emperors at least exhibited some degree of pathos. Here we’re just faced by a toxic mix of hubris, abhorring mediocrity, delusion, crude ideological sheep-think and outright irrationality wallowing in white man’s burden racist/supremacist slush – all symptoms of a profound sickness of the soul.

To call it the Biden-von Der Leyen-Blinken West or so would be too reductionist: after all these are puny politico/functionaries merely parroting orders. This is a historical process: physical, psychic and moral cognitive degeneration embedded in NATOstan’s manifest desperation in trying to contain Eurasia, allowing occasional tragicomic sketches such as a NATO summit proclaiming Woke War against virtually the whole non-West.

So when President Putin addresses the collective West  in front of Duma leaders and heads of political parties, it does feel like a comet striking an inert planet. It’s not even a case of “lost in translation”. “They” simply aren’t equipped to get it.

The “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet” part was at least formulated to be understood even by simpletons:

“Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield, well, what can I say, let them try. We have heard many times that the West wants to fight us to the last Ukrainian – this is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people. But it looks like it’s all coming to this. But everyone should know that, by and large, we haven’t really started anything yet.”

Fact. On Operation Z, Russia is using a fraction of its military potential, resources and state of the art weapons.

Then we come to the most probable path ahead in the war theater:

“We do not refuse peace negotiations, but those who refuse should know that the longer it drags, the more difficult it will be for them to negotiate with us.”

As in the pain dial will be ratcheted up, slowly but surely, on all fronts.

Yet the meat of the matter had been delivered earlier in the speech: “ratcheting up the pain dial” applies in fact to dismantling the whole “rules-based international order” edifice. The geopolitical world has changed. Forever.

Here’s the arguably key passage:

“They should have understood that they have already lost from the very beginning of our special military operation, because its beginning means the beginning of a radical breakdown of the World Order in the American way. This is the beginning of the transition from liberal-globalist American egocentrism to a truly multipolar world – a world based not on selfish rules invented by someone for themselves, behind which there is nothing but the desire for hegemony, not on hypocritical double-standards, but on international law, on the true sovereignty of peoples and civilizations, on their will to live their historical destiny, their values and traditions and build cooperation on the basis of democracy, justice and equality. And we must understand that this process can no longer be stopped.”

Meet the trifecta

A case can be made that Putin and Russia’s Security Council are implementing a tactical trifecta that has reduced the collective West to an amorphous bunch of bio headless chickens.

The trifecta mixes the promise of negotiations – but only when considering Russia’s steady advances on the ground in Novorossiya; the fact that Russia’s global “isolation” has been proved in practice to be nonsense; and tweaking the most visible pain dial of them all: Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

The main reason for the graphic, thundering failure of the G20 Foreign Ministers summit in Bali is that the G7 – or NATOstan plus American colony Japan – could not force the BRICS plus major Global South players to isolate, sanction and/or demonize Russia.

On the contrary: multiple interpolations outside of the G20 spell out even more Eurasia-wide integration. Here are a few examples.

The first transit of Russian products to India via the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) is now in effect, crisscrossing Eurasia from Mumbai to the Baltic via Iranian ports (Chabahar or Bandar Abbas), the Caspian Sea, and Southern and Central Russia. Crucially, the route is shorter and cheaper than going through the Suez Canal.

In parallel, the head of the Iranian Central Bank, Ali Salehabadi, confirmed that a memorandum of interbank cooperation was signed between Tehran and Moscow.

That means a viable alternative to SWIFT, and a direct consequence of Iran’s application to become a full BRICS member, announced at the recent summit in Beijing. The BRICS, since 2014, when the New Development Bank (NDB) was founded, have been busy building their own financial infrastructure, including the near future creation of a single reserve currency. As part of the process, the harmonization of Russian and Iranian banking systems is inevitable.

Iran is also about to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the upcoming summit in Samarkand in September.

In parallel, Russia and Kazakhstan are solidifying their strategic partnership: Kazakhstan is a key member of BRI, EAEU and SCO.

India gets even closer to Russia across the whole spectrum of trade – including energy.

And next Tuesday, Tehran will be the stage for a crucial face-to-face meeting between Putin and Erdogan.

Isolation? Really?

On the energy front, it’s only summer, but demented paranoia is already raging across multiple EU latitudes, especially Germany. Comic relief is provided by the fact that Gazprom can always point out to Berlin that eventual supplying problems on Nord Stream 1 – after the cliffhanger return of that notorious repaired turbine from Canada – can always be solved by implementing Nord Stream 2.

As the whole European Suicide Spectacular Summer Show is nothing but a tawdry self-inflicted torture ordered by His Master’s Voice, the only serious question is which pain dial level will force Berlin to actually sit down and negotiate on behalf of legitimate German industrial and social interests.

Rough and tumble will be the norm. Foreign Minister Lavrov summed it all up when commenting on the Declining Collective West Ministers striking poses like infantile brats in Bali to avoid being seen with him: that was up to “their understanding of the protocols and politeness.”

That’s diplo-talk for “bunch of jerks”. Or worse: cultural barbarians, as they were even unable to respect the hyper-polite Indonesian hosts, who abhor confrontation.

Lavrov preferred to extol the “joint strategic and constructive” Russian-Chinese work when faced with a very aggressive West. And that brings us to the prime masterpiece of shadowplay in Bali – complete with several layers of geopolitical fog.

Chinese media, always flirting with the opaque, tried to put its bravest face ever depicting the over 5-hour meeting  between Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Secretary Blinken as “constructive”.

What’s fascinating here is that the Chinese ended up letting something crucial out of the bag to slip into the final draft of their report – obviously approved by the powers that be.

Lu Xiang of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences went through previous readouts – especially of “Yoda” Yang Jiechi routinely turning Jake Sullivan into roasted duck – and stressed that this time Wang’s “warnings” to the Americans were “the sternest one in wording”.

That’s diplo-code for “You Better Watch Out”: Wang telling Little Blinkie, “just look at what the Russians did when they lost their patience with your antics.”

The expression ”dead end” was recurrent during the Wang-Blinken meeting. So in the end the Global Times had to tell it like it really is: “The two sides are close to a showdown.”

“Showdown” is what End of Days fanatic and Tony Soprano wannabe Mike Pompeo is fervently preaching from his hate pulpit, while the combo behind the senile “leader of the free world” who literally reads teleprompters actively work for the crashing of the EU – in more ways than one.

The combo in power in Washington actually “supports” the unification of Britain, Poland, Ukraine and The Three Baltic Midgets as a separate alliance from NATO/EU – aiming at “strengthening the defense potential.” That’s the official position of U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julian Smith.

So the real imperial aim is to split the already shattering EU into mini-union pieces, all of them quite fragile and evidently more “manageable”, as Brussels Eurocrats, blinded by boundless mediocrity, obviously can’t see it coming.

What the Global South is buying

Putin always makes it very clear that the decision to launch Operation Z – as a sort of pre-emptive “combined arms and police operation”, as defined by Andrei Martyanov – was carefully calculated, considering an array of material and socio-psychological vectors.

Anglo-American strategy, for its part, lasers on a single obsession: damn any possible reframing of the current “rules-based international order”. No holds are barred to ensure the perpetuity of this order. This is in fact Totalen Krieg – featuring several hybrid layers, and quite worrying, with only a few seconds to midnight.

And there’s the rub. Desolation Row is fast becoming Desperation Row, as the whole Russophobic matrix is shown to be naked, devoid of any extra ideological – and even financial – firepower to “win”, apart from shipping a collection of HIMARS to a black hole.

Geopolitically and geoeconomically, Russia and China are in the process of eating NATOstan alive – in more ways than one. Here, for instance, is a synthetic road map of how Beijing will address the next stage of high-quality development via capital-driven industrial upgrading, focused on optimization of supply chains, import substitution of hard technologies, and “invisible champions” of industry.

If the collective West is blinded by Russophobia, the governing success of the Chinese Communist Party – which in a matter of a few decades improved the lives of more people than anyone, anytime in History – drives it completely nuts.

All along the Russia-China watchtower, it’s been not such a long time coming. BRI was launched by Xi Jinping in 2013. After Maidan in 2014, Putin launched the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) in 2015. Crucially, in May 2015, a Russia-China joint statement sealed the cooperation between BRI and EAEU, with a significant role assigned to the SCO.

Closer integration advanced via the St. Petersburg forum in 2016 and the BRI forum in 2017. The overall target: to create a new order in Asia, and across Eurasia, according to international law while maintaining the individual development strategies of each concerned country and respecting their national sovereignty.

That, in essence, is what most of the Global South is buying. It’s as if there’s a cross-border instinctual understanding that Russia-China, against serious odds and facing serious challenges, proceeding by trial and error, are at the vanguard of the Shock of the New, while the collective West, naked, dazed and confused, their masses completely zombified, is sucked into the maelstrom of psychological, moral and material disintegration.

No question the pain deal will be ratcheted up, in more ways than one.

*

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.

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 OneWorld

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 UN Security Council has agreed to extend a system for cross-border aid to Idlib, Syria until January 2023.

The US and its allies had demanded a year-long extension, but Russia used its veto on Friday.

UN and other NGO aid delivery trucks will cross from Turkey into Syria at the Bab al Hawa crossing. The system has been in place since 2014, but expired on Sunday.

At stake are daily supplies for about 2 million people in the northwestern Idlib region of Syria. According to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, more than 4,600 aid trucks, carrying mostly food, have crossed Bab al Hawa this year.

Dmitry Polyanski, Russia’s deputy ambassador to the UN, said Moscow would adopt the resolution with “a minimal modification.” At least nine of the 15 members must support a resolution to be adopted, and none of the permanent members can use their veto.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had emphasized the importance of extending the cross-border aid mechanism in Syria, in a conversation with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Monday.

Since 2019, Russia has argued that the UN should work with Damascus on aid deliveries out of respect for Syria’s sovereignty. Moscow and Ankara signed a ceasefire agreement covering Idlib in 2019; however, Turkey has failed to uphold its end of the bargain.

The original UN mandate for cross-border aid to Syria in 2014 was devised thinking that rebel-controlled areas were temporary, but the situation in Idlib continues to exist in a stalemate, with no clear military or political resolution on the horizon.

Heated debates in late 2019 and mid-2020, during which Russia and China used their vetoes three times to block resolutions renewing the mandate, saw Moscow succeed in limiting the UN’s cross-border operations to a single crossing, at Bab al-Hawa, and Russia made clear that the mandate could not be renewed indefinitely.

Russia also demanded that the UN work harder on delivering aid into Idlib from government-held Syrian territory, and called for greater international funding for recovery projects in government-controlled parts of Syria.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in particular has played a pivotal role in cross-border aid delivery.

In 2014, Serena Shim, an American journalist was killed in Turkey just one day after she broadcast that the Turkish intelligence agency had threatened her and accused her of spying.

This accusation followed her original investigative reporting at the Turkish border of Syria in which she observed Islamic State terrorists crossing into Syria inside UN food trucks.

The terrorists and their weapons were flooding from Turkey into Syria through a US CIA program which President Trump cut off in 2017.

The US and its western allies have demonized Russia over the current Ukraine conflict.  However, the work that Russia is doing in Syria should not be conflated with Ukraine, as they are not connected.

The Russian Center for Negotiations in Syria has been responsible for brokering peace deals between armed terrorists and the Syrian government.  This has led to the peaceful resolution on conflicts across the country, and terrorists and their families and supporters were given the option of surrender or being bussed to Idlib.

The population today in Idlib is not the original civilians, who were mainly olive growers, but is displaced people coming from locations far removed from Idlib.  The common denominator of the majority of inhabitants in Idlib is their political ideology which is Radical Islam.  The various ‘rebel’ groups from the outset of 2011, have been aiming for an Islamic State in Syria.  Freedom and democracy is not their goal.

The Free Syrian Army ceased to exist and Jibhat al-Nusra became the fiercest fighting force on the battlefields by 2015, and was the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria.  Because Jibhat al-Nusra is designated an outlawed terrorist organization by the US and UN, they changed their name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in an effort to clean up their image and keep US-EU support.

The HTS-backed ‘Salvation Government’ administers Idlib and rules with an iron fist.  HTS, Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood all have the same political platform: to establish an Islamic State, with the Koran as the only rule of law.

Idlib is just one small province in Syria, and most of the Syrian civilians in Aleppo, Homs, Latakia and Damascus don’t receive UN aid, or any charity aid.  This has led to a deep-seated resentment of the majority of Syrians, who are suffering from lack of electricity, lack of gasoline, and hyper-inflationary prices of basic food items, directed at the people living in Idlib who are living off free food and supplies.

In 2010, the Christian Science Monitor published an article “Syrian Secularism: a Model for the Middle East”.

Syria is a mixed population of Jews, Christians and Muslims.  The peaceful coexistence was maintained by the Syrian government embracing all religions and taking pride in a diverse heritage.

When the US-NATO attack on Syria began in 2011, they used Radical Islamic terrorists as foot soldiers, but their regime change goal was a failure because the Syrian population fought back against Radical Islam.  The Syrian people were determined to maintain their secular system.

Before 2011, about 10,000 Christians lived in the Idlib province, but their numbers started to decline in 2012, and by 2015 most of them had fled the Radical Islamic terrorists in control. Today, only about 200 Christians remain and are elderly.

In late January 2013, the Christian village of Al-Yacoubiyah in Idlib was captured by terrorists.

Between 2015-2018, up to 95% of Al-Yacoubiyah emigrated, as HTS took control and properties of the Christians were seized, churches were locked up and Christian people were denied to perform their religious rituals, church bells were prevented to ring and crosses were not allowed to be hung on churches.  HTS even takes 2.5% of the farmers crops per year as a tax on ‘heathens’, which HTS considers all Christians.

The US, EU and NATO have turned their backs on Syria and are involved with Ukraine. Experts have asked, “Who benefits from starving people in Idlib?”

Apparently, the US and its allies benefit from keeping the Idlib population as hostages to a political process which has no roadmap or movement.  Instead of convening a meeting of nations to solve the stalemate in Idlib, and free the civilians from an Islamic State in Idlib, the UN only haggles about how to deliver aid, to feed the stalemate.

*

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

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.

***

One of the most important heads-of-state in the struggle to end Portuguese domination in Africa died in a Spanish hospital on July 8.

Jose Eduardo dos Santos served as president of the Republic of Angola from 1979 to 2017 as well as the Secretary General of the ruling Popular Movement for Liberation of Angola (MPLA-Worker’s Party).

The MPLA was the leading liberation movement which fought for the independence of Angola from Portugal. After the armed struggle against Lisbon and its NATO allies between 1961-1975, the MPLA became the target of the United States and the then racist apartheid regime in South Africa in their strategic aim of curtailing the genuine independence of the entire sub-continent. Rather than recognize the legitimacy of the MPLA, Washington and its cohorts backed two rival groupings, the FNLA (Front for the Liberation of Angola) and UNITA (Union for the Total Independence of Angola), which were funded and assisted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the South African Defense Forces (SADF).

Image on the right: Angola MPLA founding President Agostino Neto (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Angola founding President Agostino Neto, turned to the Republic of Cuba and other socialist and progressive forces across the continent and internationally in order to secure the independence of the state under MPLA rule. Cuban internationalist forces remained in Angola from late 1975 to 1989, when an agreement was reached with the apartheid rulers of Namibia and South Africa to withdraw from the country as well as neighboring Namibia, then known as Southwest Africa. Namibia won its independence in 1990 after 14 years of armed revolutionary warfare. The military defeat of the SADF in southern Angola also led to the release of political prisoners in Namibia and South Africa and the negotiated transition from apartheid to democratic rule in the Republic of South Africa in 1994.

Dos Santos and the MPLA

The deceased former president had joined the MPLA (founded in 1956) during its early years in 1961. He was granted a scholarship to study petroleum engineering in the Soviet Union during the 1960s. By 1970, Dos Santos had returned to the region to serve as a guerrilla soldier in the MPLA.

Dos Santos served in the Second Front of the MPLA military department known as the People’s Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola (FAPLA). He was stationed in the oil-rich Cabinda province and often served as a representative for the MPLA in international forums. He was a member of the MPLA Executive Committee and after the independence of Angola on November 11, 1975, he was appointed as the first prime minister.

The UNITA rebel organization largely based in southern Angola continued with a civil war which lasted from 1975-2002, when the U.S. and apartheid-backed Jonas Savimbi was killed by FAPLA forces. During the administration of President Gerald Ford and later Jimmy Carter, clandestine support for the UNITA rebel grouping continued. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan championed Savimbi as a proponent of bourgeois democracy in opposition to the Soviet-Cuban aligned Marxist MPLA.

Founding President Dr. Agostino Neto died in 1979 resulting in the ascendancy of Dos Santos as head-of-state. He was elected on numerous occasions over a period of 38 years and oversaw the resolution of the civil war and the establishment of peace and stability in Angola.

In the aftermath of the defeat of the SADF in southern Angola in 1988, UNITA had committed to participating in multi-party elections. However, when the MPLA was victorious in the voting which took place in 1992, UNITA resumed the armed attacks against the Angolan government and people. Since the 2000s in the wake of the death of Savimbi, Angola has emerged as a major producer of oil internationally. There has been substantial growth in various sectors of the economy.

From a Wartime President to Leading Energy Producer

Dos Santos announced in 2017 that he was leaving the presidency while remaining as leader of the MPLA ruling party. His successor was Joao Lourenco who remains as president today. Lourenco later took over as leader of the party in 2018.

Image below: Angola oil rig (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Africa News website reported that the Angolan president expressed his condolences on behalf of the government and people. The article notes that:

“Angolan President Joao Lourenco, who is seeking re-election in August, said the country had suffered a ‘big loss’. He declared five days of national mourning, starting Saturday (July 9). ‘This is very sad news… He has done a lot for the country,’ said Luanda resident Santos Camuenho, a 40-year-old mason. Dos Santos was admitted to a hospital in Spain and placed in intensive care after suffering a cardiac arrest on June 23. Namibia’s President Hage Geingob called dos Santos an ‘outstanding revolutionary’. ‘Another giant tree has fallen,’ Geingob said. Portugal’s President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa described him as a ‘decisive protagonist’ in the relations with Angola’s former colonial power. Former Portuguese prime minister and ex-head of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso recalled a leader of exceptional intelligence, who was able to guarantee Angolan national unity’.”

In neighboring South Africa under the ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), President Cyril Ramaphosa expressed his condolences and solidarity with the people of Angola during this time of loss and mourning. The ANC was a direct beneficiary of the solidarity extended by the MPLA and the Republic of Cuba during the 1970s and 1980s. The ANC armed wing, Um Khonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), maintained training camps in Angola while the MPLA, the Southwest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) of Namibia were fighting to fully liberate the region from the occupation of the apartheid SADF.

Angola and South Africa are important members of the 16 member-states Southern African Development Community (SADC), which works towards greater cooperation and economic integration throughout the region. The SADC has been able to assist in the security needs of other member states such as Lesotho and Mozambique.

In a statement issued by the South African President’s Office, it stated:

“I offer, on behalf of our government and nation, our sincerest condolences to the Republic of Angola on the passing of an outstanding revolutionary and leader of a nation. President Dos Santos’ humble beginnings, his militancy, his exile from the country of his birth and his education in the then Soviet Union resonate profoundly with the journey many South Africans in our own liberation movement experienced. Indeed, José Eduardo dos Santos and the MPLA (Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola) came to lead and extend their revolutionary solidarity and material and military support to our liberation movement. This support provoked the apartheid regime and its allies to violate the sovereign Republic of Angola by turning Angola into a battleground for preserving the apartheid regime. In the end, through the sacrifices of the Angolan people and the unwavering leadership of President Dos Santos, freedom dawned in a democratic South Africa. Today, our two nations are united in mourning as we were in struggle, and South Africa will continue to honor the contribution President Dos Santos made to building the Republic of Angola and bringing peace to our region. May his soul rest in peace.”

Over the last few years, Angola and the West African state of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, have contended as the largest oil-producers on the continent. Since May of this year, Angola has led Nigeria in the amounts of barrels per day being supplied to the international market.

These developments are significant in light of the burgeoning energy crisis in Europe where the war in Ukraine has prompted unprecedented sanctions by the U.S. and the EU against the Russian Federation, one of the largest producers and exporters of oil and natural gas. Many countries in Eastern and Western Europe are highly dependent upon Russian energy resources.

One television network in Nigeria said of the current situation:

“New data released by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on Tuesday (July 12) shows Angola produced more crude oil than Nigeria in June. This is despite Nigeria recording its biggest production jump in months by 134,000 barrels per barrel (bpd) to 1.158 million bpd in June from 1.024 million in May, based on direct communication. However, Angola’s oil production rose to 1.175 million bpd in June, up from 1.162 million bpd in May, based on direct communication.

IGBERETV had reported last month that Nigeria lost its status as Africa’s top oil producer to Angola as its output declined the most in May among its peers in OPEC.”

Amid an inflationary spike largely due to the precipitous rise in oil prices at the pump, the industry will be a central focus of many observers who are predicting a global recession. The 55-member-states African Union (AU) is already scheduled to hold a continent-wide summit with the Russian Federation beginning in November in Sochi. Undoubtedly, Angola will be an important player in the upcoming summit and the repositioning of the international energy markets.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Angolan Presidents Dos Santos and Joao Laurenco (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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.

***

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is off to the fastest start for the first half of any year since 2008 according to government data published today.

Deforestation alert data from Brazil’s national space research institute INPE shows that 3,988 square kilometers of forest have been cleared within the Brazilian Amazon since January 1, a 17 percent rise over last year, when deforestation ultimately reached the highest annual total since 2006. The last time deforestation in the region topped 4,000 square kilometers in the first six months of a year was 2008.

DETER deforestation alerts for Jan 1 through Jun 30 since 2008. DETER in INPE’s deforestation monitoring system.

According to INPE’s deforestation alert system (DETER), 1,120 square kilometers of forest was cleared in June 2022, the highest for any June on record. INPE started publishing such data on a monthly basis in 2007.

The data comes as the Amazon heads into the height of its deforestation season, which typically run from May through September, when rain across much of the region is at a minimum. For the past 15 years, deforestation has normally peaked in July.

Average monthly deforestation detected by DETER, Apr 2007-Jun 2022

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has been on an upward trend since 2012, reversing a near-decade-long decline in the rate of forest clearing. About 20% of the Brazilian Amazon’s rainforest has been lost since the 1970s.

Scientists have warned that the Amazon may be approaching a tipping point where rainfall declines precipitously, leading to large-scale die-off of the region’s rainforest.

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, 2006-2021 according to INPE. 

*

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: Global Forest Watch forest cover change alerts near Porto Velho in the State of Rondônia, Brazil in 2022. (Source: Mongabay)

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.

***

One of the outcomes of the alleged new SARS Covid virus that publicly emerged in 2019 is that the medical specialization of virology has been raised to a stature almost Godlike in the media. Few understand the origins of virology and its elevation into a leading role in today’s medicine practice. For this we need to look at the origins and politics of America’s first medical research institute, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, today Rockefeller University, and their work on what they claimed was a polio virus.

In 1907 an outbreak of a sickness in New York City gave the director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, MD, a golden opportunity to lay claim to discovery of an invisible “virus” caused by what was arbitrarily called poliomyelitis. The word poliomyelitis simply means inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter. There were some 2,500 New Yorkers, mostly children, designated with some form of poliomyelitis, including paralysis and even death, that year.

Flexner’s Fraud

The most striking aspect of the entire polio saga in the USA during the first half of the 20th Century was the fact that every key phase of the business was controlled by people tied to what became the Rockefeller medical cabal. This fraud started with claims by the Director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, that he and his colleague, Paul A. Lewis, had “isolated” a pathogen, invisible to the eye, smaller even than bacteria, which they claimed caused the paralyzing sickness in a series of outbreaks in the US. How did they come to this idea?

In a paper published in 1909 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Flexner claimed he and Lewis had isolated the poliomyelitis virus responsible. He reported they had successfully “passaged” poliomyelitis through several monkeys, from monkey to monkey. They began by injecting diseased human spinal cord tissue of a young boy who had died, presumably from the virus, into the brains of monkeys. After a monkey fell ill, a suspension of its diseased spinal cord tissue was injected into the brains of other monkeys who also fell ill.

They proclaimed that the Rockefeller Institute doctors had thus proven poliomyelitis virus causality for the mysterious disease. They hadn’t done anything of the sort. Flexner and Lewis even admitted that:

“We failed utterly to discover bacteria, either in film preparations or in cultures, that could account for the disease; and, since among our long series of propagations of the virus in monkeys not one animal showed, in the lesions, the cocci described by some previous investigators, and we had failed to obtain any such bacteria from the human material studied by us, we felt that they could be excluded from consideration.”

What they then did was to make a bizarre supposition, a leap of faith, not a scientific claim. They took their hypothesis of viral exogenous agency and made it fact, with no proof whatever. They asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?

Simon Flexner simply asserted it “must” be a polio virus killing the monkeys, because they could find no other explanation. In fact he did not look for another source of the illnesses. This was not scientific isolation. It was wild speculation: “…not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.” They admitted this in a December 18, 1909 follow up in JAMA, titled, THE NATURE OF THE VIRUS OF EPIDEMIC POLIOMYELITIS.

The so-called “virus” they were injecting into monkeys was hardly pure. It also contained an undetermined amount of contaminants. It included “pureed spinal cord, brain, fecal matter, even flies were ground up and injected into monkeys to induce paralysis.” Until Jonas Salk won approval from the US Government in April 1955 for a polio vaccine, no scientific proof of existence of a virus causing poliomyelitis, or infantile paralysis as it was commonly known, had been proven. That is the case to this day. The medical world all took Flexner’s word that it “must” be a virus.

Rockefeller Institute, Flexner and the American Medical Association

The Rockefeller Institute was founded from the Standard Oil fortune of John D. Rockefeller in 1901, to be America’s first biomedical institute. It was modelled on France’s Pasteur Institute (1888) and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (1891). Its first Director, Simon Flexner, played a pivotal and most criminal role in the evolution of what became approved American medical practice. The Rockefeller goal was to completely control American medical practice and transform it into an instrument, at least initially, for promotion of medical drugs approved by the Rockefeller interests. By then they were looking to monopolize medical drugs produced from their petroleum refining, as they had done with oil.

Image on the right: Simon Flexner (Licensed under the public domain)

As Rockefeller Institute head, Simon Flexner, was publishing his inconclusive but highly acclaimed studies on polio, he arranged for his brother, Abraham Flexner, a school teacher with no medical background, to head a joint study by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Rockefeller General Education Board, and the Carnegie Foundation founded by Rockefeller’s close friend Andrew Carnegie.

The 1910 study was titled, The Flexner Report, and its ostensible purpose was to investigate the quality of all US medical schools. The outcome of the report was, however, predetermined. Ties between the well-endowed Rockefeller Institute and the AMA went through the corrupt AMA head, George H. Simmons.

Simmons was also the editor of the influential Journal of the American Medical Association, a publication delivered to some 80,000 doctors across America. He reportedly wielded absolute power over the doctors’ association. He controlled the rising ad revenues for drug companies to promote their drugs to AMA doctors in his journal, a highly lucrative business. He was a key part of the Rockefeller medical coup that was to completely redefine acceptable medical practice away from remedial or preventive treatment to use of often deadly drugs and expensive surgeries. As head of the AMA Simmons realized that the competition from a proliferation of medical schools, including then-recognized chiropractic, osteopathy, homeopathy and natural medicine, was lessening income of his AMA doctors, as the number of medical schools had increased from around 90 in 1880 to over 150 in 1903.

Abraham Flexner, former headmaster of a private school, toured various US medical schools in 1909 and recommended that fully half of the 165 medical schools be closed, as what he defined as “sub-standard.” This reduced competition from other approaches to healing diseases. They ruthlessly targeted then-widespread naturopathic medical schools, chiropractic ones, osteopaths as well as independent allopathic schools unwilling to join the AMA regime.

Then Rockefeller money went to the select schools with a proviso that professors be vetted by the Rockefeller Institute and the curriculum focus on drugs and surgery as treatment, not prevention, nor nutrition, nor toxicology as possible causes and solutions. They had to accept Pasteur’s germ theory of disease, which claims one germ to one disease reductionism. Rockefeller-controlled media launched a coordinated witch-hunt against all forms of alternative medicine, herbal remedies, natural vitamins and chiropractic–anything not controlled by Rockefeller patented drugs.

By 1919 the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation had paid out more than $5,000,000 to Johns Hopkins, Yale and Washington University in St. Louis medical schools. In 1919 John D. Rockefeller granted another $20,000,000 in securities, “for the advancement of medical education in the United States.” That would be comparable to about $340 million today, a huge sum. In short the Rockefeller money interests had hijacked American medical education and medical researchby the 1920’s.

Creating Virology

This medical takeover, backed by the most influential doctors’ organization, the AMA, and its corrupt head, Simmons, allowed Simon Flexner to literally create modern virology under Rockefeller rules. The highly controversial Thomas Milton Rivers, as director of The Rockefeller Institute’s virology laboratory, established virology as an independent field, separate from bacteriology, during the 1920s. They realized they could manipulate far easier when they could claim deadly pathogens that were invisible germs or “viruses.” Ironically virus comes from Latin for poison.

Virology, a reductionist medical fraud, was a creation of the Rockefeller medical cabal. That highly important fact is buried in the annals of medicine today. Diseases such as smallpox or measles or poliomyelitis were declared caused by invisible pathogens called specific viruses. If scientists could “isolate” the invisible virus, theoretically they could find vaccines to protect people from harm. So their theory went. It was a huge boon for the Rockefeller cartel of pharmaceutical companies, which at the time included American Home Products which falsely promoted drugs with no proof of effect, such as Preparation H for Hemorrhoids, or Advil for pain relief; Sterling Drug,which took over the US assets including Aspirin of German Bayer AG after World War I; Winthrop Chemical; American Cyanamid and its subsidiary Lederle Laboratories; Squibb and Monsanto.

Soon virus researchers at the Rockefeller Institute, in addition to claiming discovery of the poliomyelitis virus, claimed to discover the viruses that caused smallpox, mumps, measles and yellow fever. Then they announced “discovery” of preventive vaccines for pneumonia and yellow fever. All of these “discoveries” announced by the Institute proved false. With the control of the research in the new area of virology, the Rockefeller Institute, in collusion with Simmons at AMA and his equally corrupt successor, Morris Fishbein, could promote new patented vaccines or drug “remedies” in the influential AMA journal that went to every member doctor in America. Drug companies refusing to pay for ads in the AMA journal were blackballed by the AMA.

Controlling Polio Research

Image below: Rockefeller University Main gates on York Avenue (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Simon Flexner and the highly-influential Rockefeller Institute succeeded in 1911 in having the symptoms that were being called poliomyelitis to be entered into the US Public Health Law as a “contagious, infectious disease caused by an air-borne virus.” Yet even they admitted they had not proven how the disease enters the body of humans. As one experienced doctor pointed out in a medical journal in 1911, “Our present knowledge of the possible methods of contagion is based almost entirely upon the work done in this city at the Rockefeller Institute.” In 1951 Dr. Ralph Scobey, a critic of the Rockefeller rush to judgment on polio contagion, noted, “This of course placed reliance on animal experiments rather than on clinical investigations…” Scobey also pointed to the lack of proof poliomyelitis was contagious: “…children afflicted with the disease were kept in general hospital wards and that not a single one of the other inmates of the wards of the hospital was affected with the disease.” The general attitude at that time was summed up in 1911: “It seems to us despite the lack of absolute proof, that the best interests of the community would be conserved by our regarding the disease from a contagious standpoint.” (sic).

By having poliomyelitis symptoms classified as a highly contagious disease caused by an invisible, alleged exogenous or external virus, the Rockefeller Institute and the AMA were able to cut off any serious research for alternative explanations such as exposure to chemical pesticides or other toxins, to explain the seasonal outbreaks of illness and paralysis, even death, mostly in very young children. That was to have fatal consequences lasting to the present.

Enter DDT

In his 1952 statement to the US House of Representatives investigating the possible dangers of chemicals in food products, Ralph R. Scobey, M.D. noted,

“For almost half a century poliomyelitis investigations have been directed towards a supposed exogenous virus that enters the human body to cause the disease. The manner in which the Public Health Law is now stated, imposes only this type of investigation. No intensive studies have been made, on the other hand, to determine whether or not the so-called virus of poliomyelitis is an autochthonous chemical substance that does not enter the human body at all, but simply results from an exogenous factor or factors, for example, a food poison.”

Toxins as cause were not investigated, despite huge evidence.

During the 1930s with economic depression and then war, few new major outbreaks of poliomyelitis were noted. However, immediately after the end of World War II, notably, the polio drama exploded in dimension. Beginning 1945, every summer more and more children across America were diagnosed with poliomyelitis and hospitalized. Less than 1% of the cases were actually tested via blood or urine tests. Some 99% were diagnosed by merely the presence of symptoms such as acute pain in extremities, fever, upset stomach, diarrhea.

In 1938, with the support of presumed polio victim, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (March of Dimes) was founded to solicit tax-exempt donations to fund polio research. A German doctor and researcher, Dr Henry Kumm, came to the US and joined the Rockefeller Institute in 1928 where he stayed until joining the National Foundation in 1951 as Director of Polio Research. Kumm was joined at the National Foundation by another key Rockefeller Institute veteran, the so-called “father of virology,” Thomas M. Rivers, who chaired the foundation’s vaccine research advisory committee overseeing the research of Jonas Salk. These two Rockefeller Institute key figures thus controlled funds for polio research including developing a vaccine.

During the Second World War, while still at Rockefeller Institute, Henry Kumm was a consultant to the US Army where he oversaw field studies in Italy. There Kumm directed field studies for the use of DDT against typhus and malarial mosquitoes in the marshes near Rome and Naples. DDT had been patented as an insecticide by Swiss drug firm Geigy and their US branch in 1940, and first authorized for use on US Army soldiers in 1943 as a general disinfectant against head lice, mosquitoes and many other insects. Until war’s end almost all DDT production in the US went to the military. In 1945 the chemical companies looked eagerly for new markets. They found them.

Image on the right is from Beyond Pesticides

In early 1944, US newspapers triumphantly reported that typhus, “the dreaded plague that has followed in the wake of every great war in history,” was no longer a threat to American troops and their allies thanks to the army’s new “louse-killing” powder, DDT. In an experiment in Naples, American soldiers dusted more than a million Italians with DDT dissolved with kerosene (!), killing the body lice that spread typhus.

Rockefeller Institute’s Henry Kumm and the US Army knew that, as one researcher put it, “DDT was a poison, but it was safe enough for war. Any person harmed by DDT would be an accepted casualty of combat.” The US Government “restricted” a report on insecticides issued by the Office of Scientific Research and Development in 1944 that warned against the cumulative toxic effects of DDT in humans and animals. Dr Morris Biskind noted in a 1949 article, “As DDT is a cumulative poison, it is inevitable that large-scale intoxication of the American population would occur. In 1944, Smith and Stohlman of the National Institutes of Health, after an extensive study of the cumulative toxicity of DDT, pointed out, “The toxicity of DDT combined with its cumulative action and absorbability from the skin places a definite health hazard on its use.” Their warnings were ignored by higher officials.

Instead, after 1945, all across America DDT was promoted as the miracle new, “safe” pesticide, much like Monsanto’s Roundup with glyphosate three decades later. DDT was said to be harmless to humans. But no one in government was seriously scientifically testing that claim. One year later in 1945 as the war ended, US newspapers praised the new DDT as a “magic” substance, a “miracle.” Time called DDT “one of the great scientific discoveries of World War II.”

Despite isolated warnings of untested side effects, that it was a persistent, toxic chemical which easily accumulates in the food chain, the US Government approved DDT for general use in 1945. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), controlled by the Rockefeller-AMA-drug interests, established as “safe” a DDT content of up to 7 parts per million in foods, though no one had proven such. The DDT chemical companies fed the press with photos and anecdotes. Newspapers enthusiastically reported how the new miracle chemical, DDT, was being tested in the US against mosquitoes in the South believed carrying malaria, as well as “preserving Arizona vineyards, West Virginia orchards, Oregon potato fields, Illinois cornfields, and Iowa dairies.” DDT was everywhere in the USA in the late 1940s.

The US Government claimed DDT, unlike arsenic and other insecticides used before the war, was harmless to humans, even infants, and could be used liberally. Beginning 1945 cities like Chicago sprayed public beaches, parks, swimming pools. Housewives bought home aerosol spray DDT dispensers to spray the kitchen and especially childrens’ rooms, even their matrasses. Farmers were told to spray their crops and their animals, especially dairy cows, with DDT. In postwar America DDT was being promoted, above all by Rockefeller drug companies like American Home Products with its Black Flag aerosol DDT spray, and Monsanto. From 1945 through 1952 the US production of DDT increased tenfold.

As presumed cases of polio literally exploded across the USA after 1945 the theory was advanced, with no proof, that the crippling polio disease was transmitted, not by toxic pesticide chemicals like DDT, but by mosquitoes or flies to humans, most especially young children or infants. The message was that DDT can safely protect your family from the crippling polio. Officially listed polio cases went from some 25,000 in 1943 before US civilian use of DDT, to over 280,000 cases in 1952 at the peak, more than a tenfold increase.

In October 1945 DDT, which had been used by the US Army under supervision of Rockefeller Institute’s Henry Kumm as noted, was authorized by the US Government for general use as an insecticide against mosquitoes and flies. Dissenting scientists warning of toxic effects of DDT in humans and animals were silenced. Families were told DDT could save their children from the dreaded polio by killing the feared insects.

The US Department of Agriculture advised farmers to wash their dairy cows with a solution of DDT to combat mosquitoes and flies. Cornfields were aerial sprayed with DDT as well as fruit orchards. However it was incredibly persistent and its toxic effect on plants and vegetables were such it could not be washed off. Year-by-year from 1945 through 1952 the amount of DDT sprayed across the US increased. Notably, so too did the number of human cases of poliomyelitis.

Worst Polio Epidemic

By the beginning of the 1950s increasing attention was given in the US Congress and among farmers as to the possible dangers of such heavy pesticide use—not only DDT, but also the even more toxic BHC (benzene hexachloride). In 1951 Morton Biskind, a physician who had successfully treated several hundred patients with DDT poisoning, testified to the US House of Representatives on the possible link of paralytic polio to toxins, specifically DDT and BHC. He noted,

“The introduction for uncontrolled general use by the public of the insecticide “DDT” (chlorophenothane) and the series of even more deadly substances that followed, has no previous counterpart in history. Beyond question, no other substance known to man was ever before developed so rapidly and spread indiscriminately over so large a portion of the earth in so short a time. This is the more surprising as, at the time DDT was released for public use, a large amount of data was already available in the medical literature showing that this agent was extremely toxic for many different species of animals, that it was cumulatively stored in the body fat and that it appeared in the milk. At this time a few cases of DDT poisoning in human beings had also been reported. These observations were almost completely ignored or misinterpreted.”

Biskind further testified to Congress in late 1950,

“Early last year I published a series of observations on DDT poisoning in man. Since shortly after the last war a large number of cases had been observed by physicians all over the country in which a group of symptoms occurred, the most prominent feature of which was gastroenteritis, persistently recurrent nervous symptoms, and extreme muscular weakness…”

He described several case examples of patients whose severe symptoms including paralysis disappeared when exposure to DDT and related toxins was eliminated:

“My original experience on more than 200 cases which I reported early last year has since been considerably extended. My subsequent observations have not only confirmed the view that DDT is responsible for a great deal of otherwise inexplicable human disability…”

Also noted was the fact that polio cases were always most in summer months when DDT spraying against insects was maximum.

The Rockefeller Institute operatives and the AMA, via their agents in the US Government, created the 1946-1952 USA health emergency called polio. They did so by knowingly promoting the highly toxic DDT as a safe way to control the mythical insect spreaders of the feared disease. Their propaganda campaign convinced the American population that DDT was the key to stop spread of poliomyelitis.

Polio Suddenly Declines

Under leadership of the two Rockefeller Institute doctors, Henry Kumm and Thomas Rivers, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP) rejected critics such as Biskind and Scobey. Natural remedial treatment, such as using intravenous Vitamin C for the infantile paralysis, were rejected out of hand as “quackery.” In April 1953, leading Rockefeller Institute DDT consultant, Dr Henry Kumm, became Director of Polio Research for NFIP. He funded the polio vaccine research of Jonas Salk.

One courageous doctor in North Carolina, Dr. Fred R. Klenner, who had also studied chemistry and physiology, had the idea to use large doses of intravenous ascorbic acid—Vitamin C—on the hypothesis that his patients were victims of toxin poisoning and that Vitamin C was a powerful detox. This was well before Dr Linus Pauling’s Nobel Prize research on Vitamin C. Klenner had remarkable success within days for more than 200 patients in the summer epidemics of 1949 to 1951. The Rockefeller Institute and the AMA had no interest in the remedial prospects. They and the Rockefeller-controlled National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were only funding polio vaccine development, based on the unproven Flexner claim that polio was a contagious virus, not a result of environmental poison.

Then beginning sometime in 1951-1952, as polio cases were at an all-time high, something unexpected began to appear. The number of cases diagnosed as polio in the US began to decline. The decline in polio victims was dramatic, year by year until 1955, well before the National Foundation and Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was approved for public use and was widespread.

About a year before the sudden decline in polio cases, farmers, whose dairy cows were suffering severe effects of the DDT, were advised by the US Department of Agriculture to reduce DDT use. Rising public concern about how safe DDT was for humans, including publicized US Senate hearings on DDT and Polio in 1951 also led to a significant decline in DDT exposure into 1955, even though DDT was not officially banned in the US until 1972.

So-called “polio” cases fell by some two-thirds in that 1952-1956 time, in a remarkable parallel to the decline in DDT use. It was well after that decline, in late 1955 and 1956, that the Rockefeller-developed Salk polio vaccine was first administered in large populations. Salk and the AMA gave all credit to the vaccine. Deaths and paralysis as a result of the Salk vaccine were papered over. The Government changed the definition of polio to further reduce official cases. Simultaneously, cases of similar polio-like spinal cord nerve diseases– acute flaccid paralysis, chronic fatigue syndrome, encephalitis, meningitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, muscular sclerosis—rose notably.

Why it Matters

Over a century ago the world’s richest man, oil baron John D. Rockefeller, and his circle of advisors set about to completely reorganize how medicine was practiced in the USA and the rest of the world. The role of the Rockefeller Institute and figures like Simon Flexner literally oversaw the invention of a colossal medical fraud around claims that an invisible contagious extraneous germ, the polio virus, caused acute paralysis and even death in young people. They politically banned any efforts to link the disease to toxin poisoning, whether from DDT or arsenic pesticides or even contaminated vaccine poisoning. Their criminal project included intimate cooperation with the leadership of the AMA and control of the emerging drug industry, as well as of medical education. The same Rockefeller group financed Nazi eugenics at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany in the 1930s as well as the American Eugenics Society. In the 1970s they financed the creation of patented GMO seeds which were all developed by the group of Rockefeller chemical pesticide companies—Monsanto, DuPont, Dow.

Today this control of public health and the medical industrial complex is exercised by David Rockefeller’s protegé and eugenics advocate, Bill Gates, self-appointed czar over the WHO and world vaccines. Dr Tony Fauci, head of NIAID, dictates vaccine mandates without evidence. The fraud behind the polio virus scandal after World War II has been refined with use of computer models and other ruses today, to advance one alleged deadly virus after the other, from Covid19 to Monkeypox to HIV. As with polio, none of those has been scientifically isolated and proven to cause the diseases claimed. None.

The same tax-free Rockefeller Foundation today, posing as a philanthropic charity, is at the heart of the global medical tyranny behind covid19 and the eugenics agenda of the World Economic Forum Great Reset.

Their poliomyelitis virus model helped them create this dystopian medical tyranny. We are told, “trust the science.”

*

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.

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

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

Year: 2007

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

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

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

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

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.

***

An interview with President Biden aired on Israeli TV Wednesday where he said the US would be willing to use force against Iran as a “last resort.”

The interview with Israel’s Channel 12 was conducted in Washington before Biden departed for Israel, and the broadcast aired the same day he arrived in the country. When asked if the US would use force against Iran’s nuclear program, Biden said, “as a last resort, yes.”

“Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon,” Biden said. While Iran has been stockpiling more uranium, none of it is enriched at the 90% needed for weapons-grade, and there is no indication Iran has decided to develop a bomb.

Israel often carries out covert attacks against Iran’s civilian nuclear program, but has been threatening to take more overt action lately and has held military drills simulating an attack on Iran. When asked if he received assurances from Israel that it wouldn’t act alone against Iran without notifying the US, Biden wouldn’t say. “I’m not going to discuss that,” he said.

A revival of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, should alleviate any US concerns about Iran developing a nuclear weapon as it would put Iran’s nuclear program under stringent restrictions, but Biden has taken a hard line on the issue.

Biden told Channel 12 that he wanted to revive the JCPOA but said he would walk away from the deal if its restoration was contingent on lifting the terrorist designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The Trump administration designated the IRGC as a terror organization after pulling out of the JCPOA. The sweeping designation means any person that was ever in the IRGC is subject to US sanctions, even if they were conscripts that served in a non-combat role.

Ahead of recent indirect JCPOA negotiations with the US in Doha, Iran reportedly dropped its demand to lift the IRGC designation. But talks made no progress, and the US still accused Iran of making demands not related to the nuclear deal. The Biden administration has taken the position that any sanctions not related to Iran’s nuclear program or the economic benefits Tehran is supposed to receive from the JCPOA cannot be lifted.

But the Trump administration imposed an enormous number of sanctions on Iran after pulling out of the JCPOA. And during President Trump’s final weeks in office, his administration added more sanctions with the goal of preventing Biden from being able to rejoin the JCPOA.

*

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.

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

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.

***

Adam Tooze, a financial crisis historian and director of the European Institute at Columbia University, warns the world is facing a “polycrisis” — a perfect storm of multiple global socioeconomic influences

Polycrisis is not merely the presence of several crises at once. Rather, it refers to a situation where the whole is more dangerous than the sum of the parts, as each individual crisis escalates, compounds and worsens other simultaneous crises

Tooze predicts several crises may erupt and converge over the next six to 18 months, including a food crisis, pandemic outbreaks, stagflation, a Eurozone sovereign debt crisis and potential nuclear war

While a majority of economists are optimistic and predict only a mild and temporary recession to hit the United States in 2023, real-time evidence doesn’t look good. Consumer spending, domestic investments, mortgage applications, manufacturing and U.S. railroad cyclical cargo loads are all declining, while inflation and interest rates are rising. Consumer sentiment, an indication of people’s confidence in the economy and their willingness to spend, is also tanking at a record rate

Two strategies that can strengthen individual and local resilience to the stresses facing us are the creation of local food systems and the strengthening of neighborhood and community connections. Both reduce individuals’ reliance on government handouts, and by extension, they’re less likely to be forced into these new Great Reset slave systems

*

In a recent Substack article¹ Adam Tooze, a financial crisis historian and director of the European Institute at Columbia University,² reviews and explains what he calls the impending “polycrisis of doom” — a perfect storm of global socioeconomic influences that signal trouble ahead.

Big Picture Crisis Modeling

Using charts and “krisenbilder,” i.e., “crisis pictures,” Tooze illustrates the many interconnected stress patterns at play on the global scene. The first graphic below illustrated the situation as of January 21, 2022.

The second graphic below shows the complexity caused by the Russia-Ukraine conflict as of February 24, 2022. As noted by Tooze:³

“What was once a relatively legible map has become a tangled mess … The war has had the impact it has because it has exacerbated existing tensions. Food prices were already rising in 2021 and provoking warnings of a crisis to come.

Energy markets were stressed well before the war broke out. Now both stressors are knotted together with the war. I have highlighted in red what emerge as a series of macroscopic risks, all of which may come to a head in the next 6-18 months.”

Many Crises Are Hitting All at Once

As noted by Tooze, we now face a series of significant challenges, and a) they’re hitting us all at once, and b) several of them reinforce and worsen each other. Also notable is the fact that there’s great uncertainty associated with some of them.

What might be the pandemic potential of new COVID variants? Will the Russia-Ukraine conflict escalate into a nuclear war? There’s really no way to predict with any amount of accuracy how those scenarios will play out. On the other hand, some of these forces offset or ameliorate others but, again, it’s hard to predict the likelihood of them happening.

In the following chart, Tooze summarizes the major crisis points and their likely influence on each other. Note he refers to these interactions as “entirely provisional and highly debatable.”

Indeed, some of his readers point out several additional influences that could be added into the mix, such as the weaponization of the U.S. dollar, the deplatforming of Russia from the SWIFT system, U.S. meddling in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the push to expand NATO, allowing health agencies to dictate economic policy and much more.

Still, Tooze’s analysis — incomplete as it may be — can be useful for those willing to ponder the potential ramifications of global interactions that may be facing us over the next six to 18 months.

Predictions for 2023-2024

As explained by Tooze, “polycrisis” is not merely the presence of several crises at once. Rather, it’s “a situation … where the whole is even more dangerous than the sum of the parts.”⁴

The reason why the whole ends up being more dangerous than any combination of crises put together is the way they escalate, compound and worsen each other in a symbiotic fashion. And, if Tooze is correct, we may find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of this polycrisis sometime in the next six to 18 months, or 2023 going into 2024. Tooze explains:⁵

“What this matrix helps us to do is to distinguish types of risk by the degree and type of their interconnectedness. The risk of nuclear escalation stands out for the fact that it is not significantly affected by any of the other risks.

It will be decided by the logic of the war and decision-making in Moscow and Washington. A food crisis does not make a nuclear escalation any more, or less likely. On the other hand, a nuclear escalation would, to say the least, dramatically escalate several of the other risks.

Continuing inflation will likely function as a driver of several other risks, but those risks in turn (COVID, recession, EZ sov debt crisis) will likely deescalate the risk of inflation.

I would not say that this is a forecast, but it does bias me towards thinking that inflation will be transitory. Most of the big shocks that we may expect, tend to be deflationary in their impact.

Conversely, a recession seems ever more likely in part because the effect of most of the bad shocks we may expect — from COVID, mounting inflation, or a fiscal deadlock in Congress — point in that direction.

The obvious next step is to ask whether the feedback loops in the matrix are positive or negative. So, for instance, a recession makes a Eurozone sovereign debt crisis more likely, which in turns would unleash serious deflationary pressures across Europe.

Conversely, inflation in fact seems self-calming. The effects it produces tend rather the dampen inflation than to feed an acceleration. At least as I have specified the matrix here.

A global hunger crisis seems alarmingly likely in part because all the other major risks will exacerbate that problem. A hunger crisis, however, will largely affect poor and powerless people in low-income countries, so it is unlikely to feedback in exacerbating any of the other major crises.

It is an effect of forces operating elsewhere, rather than itself a driver of escalation. To this extent the matrix becomes a way of charting the power hierarchy of uneven and combined development. Some people receive shocks. Others dish them out.”

Near-Term Outlook for the US Economy

In a July 1, 2022, Substack article,⁶ Tooze takes a deeper dive into the more near-term outlook for the United States specifically. The Federal reserve is now tightening its monetary policy “more steeply than at any time since the early 1980s,” while inflation remains “stubbornly high” at the same time.

The question on everyone’s mind is, are we in a recession, and might it worsen into a depression? Recession is when a country experiences a decline in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two consecutive quarters, while a depression is characterized by more long-term reductions in economic activity.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the U.S. was officially in recession as of February 2020.^7,8 When the economy grew 5.7% in 2021, a rebound was declared,⁹ but then the GDP dropped again, first by an annual rate of 1.6% in the first quarter of 2022, followed by a negative 2.1% in the second quarter,¹⁰ which technically placed the U.S. in recession territory yet again.

Tooze notes that a majority of economists are optimistic and predict only a mild and temporary recession to hit in 2023, but real-time evidence doesn’t look good. As of early July 2022, consumer spending, domestic investments, mortgage applications, manufacturing and U.S. railroad cyclical cargo loads are all declining, while inflation and interest rates are rising.^11,12

Consumer sentiment, an indication of people’s confidence in the economy and their willingness to spend, is also tanking at a record rate.¹³ Tooze ends his review stating:

“All told, you might say that this is a gloomy outlook. And there are those who are increasingly skeptical of the possibility of a soft landing. But, it is surely far too early to tell.

If the aim of the game is to control inflation by bringing about a slowdown, then the evidence we are seeing, so far, is precisely what you would look for. What remains to be seen is how the different recessionary forces interact, and whether they brew up into really heavy weather.”

Two Strategies to Strengthen Your Resilience

While we may not be able to accurately predict just how bad the situation will get, it seems prudent to say that we’re all facing some hard times. One factor that Tooze does not include in any of his analyses is the now-apparent fact that some of these crises are intentionally manufactured, with the goal of breaking apart and dismantling current systems in order to justify the introduction of entirely new systems.

The financial system and the food system are two key examples where intentional deconstruction appears to be taking place. Basically, what the technocratic elitists who fancy themselves rulers of the world intend to argue is that because the systems are no longer working, they must be “built back better.”

However, the new systems will in no way, shape or form benefit the population at large. This is true globally, not just in the United States. These new systems, delineated under the flag of The Great Reset, are slave systems which, when networked together, will form a virtual digital prison.

Every person on the planet will be under their collective thumb, as the technocrats will own everything while the rest of humanity will be allocated resources such as food and energy based on obedience criteria.

The good news is that more and more people are waking up to what this “deep state” cabal is up to, and that’s another wild card that can upend things and, hopefully, lessen the impacts of some of these crises. Two strategies that can strengthen individual and local resilience to the stresses facing us are the creation of local food systems¹⁴ and the strengthening of neighborhood and community connections.

By building a strong local food system, you reduce food insecurity, and by building a community network of specialists, you reduce the effects of a crumbling financial system as you can simply barter goods and services.

Social cohesion also offers many psychological benefits.¹⁵ Local food systems and community networks both also reduce individuals’ reliance on government handouts, and by extension, they’re less likely to be forced into these new Great Reset slave systems.

How to Build a Local Food System

As explained by Brian Williams, a former local food planner in Columbus, Ohio, in a 2017 StrongTown article,¹⁶ building a strong local food system goes beyond community gardens, farmer’s markets and community-supported agriculture (CSA) shares.

While these are valuable gateways, they don’t go far enough. He provides several excellent suggestions for those willing to spearhead a local food movement in their own hometown, including the following. Williams includes several other suggestions, which you can read through in his article, but these are some of the central ones:¹⁷

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 from French. Reviewed by GR.

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 Biden administration said Tuesday it is developing a plan to allow all adults, including those under 50, to receive a second booster shot amid worries of waning immunity among those who were vaccinated and boosted six months ago.

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new strategy to manage Omicron subvariant BA.5, now responsible for the majority of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.

As part of its strategy, the White House is developing a plan to allow all adults, including those under 50, to receive a second booster shot amid worries of waning immunity among those who were vaccinated and boosted six months ago.

The announcement comes one week after the Biden administration revealed it had signed a $3.2 billion deal with Pfizer for 105 million additional vaccine doses — with an option for 300 million more — to include reformulated bivalent boosters targeting Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants.

Currently, people age 5 and older are eligible to receive a first COVID-19 vaccine booster dose. A second booster shot is available only to those 50 and older and immunocompromised individuals 12 and older.

The Biden administration hopes swiftly expanding access to booster shots will enable people who already received their first booster dose to receive reformulated shots — not yet authorized — this fall.

In addition, officials want to use up vaccine doses that are reaching their expiration dates and would otherwise be discarded, despite peer-reviewed research showing second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine provide protection against the Omicron variant for only a few weeks

Expanding eligibility for booster doses within the next two weeks would allow the Biden administration to use up extra vaccine doses without “getting tangled up with the administration’s planned vaccination campaign” with reformulated boosters this fall, according to The Washington Post.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials privately signaled their openness to the strategy.

“This is a really complex decision, and there are pros and cons that need to be carefully weighed,” one official told The Post.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and vaccine adviser to the FDA, repeatedly criticized federal officials for what he characterized as “booster mania.”

“I do think [a second booster shot] does make sense for certain groups, but a universal boosting strategy doesn’t make sense,” Offit said.

Ruth Link-Gelles, an epidemiologist who leads the CDC’s task force on vaccine effectiveness, believes a fourth dose provides “substantial additional protection” among those with frail immune systems and healthy adults over 50. But it is “too early to draw conclusions” about a fourth dose in the broader population, she said.

According to CDC officials, there is no U.S. data showing whether a fourth booster would provide protection for people under 50.

While the booster plan still needs approval from regulators and health officials, it is backed by White House coronavirus coordinator Ashish Jha and quadruple-vaccinated Dr. Anthony Fauci, medical advisor to President Biden.

In an interview on Monday, Fauci, who recently had COVID-19 and developed rebound symptomsafter taking Pfizer’s Paxlovid, said he’s “leaning” toward allowing second booster shots for younger adults, pending authorization from the FDA and CDC.

Fauci admitted there was not enough clinical data to strongly recommend those under 50 receive a second booster shot, but said many in that age group received their last shot in November or December and protection against the virus is waning.

Persuading those who haven’t been vaccinated or fully vaccinated to “get the full regime” is “critical,” Fauci said.

“We also need to allow people who are under 50 to get their second booster shot, since it may have been months since many of them got their first booster.”

“The threat to you is now,” Fauci warned during Tuesday’s White House briefing. “Immunity wanes, whether that’s immunity following infection or immunity following the vaccine.”

“If you were infected with BA.1, you really don’t have a lot of good protection against BA.4/5,” — the two Omicron strains that now make up more than 80% of circulating variants as of last week, he added.

Contrary to Fauci’s statements, studies suggest natural immunity to COVID-19 yields better protection and stronger immunity than that provided by COVID-19 vaccines.

There is currently no data on the safety or efficacy of COVID-19 boosters targeting BA.4 and BA.5 variants, as they haven’t been developed yet.

White House bypasses regulatory agencies to push COVID vaccines

Although White House officials said the decision on whether to expand eligibility for a second booster dose lies with the FDA and CDC, the Biden administration has a history of circumventing the process and applying pressure to regulatory agencies to endorse its plans.

“I know that the [FDA] is considering this, looking at it,” Jha said during Tuesday’s White House briefing. “And I know [CDC] scientists are thinking about this and looking at the data as well. The decision is purely up to them.”

Fauci said conversations about booster eligibility have been going on for a while but said the final decision lies with the FDA and CDC.

“We always talked about it, it’s not something new, but we all recognize what the lines of authority are and that’s what we’ll be depending on,” he said.

Yet, Offit said in a recent interview with ZDoggMD that he believed the “fix was in” for modified COVID-19 boosters and felt the FDA’s advisory panel was led during a recent meeting to “vote yes” to reformulate boosters without critical data.

Offit said he believed modified boosters were desired by the Biden administration, which he suggested is politicizing the process.

In September 2021, two senior FDA officials stepped down after the Biden administration sidelined the agency when it announced a plan to begin offering a third booster dose to people who already received two doses of an mRNA vaccine beginning the week of Sept. 20.

At the time, booster doses for the general population had not been authorized by U.S. regulatory agencies and FDA advisors had not met to discuss data and provide recommendations to the agency on whether they should be authorized.

Dr. Marion Gruber, former director of the FDA’s vaccines office and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, stepped down because they were upset about the Biden administration’s announcement that adults should get a booster eight months after they received a second shot, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

Neither believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet, the sources said, and both viewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the FDA to quickly authorize them.

U.S. health regulators said there wasn’t enough data to recommend booster doses for the general population.

Yet, the White House moved forward with its plan to make Americans eligible for a third dose, even though the plan first required authorization from the FDA and CDC.

Following the controversy, both the FDA and CDC have bypassed their vaccine advisory panels to expand COVID-19 vaccines or authorize additional doses to broader age groups.

Push for second boosters motivated by fall booster campaign

As The Defender reported, the FDA on June 30 told COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers that any modifications to booster shots for fall would need to target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.

Original vaccines based on the Wuhan strain that is no longer circulating will be used for anyone getting their primary series of shots.

The FDA’s announcement came a day after the Biden administration said it had already entered into its $3.2 billion deal with Pfizer to secure additional vaccines and reformulated boosters for a fall booster campaign.

The Biden administration’s deal with Pfizer was announced on June 29, only one day after the FDA’s advisory panel met to discuss whether future COVID-19 booster doses should even be modified.

During the June 28 meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), the committee voted to add an Omicron component to future booster shots but did not decide whether the new booster vaccines should target BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 before the White House signed its deal with Pfizer.

VRBPAC said it would provide guidance to the FDA in making its decision, which was rendered after the White House made its announcement it had contracted with Pfizer to produce a specific type of modified vaccine targeting the subvariants.

Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the meeting he hoped changing the booster would “convince people to go get that booster,” adding the FDA already had plans in the works to begin a booster campaign in October.

Although there have been no clinical trials to date testing modified vaccines with Omicron subvariants in humans, Marks said manufacturers will be “asked to begin clinical trials with modified vaccines containing an omicron BA.4/5 component, as these data will be of use as the pandemic further evolves.”

The FDA did not publicly disclose what data it will need to see to authorize reformulated booster shots — which is a new product — but previous decisions on whether to authorize COVID-19 vaccines for the nation’s youngest age groups involved following a small number of clinical trial participants for only one month, which is not long enough to detect how quickly vaccine efficacy wanes or to discern any long-term adverse events.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.

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.

***

A federal appeals court has rejected a bid by Monsanto owner Bayer AG to head off claims brought by cancer victims alleging that Monsanto failed to warn them of the risks of Roundup.

In a decision handed down Tuesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a “failure to warn claim” brought against Monsanto in Georgia by Roundup user John Carson is not preempted by requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) as lawyers for Monsanto, and its owner Bayer, have argued.

Bayer has sought – and now failed – in multiple courts to find backing for its argument that it should be protected from allegations that Monsanto failed to warn users of a cancer risk associated with its products. (Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018.)

The company asserts that if it had placed cancer risk warnings on product labels it would have conflicted with provisions of FIFRA that give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 0versight of labeling language. The EPA has said in it assessment, the herbicides are “not likely” to be carcinogenic.

“It’s another resounding rejection of Monsanto’s preemption defense,” said attorney Brent Wisner, who served as co-counsel for the first trial to take place in the nationwide Roundup litigation, which resulted in a unanimous jury decision finding Monsanto had hidden the cancer risks of its weed killers.

“It is safe to say that their argument is dead.  Every court to consider this issue has sided with plaintiffs,” Wisner said.

Bayer said in a statement that it believes the federal appeals court erred in its ruling.

“We respectfully disagree with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, as a cancer warning would deviate from Roundup’s EPA-approved labeling, render the product misbranded, and require the company to make a label change that would be contrary to the consistent conclusions of EPA’s scientific assessments for more than four decades. The court’s determination that the FIFRA’s statutory registration process is not sufficiently formal to trigger preemption is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and the company will review its legal options regarding further proceedings. ‘

The company also said in the statement that it “continues to stand fully behind its Roundup products, as the weight of scientific evidence and the conclusions of expert regulators worldwide continue to support the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic.”

Carson is one of tens of thousands of people across the United States who have sued Monsanto alleging that their use of, or exposure to, Roundup or other Monsanto herbicides made with a chemical called glyphosate caused them to develop cancer.

The litigation began in 2015 after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen with a noted association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

According to court filings, Carson used Roundup to treat weeds in his yard for roughly 30 years until he was diagnosed with malignant fibrous histiocytoma. He filed suit against Monsanto in 2017.

Bayer scored a win with the Carson case when the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ruled that his failure to warn claim was preempted by FIFRA and a related claim was also preempted for the same reason.

The appeals court ruling Tuesday reverses the district court findings, citing multiple reasons, including the fact that Congress created wide latitude for state regulation in the context of FIFRA. The court also said that the “EPA’s registration process is not sufficiently formal to carry with it the force of law…”

Bayer had gone so far as to ask the US Supreme Court to consider the preemption issue through two other cases the company lost at trial, but the high court rejected the company’s requests.

The twin rejections by the Supreme Court came after another blow to Bayer by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 17 the 9^th Circuit panel of judges said in their ruling that the EPA’s 2020 assessment of glyphosate was so deeply flawed that the court was vacating the agency’s human health assessment of the weed killer.

The 9th Circuit panel found that the EPA failed to follow established guidelines for determining cancer risk, ignored important studies, and discounted expert advice from a scientific advisory panel in officially declaring that the weed killer glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic.”

Bayer has been attempting to settle the Roundup litigation, earmarking more than $11 billion for settlements, but while several firms have accepted settlements for their clients,  many others have not and continue to press for trials. Several new trials are scheduled in the next few months.

*

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 Maui Independent

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.

***

What was once the Current Thing has become a massive liability.

Europe is staring down the potential for a continental “Dark Winter,” and as each month passes, fewer countries aligned with the Biden Administration seem willing to maintain the appetite for perpetual warfare over who gets to control Ukraine.

This ruling class squabble has devastated the lives of hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens, but that didn’t change the trajectory of the conflict. It was only when the war effort became deeply unpopular did this consensus change. Poll-testing politicians are keenly aware that in both America and Europe, there is no longer a steady support for delegating untold billions in taxpayer funds and rhetorical support to this campaign.

What does this mean for the war in Ukraine? Don’t be surprised for a conclusion to the Russia-Ukraine conflict sooner rather than later.

Two realities that are worth paying attention to moving forward:

Ukraine is losing, and there are no signs that they can turn the tide of the war

After being pushed back from Kiev in the early days of the war, filling the news media and US/EU politicians with large doses of hopium, the Russian military has narrowed its focus on strategically vital and resource rich areas of Eastern Ukraine. In doing so, Moscow has remained dominant on the battlefield, thanks in large part to its ability to overpower Ukrainian forces with its artillery arsenal. The Zelensky led government is losing, and NATO armies don’t want to continue depreciating their own arsenals to assist in the propping up of its failing client.

Ukrainian artillery outnumbered eight to one by Russia- foreign legion https://t.co/PL8C3JFudB pic.twitter.com/4BwWWuXGdU

— Reuters (@Reuters) July 11, 2022

In addition to its continuing battlefield supremacy, Russia now has time on its side, thanks to the booming commodity market and Russia’s many willing energy buyers.

Russia snagged $24 billion in just three months from its energy sales to India and China, report says https://t.co/BXHKYTv6QI

— Markets Insider (@MktsInsider) July 6, 2022

Ukraine is in the polar opposite situation. Kiev is becoming a massive financial liability for the West. Even as Western powers have already allocated over 100 billions dollars in weapons and aid to Ukraine, the Zelensky-led government continues to demand incredible sums to sustain the war effort.

In some underreported signal that surfaced over the weekend:

Germany (which largely controls the EU’s finances) has reportedly been blocking a $9 billion dollar tranche to the Zelensky regime, concerned over the country’s ability to remain solvent.

#Germany is blocking the allocation of €9 billion in aid to #Ukraine from EU, writes Corriere della Sera. According to them, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner opposes financing this aid from the common European debt, as it was during the pandemic.https://t.co/XqyZAezi67

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) July 10, 2022

The U.S.-led sanctions regime is collapsing

The U.S.-led sanctions campaign against Russia is not working, and worse, it’s backfiring. The sanctions have transformed an already troubling global energy environment into a full blown crisis.

And nowhere is that crisis more imminent than in Europe.

For the first time Euro 💶 is worth less than US Dollar 💵

This is what happens when an entire continent 🇪🇺 decides to commit mass economic suicide on the altar of wokeness.

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 11, 2022

Europe is in such bad shape right now that their ESG-approved, climate hoaxing eco justice warrior politicians are desperately trying to fire up coal (!) power plants before the lights go out across the continent.

Germany planned to decommission 11 coal fired power plants in November as part of its incredible green energy transition.

Instead, Germany to decide on keeping those 11 open and reactivate 17 more dormant coal & oil fuel power plants for the winter. https://t.co/Ku4ZK1f809

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) July 11, 2022

Meanwhile, Russia continues to capitalize on Europe’s energy vulnerability.

The Kremlin is leveraging its energy dominance to put immense pressure on European powers. On Monday, the state-run Gazprom took down its Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Europe for a minimum 10 days, citing “maintenance.” Europe isn’t buying the rhetoric. Moscow’s intentions are crystal clear.

Western energy majors will cut output and lose billions of dollars if Russia, as is feared, suspends a pipeline that is almost the only export route for oil from land-locked Kazakhstan, company sources, traders and analysts say https://t.co/y0r4WqdXnk

— Reuters (@Reuters) July 11, 2022

In hindsight, it should be clear by now that the sanctions never had a chance of achieving the stated objective of bankrupting the Russian economy and slowing its military. China, India, and dozens of other countries remained neutral and continued to trade openly with Moscow. Despite U.S. pressure, they did not even consider joining the sanctions effort.

As U.S. sanctions against Russia continue to collapse, the Biden Admin may find itself being able to count the remaining parties to the coalition on one hand.

With all of these continuing crises, coupled with a historic failure on the part of the Biden Administration, don’t be shocked if the war in Ukraine comes to an end sooner rather than later.

*

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 The Dossier

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.

***

We delude ourselves at our own peril by wrongly believing that government policy makers and the captains of private finance and industry are older and wiser. Because these people have managed to reach the top of their game, we assume they possess the intellectual acumen to steer a nation past its economic and social ills. We falsely believe they have the comprehensive skills to tackle the dire challenges that lie ahead such as a warming planet, growing cultural divisions, and an economic system on the verge of total collapse.  But as the years go by, more and more Americans are mounting questions with no realistic answers in sight. People feel we are charging blindly towards unaffordable energy costs, food insecurity, out-of-control debt and runaway inflation.  We realize we can no longer rely upon our leading institutions and the mainstream media. Our politicians constantly voice promises that are never fulfilled.

We need to realize that the colonialist perspective, which has dominated American history since its founding, cannot be completely divorced from government efforts to manipulate and control factions within the population. A colonialist mindset can never offer constructive solutions to solve problems. Promoting common ground to simmer disharmony between seeming oppositional segments of society is counterintuitive to colonialism. Rather it must rely on instilling discord, conflict, and eventually violence, either psychological or physical, in order to keep conflicts alive, which in turn validate further control, surveillance and heavy-handed measures.  Our nation’s leaders and institutions believe they are the adults in the room and we their children deserve their tough love.

Consequently whatever can be weaponized in order to manipulate the sensitivities of others to keep conflicts alive is fair game. The emotions behind racial and gender tensions are weaponized to keep people divided. For example, Biden wants to criminalize parents who oppose school boards that seem determined to sexualize grammar school education. Religion has been weaponized whereby authentic religion barely exists in the American landscape anymore. Politicians on both sides of the aisle weaponize any issue contrary to their ideological goals. The Covid pandemic’s controversies are manipulated so that science is weaponized against itself. Physicians and medical professionals who disagree with the pandemic’s lockdowns, drug treatments, vaccine mandates and the wet market theory about the SARS-2 virus’ origins, are censored, demonized and threatened with the loss of their medical licenses. However there are always blowbacks and serious repercussions when others are weaponized in order to colonize a perceived enemy psychologically or by physical force.

A fundamental problem is that the average person expects very simple solutions to otherwise extremely complex problems. Regardless of the political divide, people expect instant transformation to be backed immediately by legislation. They want their emotional biases and self-righteous believes to written into law. And the easiest solution is to create a scapegoat and then keep the victim alive and wandering in the wasteland until the problem reaches its final solution. Nazis colonized the German psyche by scapegoating Jews, gypsies, and members of the LBGT community. But of course a final solution is never reached constructively and inevitably leaves catastrophic destruction in its wake.

Instead we are led to a more rapid breakdown of the remaining threads of democracy. The educational system, the nuclear family, and the very moral fabric that keeps a culture healthy and vital collapse. Inescapably, whoever is the aggressor generates its own negative and destructive identity. The new cancel culture, which has now been absorbed into the federal government, has become the very cancer of hatred and vitriol it tries to marginalize and eradicate. One party or the other becomes vehemently juxtaposed to the opposing party as an enemy to be abolished; eventually that party identifies subliminally with the very pernicious characteristics it blames on its enemy. The powerless seize power by demonizing those less powerful. What we are witnessing is American culture being displaced by a hyperactive Hollywood dystopia.  People are displaced by technological robotism. News porn displaces pragmatic inquiry. And as we look around, we no longer have a culture that is even capable of defining itself in any way other than a psychological tyranny bent on coercive control. It is as if we inhabit a haunted house of horrors while being completely oblivious to that fact.

Perhaps it is time to regard our nation’s politick as grievously and mentally unstable. For many people this is self evident. The US is the world’s most anxious, depressed and mentally disturbed nation. Despite the widespread use of psychiatric drugs to palliate symptoms and enormous resources spent to tackle the epidemic of mental disorders, Americans’ psychological health continues to worsen. Our ruling institutions believe they understand their own psychology but they are unquestionably clueless. The psychological fragmentation and creation of divisions in American culture are sometimes viewed as the Balkanization of American culture. This doesn’t suggest that the powers that be desire to carve up the nation into separate regions hostile and uncooperative with each other. That is counter-intuitive for any government or corporate ambition to strengthen political and economic control over a population. Nevertheless it has resulted in the red and blue factions becoming more distinctly divided and hostile. The Balkanization of the American psyche is the unwanted consequence of a mentally unsound political apparatus and an equally psychologically unstable media.

Perhaps it is more accurate to regard the belligerent quagmire of factional animosity towards the “other” as a fascist colonization of the American psyche. After Trump’s surprising 2016 electoral win, book sales dealing with fascism soared. Sales of Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism and Orwell’s 1984 skyrocketed.  However we should be very wary of our choice of words and the real life definitions we give them. Rather than assuming the reemergence of an early 20^th century fascism on American shores, perhaps we might consider the term Americanism as a unique fascist ideology contrary and in opposition to the Constitution.

In 1938, a Yale Divinity School professor, Halford Luccock, gave a sermon at Manhattan’s Riverside Church. Luccock derogatorily coined the term Americanism.

“When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled “made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism.”

Similar predictive warnings were not uncommon in the 1930s. The prominent social commentator H.L. Mencken gave a similar prediction. Writing for the Baltimore Sun, Mencken wrote:

“My own belief, more than once set afloat from this spot, is that it will take us, soon or late, into the stormy waters of fascism. To be sure, that fascism is not likely to be identical with the kinds on tap in Germany, Italy and Russia; indeed it is very apt to come in under the name of anti-fascism.”

In her 1939 Harper’s Magazine article, Lillian Symes wrote about Huey Long’s suspected prediction that “Fascism would come to America in the name of anti-fascism” (a quote often wrongly attributed to Winston Churchill)

“If a fascist movement ever triumphs in America it will undoubtedly triumph in the name of our most popular slogan – Democracy, and under the leadership of some such “friend of the common people” as the late Huey Long…. Whoever its angels and whatever their purpose, it will speak the language of a populist left.”

The fragmented Balkanization of the American psyche has certainly given rise to warring populist factions. The triumph of cancel culture, in groups such as Antifa, the radicalized factions in the race-based and gender movements, the White Fragility phenomena, and Silicon Valley social media censorship is evidence of a new emerging authoritarian Americanism growing within the ranks of the left’s liberal populism.

Roosevelt’s vice president Henry Wallace likewise observed signs that US’s weakness might flirt with fascism.  In April 1944, the New York Times quoted Wallace stating:

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power… They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution… Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”

Wallace believed that the greatest weapon to prevent fascism was to prioritize the importance of human well being above dollars and profit. He saw evidence that ‘fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually war with Russia.” Although such a war would never erupt during America’s Cold War against the Soviet Union, Wallace’s warning now seems to be at our doorstep. “Already American fascists,” Wallace wrote, “are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerance toward certain races creeds and classes.”  If Wallace could hear the venom spewed by the neo-con cartel surrounding Biden in the Oval Office, he would certainly see America’s fascist moment on hand. However, domestically, the ultimate goal of American political conceit and elitism is to impose homogeneity across society. Thus we observe the government imposing an aberrant universal vanity not only on its own population but repeatedly upon other nations through electoral interference and military or intelligence intervention.

Another obstacle is that America’s attention skills are direly week. Most Americans emotionally react to wherever the headline of the day leads them. Their priorities about the nation’s most urgent challenges shift and change dramatically.  For example, when the economy is strong, global warming and the preservation of the environment are high on people’s lists. Today with rising popular uncertainty, confusion and aimlessness, the percentage of people who place climate change as the single most important threat barely reaches double figures. It is only the most conscientious among us who are aware of how our activities and habits contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of the environment.  Our international climate change summits are utterly worthless. They are little more than weeklong seminars for world leaders to learn more platitudes and more talking points for political campaigns and press conferences. Since no nation is held legally accountable by international environmental treaties, everything is voluntary and nothing essential is done. It is all smoke and mirrors to cover over Washington’s guilt.

Fortunately distrust in government and the media is growing exponentially. Yet sadly this will not solve our population’s growing disorientation in US’s new no-mans-land. Similar to the warnings given seven decades ago, the American media has been fully captured by private and secretive national security interests. We hear the dreaded dirge of a single official mantra; that is, increase irrational hope, surrender your independence and individuality, leave your reason at the door and obey your elected leaders and the unelected cartels that keep them in office. Only a tiny percent of the US population actually controls the larger national dialogues and agendas, both domestic and foreign. But a new generation of technocrats, groomed in the halls of the culture wars of division, condemnation and conquest are now entering the halls of government, finance and corporate boardrooms.  These are new shock troops that are leading the assault to colonize the American psyche, the mass formation of a distinctly American hive mentality, that forebodes far worse things to come in the near future.

*

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

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

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 is Karen Kingston, a Biotech Analyst and med-legal advisor with over 20 years of experience driving blockbuster commercialization efforts for medical devices and prescription therapies. She was once a Cardiovascular Sales Representative for the Northeast Region of New York at Pfizer.

This session is about the crossover study in which Pfizer injected as many infants and toddlers as parents would basically allow.
The results suggest devastating consequences of this study: stunningly few “subjects” aged 6 months to 4 years showed up for their first study visit, which was scheduled a week after the third dose.

According to the EUA document, many infants and toddlers suffered epilepticus, meaning multiple seizures per day, some of which were associated with permanent brain damage confirmed by EEG.

*

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

Global Research is glad to announce our publication of five e-Books. 

They are made available free of charge with a view to reaching out to people worldwide.

We are envisaging a PDF version of these e-Books that can be downloaded straight to your devices; in the meantime, you can read them on our website, www.globalresearch.ca. They are accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website drop down menu on the top banner of our homepage (desktop version only).

Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity

Edited by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof

After more than one year of “lockdowns” all over the world, the issue of “global warming” and “climate change” is back on the table of the international debate.

It seems that natural catastrophes have started to surround us everywhere – from the animal world next to us as well as from the sky above us. Is “nature” the enemy that has to be combatted today, be it by vaccinating humanity against the coronavirus that allegedly jumped out of the wilderness attacking us, be it by tearing down industrial production and consumption in order to avoid the alleged greenhouse gas CO₂ emissions, being officially identified as the sole culprit of a so-called global warming? Or be it by applying methods of an alleged civil “geoengineering” against an ongoing climate change that seems to threaten the world?

Click here to read the e-Book.

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

In the course of the last 22 months starting in early January 2020, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the COVID crisis. From the very outset in January 2020, people were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic.

I suggest you first read the Highlights, the Preface and Introduction before proceeding with Chapters II through XIII.

Each of the thirteen chapters provides factual information as well as analysis on the following topics:

• What Is COVID-19, what is SARS-CoV-2, how is it identified, how is it estimated?
• The timeline and historical evolution of the Corona Crisis,
• The devastating economic and financial impacts,
• The enrichment of a social minority of billionaires,
• Social engineering and the destabilization of the institutions of civil society
• How the lockdown policies trigger unemployment and mass poverty Worldwide,
• The devastating impacts on mental health.

Click here to read the e-Book.

The US-NATO War of Aggression Against Yugoslavia

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

This e-Book is a retrospect. It takes the reader back in history. Several of the texts were written at the height of 1999 bombing campaign or shortly thereafter.

Twenty-two years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. “The operation was code-named “Allied Force ” – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker” according to Nebosja Malic.

In 1999, when Belgrade was bombed, the children’s hospital was the object of air attacks. It had been singled out by military planners as a strategic target.

NATO stated that to “save the lives” of the newly borne, they did not bomb the section of the hospital where the babies were residing, instead they targeted the building which housed the power generator, which meant no more power for the incubators. What this meant that was that the entire hospital was for all sakes and purposes destroyed and many of the children died.

I visited that hospital, one year after the bombing in June 2000 and saw with my own eyes how they did it with utmost accuracy. These are war crimes using NATO’s so-called smart bombs.

Click here to read the e-Book.

Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified. Are We Witnessing Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Viruses Are Our Friends, Not Our Foes

By David Skripac

When the alleged “pandemic” was declared in March of 2020, I, like millions of other people around the world, was paying close attention to politicians and public health officials as well as to bureaucrats from the Rockefeller Foundation-created World Health Organization (WHO), all of whom announced, in almost perfect synchronicity, “This is the new normal until a vaccine can be developed.”

How odd, I thought. Why is it that the immediate default position is a vaccine? And why is it that a single coronavirus is being blamed for causing people to fall ill in every corner of the earth? Could something else—perhaps one or more toxins in the environment—be the real culprit?

Click here to read the e-Book.

History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

By Shane Quinn

The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.

The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.

Click here to read the e-Book.

Please help us in this endeavor. Kindly forward to family, friends, colleagues, and your respective communities.

If you wish to make a donation to support the e-Book Project click below.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

Video: Dutch Farmers Rise Up Against Food System ‘Reset’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 13, 2022

The Netherlands intends to halve its nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030. To reach that goal, the Finance and Agriculture Ministry now wants to reduce the number of livestock by 30%. As a result, many farmers will be driven out of business. As with current energy shortages, the resulting reductions in farming are said to be an “unavoidable” part of the Green Agenda to improve air, soil and water quality.

Handling International Crises: From JFK to Biden

By Rick Sterling, July 13, 2022

Since Biden appointed the chief architect of the Ukraine coup, Victoria Nuland, to be the third top official at the State Department, one cannot realistically expect a change in policy from this administration.

Chris Hedges: NATO — The Most Dangerous Military Alliance on the Planet

By Chris Hedges, July 13, 2022

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the arms industry that depends on it for billions in profits, has become the most aggressive and dangerous military alliance on the planet. Created in 1949 to thwart Soviet expansion into Eastern and Central Europe, it has evolved into a global war machine in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Alert: New York State Sets Dangerous Precedent for Draconian Quarantine Regulations

By Sara Middleton, July 13, 2022

A sobering precedent is now in force in New York state.  Going far and beyond the official guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – that is, stay home and isolate for 5 to 10 days if you test positive for COVID-19 – the New York governor and those in her corner want to exert an unimaginable level of control over its free citizens.

Soaring Energy Exports Send Russia’s Account Surplus to Record High

By Julianne Geiger, July 13, 2022

Russia’s account surplus reached a new record for the second quarter, according to data released by the central bank cited by Bloomberg. The surplus, now more than $70 billion, comes on the back of surging oil and gas—and other commodities as well—exports, which outweighed the sanctions placed on the country by Western powers.

Akron, Ohio Declares State of Emergency After the Police Execution of Jayland Walker

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 13, 2022

Protests have continued in Akron, Ohio after the June 27 police killing of Jayland Walker, 25, who had 90 bullets fired at him by officers, 60 of those rounds struck the victim. After the release of a police video of the shooting of Walker, who was unarmed, people poured into the streets to demand justice for the African American motorist.

Dismantling the U.S. Constitution: Police No Longer Have to Honor “The Right to Remain Silent”

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, July 13, 2022

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of overturning its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, the conservative majority declared that individuals cannot hold police accountable for violating their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Vicarious Zeal: Fighting to the Last Ukrainian

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 13, 2022

On May 1, after travelling to Kyiv, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the colours.  “America,” she declared with earnestness, “stands with Ukraine until victory is won.”  She made little effort to expound on what this would entail, be it the expulsion of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, or the “meat grinder” solution, leaving Kyiv and Moscow to bleed, weakening the latter and strengthening NATO security over a dead generation.

European Union Finally Admits COVID-19 Vaccines Destroy Your Immune System

By Arsenio Toledo, July 13, 2022

The European Union (EU) has finally admitted that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines destroy the immune system and make people more susceptible not just to COVID but to all diseases. According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), taking booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccines every four months could weaken the immune system and tire people out.

Beware the Prophets of Doom – Organic Food, Fertilisers and Fossil Fuels

By Colin Todhunter, July 13, 2022

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

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 Biden appointed the chief architect of the Ukraine coup, Victoria Nuland, to be the third top official at the State Department, one cannot realistically expect a change in policy from this administration.

There are significant parallels between the international crises in Cuba in 1962 and Ukraine today. Both involved intense confrontations between the USA and the Soviet Union or Russia. Both involved third-party countries on the doorstep of a major power. The Cuban Missile Crisis threatened to lead to WW3, just as the Ukraine crisis does today.

Cuban Missile Crisis and  the current crisis in Ukraine 

In 1961, the US supported the “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba. Although it failed, Washington’s hostile rhetoric and threats against Cuba continued, and the CIA conducted many failed assassination attempts against Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Cuba, seeking to defend itself, or at least have a means of retaliating in case of another attack, sought missiles from the Soviet Union. The Soviets agreed and began secretly installing the missiles. As a sovereign nation having been attacked and under continuing threat, Cuba had the right to obtain these missiles.

US President John F. Kennedy thought otherwise. Invoking the Monroe Doctrine, he said the missiles endangered the US and must be removed. He imposed an air and sea quarantine on Cuba and threatened to destroy a Soviet ship traveling on the high seas to Cuba. The world was on edge, and there was global fear that World War 3 was about to erupt. In my homeland Canada, we went to bed seriously worried that nuclear war would break out overnight.

Fortunately for humanity, cooler heads prevailed, and there were negotiations. The Soviets agreed to withdraw the missiles in Cuba. In return, JFK agreed to withdraw US missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. The Cubans were furious, thinking they had been betrayed and lost their means of defense. But the Soviets had the bigger picture in mind, along with a US commitment to not invade Cuba.

The situation now in Ukraine has similarities. Instead of missiles in Cuba being a threat to the US, NATO in Ukraine is seen as a threat to Russia. NATO has steadily expanded east and installed missiles in Poland and Romania. Since 2008, Russia has explicitly said that Ukrainian militarization by NATO was a red line for them. Kiev is much closer to Moscow than Havana is to Washington. If it was justifiable for JFK to give the ultimatum regarding missiles in Cuba, is it not justifiable for Russia to object to Ukraine being a part of a hostile military alliance?

Different Responses

In 1962, the US and the Soviet Union realized that escalating tensions and hostilities must be avoided, and they turned to negotiations. They found a mutually acceptable compromise.

The situation seems more dangerous today. Instead of seeking an end to the war, the US and NATO are pouring in weapons and encouraging more bloodshed. It appears to be a proxy war with the US prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian. There are calls to escalate the conflict.

Ukraine Background 

Knowing the background to the current crisis is essential to understanding Putin’s actions. Unknown to most Americans, a crucial event took place in 2014 when a violent US-supported coup overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian government. US State Department official Victoria Nuland handed out cookies as Senator John McCain encouraged the anti-government protesters. In a secretly captured conversation with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Nuland selected who would run the government after the pending coup. In the final days, opposition snipers killed 100 people on both sides to inflame the situation and “midwife” the coup. Oliver Stone’s video “Ukraine on Fire” describes the background and events.

On the first day in power, the coup government issued a decree that removed Russian as a state language.

Within weeks, Crimea organized a referendum. With 85% participation, 96% voted to leave Ukraine and reunite with Russia. Why did they do this? Because most Crimeans speak Russian as their first language, and Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. When Soviet premier Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian republic to the Ukrainian republic in 1954, they were all within the Soviet Union.

In Odessa, anti-coup protesters were attacked by ultra-nationalist thugs who killed 48, including many burned alive as they sought refuge in the Trade Unions Hall. In eastern Ukraine, known as the Donbass, the majority of the population also opposed the ultra-nationalist coup government. Civil war broke out, with thousands killed.

With the participation of France, Germany, the Kiev government, and eastern Ukraine rebels, an agreement was reached and approved by the United Nations Security Council. It was called the Minsk Agreement. Russia has repeatedly encouraged the implementation of this agreement. Instead of negotiations and peace, the Kiev government and NATO have done the opposite. Since 2015, there have been more weapons, more threats, more NATO training, more encouragement of ultra-nationalism plus NATO military exercises explicitly designed to threaten and antagonize Russia. This is not speculation; it is described in a 2019 Rand report about “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.”

Endangering the world

The Biden administration appears to want to prolong the conflict in Ukraine. President Biden declared in a “gaffe” that Putin must be replaced. Defense Secretary Austin has said the US goal is to “weaken Russia”. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks Afghanistan in the 1980s is a “model” to follow in Ukraine by bogging Russia down in a protracted war. Republican and Democratic senators Graham and Blumenthal visited Kiev on July 7 and called for sending even more weapons. There is evidence that the US and UK have been advising Ukrainian president Zelensky to NOT negotiate.

The Need for Courage and Compromise

With war and bloodshed happening now, we need cooler heads to prevail as in 1962. We can have a LOSE – LOSE situation, endangering the whole world, or a compromise that guarantees Ukrainian independence while providing security assurances to Russia.

JFK had the courage and wisdom to resist the CIA and military generals who wanted to escalate the crisis. Does Joe Biden? There is a huge difference between the two presidents. JFK knew war first hand. He was injured and his brother died in WW2. He became an advocate for peace. It may have cost him his life, but millions of people were saved. In contrast, Joe Biden has been a proponent of every US war of the past three decades.  Not only that, he was a major player in the 2014 Ukraine coup and aftermath.

Since Biden appointed the chief architect of the Ukraine coup, Victoria Nuland, to be the third top official at the State Department, one cannot realistically expect a change in policy from this administration. Neo-cons are in charge.

If we are to avoid disaster, others must speak up and demand negotiations and settlement before the situation spirals out of control.

*

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.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist in the SF Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

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 the oldest liberal democracy in the World you can win elections with an unparalleled majority of votes and have the strong support of the MPs and party members.  You can survive a series of really serious crises, image gaps and real social and economic problems – but the position of the Prime Minister is decided upon by the Inner Party, responsible only to Big Money and the Plutocracy. 

Last minute coup

And that is not the end yet.  Forced resignation of Boris Johnson has already been hailed in some commentaries as “a triumph of British democracy” and even “success of the parliamentary control”, despite the fact that a month ago the Prime Minister clearly won a no-confidence vote, with support of 59% of Tory MPs.

He was also widely popular among party members remembering who led the Conservative Party to Thatcher-like election triumph.

However, BoJo’s resignation was wanted by the frontbenchers, the party elites understanding perfectly well that they have to either play zero-one now, or the Prime Minister will prevail.

This threat was confirmed when the favourite of Tory sponsors, then the Chancellor Rishi Sunak was hit by the news about his wife’s £20 million tax avoidance.  In April that affair effectively distracted the public from BoJo’s previous problems, and the entire black-PR campaign was evidently carried out with at least the Joy of No 10.

However, the war perspective was probably the key, as it is really difficult to recall the Prime Minister of the War Cabinet, and BoJo has already skillfully used the Ukrainian crisis to disarm the Partygate (Downing Street cheese & alcohol parties during the lockdown period).

So, this was the very last moment for an attack.  That was decisive in the realities of the British Plutocracy and as we can see Johnson’s dismissal had nothing to do with the semblance of liberal democracy, more and more outdated.  Let’s be honest, for the UK, Oligarchy is absolutely natural, … a traditional form of power, so there is no need to hide it anymore.

Long preparations

Candidates for Johnson’s successor have been prepared for months because that’s how long it has taken to grill the Prime Minister.

As we remember, attempts have been made to shoot him off by hunting down the former chief advisor (and now fierce enemy) Dominic Cummings,  called the Father of BREXIT, and discussing the impact of the “work event” with cheese and wine by Downing Street employees on the spread of the Coronavirus.

Johnson, however, has endured so far, though many say that as a Zombie who has not noticed his own death.  In fact, BoJo’s only chance was the war with Russia, and the growing UK military involvement in Ukraine, Baltic States and Poland indicated that Johnson was desperate to accomplish this scenario.  His departure does not mean, however, that there will be no war.

Too early for Joy

War hawks have their favourites, which can also count on the votes of tough BREXITers.  While the Foreign Secretary, Luz Truss already proved in the midst of a war crisis that she is certainly not the sharpest knife in a drawer, the hardliners still have the Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace whose main achievement was to empty the canteen bar of the Scots Guards at a time when he was an officer of this formation.

Wallace has already ruled himself out, but still receives high support in the polls.  Johnson’s main opponents, Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid were long considered favourites, but who enters the conclave as a papabile – leaves that as a cardinal,  and backbenchers can remember who tried to overthrow their own Cabinet.

But if the new UK Prime Minister supposed to be a representative of  minorities, so why not Nadhim Zahawi, Mr. Vaccine, who first received BoJo’s nomination for the new Chancellor and then shot the proponent in the back?

On the other hand, if the Tories would like to “Macronise” themselves (i.e. return to David Cameron’s style), then the ideal candidate of the centrist compromise and conservative coolness could be the highly promoted Penny Mordaunt, once a magician’s assistant, who has a skill valued not only in British politics.

Finally, to satisfy those who like when changes do not change anything, there are Jeremy Hunt or even Michael Gove.  The latter is likely to be the last hope of the Spitting Image creators, who lose with BoJo their inexhaustible source of sketches and inspiration.

Return to the 1980s?

Inflation in the UK has already reached 9.1%, what is the worst result since Margaret Thatcher’s first years.

A wave of strikes is sweeping throughout the country, including railroad and transport workers, airport personnel, postmen, even call-centre advisors.  While BREXIT supporters (especially farmers and fishermen) are disappointed in maintaining trade ties with European competitors, many service sectors suffer from restrictions that make economic immigration into lower-paid jobs practically impossible.

In addition, the Government of Scotland called for another independence referendum on the 19th October 2023, despite the disapproval already expressed by Johnson.  With all these problems war still seems to be an attractive form of “escaping forward”.

Of course not for ordinary Britons, who in all polls state that their main problem is the rising cost of living, not theRussian threat.

In fact, when asked directly by the European Council on Foreign Relations pollster, more English, Scottish and Welsh responded that they would support peace now and at all costs, than a peace called “justify” by western governments and the Kiev junta (22% to 21% with as much as 32% hesitating and 26% without a clear opinion). The war BoJo had no time to start can be then too politically expensive for his heir.

Second Crimean War?

However, Westminster’s involvement in sustaining and expanding the conflict with Russia continues to grow.

In Warsaw, Vilnius and Kiev we can notice strong confusion now: will the Eastern Europeans, having declared themselves on the side of the new, British form of Europe organisation of Europe – stay now with their hands in the Queen’s potty, with worthless British guarantees?  The commentators with faster reflexes, have already announced that Vladimir Putin must certainly be behind Johnson’s fall, because who else could?!

And only the most cautious ones point out that the dominant feature of the United Kingdom’s international strategies has always been their stability and consistency, which lasted despite Cabinet, parties and leadership changes, ignoring technical nuances and current small interests.

After all, the UK has neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, because it has no friends at all, and the enemy is anyone who is assigned such a role by the Empire’s elite.

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.

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and 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.

***

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin extended a fast-track process to obtaining Russian citizenship for all Ukrainians.

A decree signed by Putin says residents of Ukraine and the breakaway Donbas republics “are entitled to appeal for admission to citizenship of the Russian Federation via simplified procedure.”

The decree makes it so that Ukrainians no longer need to meet a series of preconditions to obtain Russian passports, such as taking a Russian language test and living in Russia for five years.

Russia first applied the simplified citizenship process to the Donestk and Luhansk oblasts in the Donbas in 2019. In May, Putin extended the waiver to the southeastern oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, both of which are now mostly controlled by Russia.

According to the UN, over 1.5 million Ukrainians have fled to Russia since Putin launched the invasion on February 24. The decree gives the Ukrainians that have fled to Russia the option of staying regardless of what region they came from.

Ukrainian officials slammed Putin’s move and have accused Russia of forcing Ukrainians to flee to Russian territory.

“The purpose of this criminal policy is not just to steal people, but to make those who are deported forget about Ukraine and unable to return,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said.

Putin’s decree is also being taken as a signal that the Russian leader is planning to annex Ukrainian territory. Russian-installed officials in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have both said they’re considering holding a referendum on joining Russia.

*

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

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

Featured image is from rusi.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.

***

A sobering precedent is now in force in New York state.  Going far and beyond the official guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – that is, stay home and isolate for 5 to 10 days if you test positive for COVID-19 – the New York governor and those in her corner want to exert an unimaginable level of control over its free citizens.

It seems petty that tyrants come up with more and more egregious ways to terrorize citizens.  Is this a preview of what’s to come for the rest of the United States – and is there something we can do to help?

Editor’s UPDATE: The New York State Governor’s forced quarantine regulation has been STRUCK DOWN as unconstitutional by NYS Supreme Court Judge Ronald Ploetz.  It is null, void and unenforceable, and the Court has prohibited the Governor and DOH from continuing to issue the regulation!

This can be viewed as a “victory” but, political tyrants won’t stop with their desire to lockdown and control the population.  We must remain vigilant in protecting our freedoms.  Stay tuned to NaturalHealth365, as we continue to monitor these situations.

New York State can now send you and your children into forced quarantine – even if you’re not “sick”

Thanks to an April 2022 update to the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, the NY Commissioner of Health or appointed alternatives can now force people to isolate or quarantine for the suspicion of carrying a “highly communicable disease,” a pathetically broad category in which even the common cold falls.

Found within Section 2.13 Isolation and Quarantine Procedures of regulation 10 NYCRR 2.3, the updated document states that isolation “may include home isolation or such other residential or temporary housing location.”

It adds that any attending physician who discovers a “case or suspected case of a highly contagious reportable communicable disease” (emphasis ours) must “cause the patient to be appropriately isolated and contact the State Department of Health and the local health authority where the patient is isolated and, if different, the local health authority where the patient resides.”

“Whenever appropriate,” the regulations continue, the State Department of Health or local health authority shall “coordinate with local law enforcement to ensure that [individuals forced into quarantine or isolation] comply with the order.”

What this means, minus the legal jargon:

The NY Department of Health or other officials now have full discretion over who can be sent to quarantine camps and detention centers – and they do not even need to confirm that detained individuals are actually sick. Being suspected of being sick is good enough for them.

There is no time limit, age limit, or location limit regarding these isolation and quarantine camps – these decisions are up to the state government now.

According to Bobbie Anne Cox, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court back in April regarding these draconian measures (and is doing so pro bono), this exact same power grab was attempted by a NY legislator several years ago in NYS – but at the time the proposed bill received not a single co-sponsor.

Today’s updated regulations are blatantly unconstitutional and an “outrageous assault” on individual liberty, according to Dr. Peter R. Breggin, MD, who recently interviewed Cox.  He adds that Cox’s efforts are essential for putting an end to this frightening march toward Orwell’s 1984-type reality for America.

Get Involved – here’s how

New York citizens are on the precipice of losing their freedoms, and it’s naive to assume this new power grab won’t cross state borders.

This cannot be overstated.  Imagine the precedent this is setting, especially in a world where monkeypox, the flu, threats of smallpox, and SARS-CoV-2 (still hanging on by a thread in the media) are constantly blasted on the news, stirring up fear and chaos.

Who knows how much harder public health officials, politicians, and global elites will push for more control over the lives of sovereign individuals.  We do know that taking action is one of the only things we can possibly do to try to turn the tide on these egregious violations of our individual rights and freedoms.

To join the fight against New York state officials – including Governor Hochul, DOH Commissioner Bassett, the Department of Health, and the Public Health & Health Planning Council – consider joining Uniting NYS and promoting their cause.

*

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 iStock

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 Netherlands intends to halve its nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030. To reach that goal, the Finance and Agriculture Ministry now wants to reduce the number of livestock by 30%. As a result, many farmers will be driven out of business. As with current energy shortages, the resulting reductions in farming are said to be an “unavoidable” part of the Green Agenda to improve air, soil and water quality

Cattle are fed nitrogen in the form of crude protein. While protein is an essential nutrient for cows, nitrogen is not efficiently broken down by cattle, so a lot of it is excreted in the urine and feces as urea. When urine and feces get mixed together, the urea is converted into ammonia

Since the amount of ammonia produced is related to the crude protein the animals are fed, one suggested way to lower the ammonia is to reduce the amount of crude protein in the animals’ diet. A potential problem with that idea is that cattle have protein requirements just like humans do. If they don’t cut crude protein, they’ll have to downsize their herds, and if smaller herds aren’t financially feasible, they’ll have to shut down altogether

The decision to decimate cattle farming in the name of environmental protection rings hollow in the face of looming food shortages and potential famine worldwide. It appears they’re intentionally trying to make meat so scarce and expensive that regular people can’t afford it. They can then introduce synthetic meat alternatives and insect protein, both of which are part of The Great Reset’s food plan

While the notion of a pollution-free world is an attractive one, ultimately, the Green Agenda isn’t about the environment — it’s about creating a control system in which the world’s resources are owned by the richest of the rich, while the rest of the population is controlled through the allocation of those resources, and that includes the allocation of food

*

The Netherlands is currently in an uproar over the government’s decision to reduce the number of livestock by 30% in an effort to halve its nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030.¹ As a result of this “green” policy, many farmers will be driven out of business.² As with current energy shortages, the resulting reductions in farming are said to be an “unavoidable” part of the Green Agenda to improve air, soil and water quality.³

The Dutch government has even appointed a new Minister of Nature and Nitrogen to oversee the climate goals.⁴ Provincial authorities now have one year to work out how they’re going to meet the emission reduction targets.

In a public statement about the new emissions targets, the Dutch government admitted that “The honest message … is that not all farmers can continue their business.”⁵ Those who do continue will have to come up with creative solutions to meet the new emissions restrictions.

How Do Cows Contribute to Nitrogen and Ammonia Pollution?

Cattle are fed nitrogen in the form of crude protein. While protein is an essential nutrient for cows, nitrogen is not efficiently broken down by cattle, so a lot of it is excreted in the urine and feces as urea. When urine and feces get mixed together, the urea is converted into ammonia.^6,7

Since the amount of ammonia produced is related to the crude protein the animals are fed, one suggested way to lower the ammonia is to reduce the amount of crude protein in the animals’ diet. (Other factors such as season also impact ammonia production, but farmers have no control over that.)

A potential problem with that idea is that cattle have protein requirements just like humans do. It’s particularly crucial for healthy development, muscle growth and lactation. As noted in a 2009 paper⁸ by Jane Parish, a beef cattle specialist in Mississippi, “Providing adequate protein in beef cattle diets is important for animal health and productivity as well as ranch profitability.”

Responsible farmers give their cattle just the right amount, so cutting crude protein could impact both the animals’ health and farm productivity. If they don’t cut crude protein, they’ll have to downsize their herds, and if smaller herds aren’t financially feasible, they’ll have to shut down altogether. Needless to say, many are outraged, as skyrocketing fertilizer and feed costs have already cut profits for farmers and raised prices for consumers.

Curious Timing

As noted in a July 1, 2022, report by Peter Imanuelsen, an independent journalist in Sweden, the timing of this brazen attack on cattle farmers is a curious one, and one that can only really be explained as an intentional strategy to force us into The Great Reset by manufacturing a food crisis:⁹

“We will likely see even more expensive food next year, and unfortunately probably famines in some parts of the world. So, what do the genius politicians in Europe do? They want to shut down farms because of climate change of course! That will surely help! The cows are farting too much!

That’s not a joke by the way. In New Zealand, they want to implement a tax on cow farts and burps! I really don’t get this. We are facing a food crisis and they want to shut down farms in the name of climate change? I guess they really want you to eat the bugs and be happy. They are working on making meat so expensive that the common people won’t be able to afford it. Are you enjoying The Great Reset?”

In response to the new nitrogen and ammonia restrictions, an estimated 40,000 Dutch farmers have gathered in protest, arguing the attack on farming is irrational and unfair, as other industries responsible for far greater amounts of pollution — such as transport, construction and aviation — aren’t facing the same restrictions.

They’ve blocked a number of highways with tractors and even sprayed manure on the town hall in Lochem.¹⁰ Local police have reportedly responded by shooting at some of the farmers. Jimmy Dore reviews the situation in the video above.

What’s Wrong With Nitrogen?

As explained by Plant Based News,¹¹ nitrogen makes up about 78% of the earth’s atmosphere and is essential for life. However, in excess, and in the wrong areas, it can damage the ecosystem. Nitrogen runoff from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and farms using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers can leach into and contaminate water supplies.

Nitrogen runoff can also cause algae blooms when it enters lakes or oceans. This depletes the water of oxygen and creates dead zones where no aquatic life can be sustained. This is why I’ve long advocated against CAFOs and conventional industrial farms that rely on chemicals to grow food.

That doesn’t mean livestock are a blight on the eco system, however. Quite the contrary. Livestock raised in accordance with regenerative agriculture principles will heal and massively improve soil quality and help stabilize the climate. So, it’s not cows per se that are the problem. It’s the industrialization of cattle ranching that causes it to have a negative impact. The answer, then, is not to eliminate meat production. The answer is to transition into a regenerative system.

Since the transition can take a few years, during which profits may be marginal or absent, many farmers hesitate to take this step on their own. Government could facilitate the transition by subsidizing farmers that make the switch, but none have opted to do so. Why? Could it be because regenerative farming is the converse of what The Great Reset is all about?

Dutch Climate Rules Will Cut Meat Availability Across EU

In 2019, the highest administrative court in The Netherlands, the Council of State, ruled the Dutch government was in breach of European Union law that called for stark cuts in nitrogen emissions.¹²

Following that ruling, some 18,000 infrastructure projects were abandoned in an attempt to meet the EU restrictions. The Dutch government also lowered the maximum daytime speed limit on highways to 100 kilometers an hour (61 mph). All of that still wasn’t enough though, so now the Finance and Agriculture Ministry wants to reduce the number of livestock by 30%.

The Netherlands has a significant number of farmers. In any given year, they raise some 4 million beef cattle alone. But reducing the number of cattle by 30% will not only have ramifications for the Dutch, but all of the EU, because The Netherlands is the largest meat exporter in the EU.¹³

In September 2021, Rudi Buis, a spokesperson for the Dutch agriculture ministry, told The Guardian:¹⁴

“We are a relatively small country with a lot of inhabitants, industry, transport and agriculture, so we are reaching the limits of what nature can take. There is a high level of urgency for us to tackle the nitrogen compounds problem. This means that in the near future, choices must be made.”

Apparently, the option they’ve chosen is starvation and nutritional deficiencies for all. The saddest part of it is that eliminating meat production is not going to have the fabulous impact they say it will have. It’s a fraudulent greenwashing enterprise that will destroy humanity instead.

While the notion of a pollution-free world is an attractive one, ultimately, the Green Agenda isn’t about the environment — it’s about creating a control system in which the world’s resources are owned by the richest of the rich, while the rest of the population is controlled through the allocation of those resources, and that includes the allocation of food.

The Global Food Reset Foretold by the Rockefeller Foundation

While looming food shortages are now blamed on climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Rockefeller Foundation discussed coming food shortages as an inevitability back in July 2020, and called for a revamping of the food system to address it. Seeing how true prophets are few and far in between these days, it seems more reasonable to suspect that paper was delineating a known, intentional plan.

The document in question, titled “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,”¹⁵ was published July 28, 2020. It describes how the COVID pandemic had caused “a hunger and nutrition crisis” in the U.S. “unlike any this country has seen in generations.”

Mind you, COVID was declared a pandemic March 11, 2020, so by the time this Rockefeller report was published, the pandemic had only existed for four months, and while certain high-risk groups did experience food insecurity, such as children whose primary meal is a school lunch, widespread food shortages, in terms of empty shelves, were not widely prevalent or particularly severe in the U.S.

The title itself is also revealing, as it’s a clear play on The Great Reset, which was officially announced by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Prince of Wales in early June 2020.¹⁶ The title alone tells us that the Rockefeller Foundation’s call for a food system reset is part and parcel of the WEF’s Great Reset. Many of the contributors to the Foundation’s paper are WEF members, which further strengthens this connection.

In the foreword,¹⁷ Rockefeller Foundation president Dr. Rajiv Shah also stresses that “a comprehensive playbook” to address the food system will also need to address other issues, “such as living wages, housing and transportation,” and that “all of us” — meaning the self-proclaimed designers of the future — “need to write that playbook together over the coming year.” What better way to predict the future than to actually create it?

All of those things — wages, housing and transportation — are all facets that will undergo dramatic revision under The Great Reset’s Fourth Industrial Revolution, as artificial intelligence, robotics, surveillance, social engineering and transhumanism (the merger of man with machine) take over.

Summary Take-Home of ‘Reset the Table’

In summary, “Reset the Table” describes how they intend to seize control of the food supply and the supply chain under the guise of “equity,” “fairness” and “environmental protection.” As noted by ThreadsIrish on Substack:¹⁸

“The document is very much framed in the Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution. Here is the problem that they have created (COVID) and now they want to implement the solution (Transforming the global food supply). Naturally this is all ties into lands being destroyed, climate change and trying to move people back into smart cities (Page 5). Surprise, surprise.”

One key to this enterprise is data collection. They want to collect data on everyone’s spending and eating habits, and to facilitate that data collection, they want to shift everything into an online environment, including education, medicine and the buying of food.

Another key to success is “changes to policies, practices and norms.” The goal is to centralize control of the food supply into a single executive office, which is right in line with the idea of a “one world government.” As WEF member Henry Kissinger once said, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

From Beef to Crickets

Getting back to the issue of Dutch beef production being strangled, the reason global leaders seem so unconcerned with dwindling meat production is probably because they don’t want us to eat meat. They intend for us to eat lab grown synthetic meat that can be patented, and insects,¹⁹ which can easily and inexpensively be produced in mass quantities using very little land.

As noted in a July 2021 WEF article titled, “Why We Need to Give Insects the Role They Deserve in Our Food Systems,”²⁰ insects are “a credible and efficient alternative protein source requiring fewer resources than conventional breeding,” and “a healthy ingredient” that is highly digestible and particularly suitable for senior nutrition.

Insect farming also requires few natural resources, such as water, and could reduce agricultural pollution by nearly 99%. The article points out that the last barrier to making insect burgers the norm is “preconceived ideas about insects as a source of food and legislation with regard to the use and consumption of proteins derived from insects.”

There are indications that “Reset the Table” is promoting a diet of insects as well, because while it stresses the need for a “healthy diet” and “sustainable agriculture,” the words “organic” and “grass fed” do not appear a single time, and the word “natural” is only used in reference to “natural disasters.”

In other words, their versions of “healthy diet” and “sustainable agriculture” do not include what we know are basic criteria for a healthy, nutritious, sustainable and regenerative food supply. The Foundation’s call for changes to “policies, practices and norms” also indicates that the diet they’re talking about involves something that is outside the norm.

Both lab-grown meat and insects are outside the norm of what most people are willing to put in their mouth, and thus policies about what constitutes “food” need to be changed, as do food production practices and social norms about what’s acceptable to eat and what’s not.

Scientists Question Safety of Lab-Grown Meat

While venture capitalists see lab-grown meat alternatives as the cash cow of the future, many scientists are leery. In mid-June 2022, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) held a webinar in which a panel of experts addressed a number of questions surrounding lab-grown meats, including safety and regulatory issues.²¹

One of the panelists was Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist with Consumer Reports. He raised concerns about cell-cultured meats, where biopsied cells from an animal are grown in fetal bovine blood (extracted from a live, aborted baby calf).

His main concern revolves around the use of manipulated DNA segments, as that could have unforeseen consequences, but he pointed out that we also have no data on the nutritional composition of this kind of meat. As reported by The Defender:²²

“According to Hansen, the piece of flesh biopsied from the animal is an undifferentiated stem cell. The products use bio-engineered proteins in a nutrient solution to induce the cells to differentiate into muscle for meat. This is done in bio-reactor vats similar to those used to make beer.

While scientific papers have covered topics related to cell-cultured meat, Hansen said, none has actually analyzed the nutritional characteristics of the finished product, and academics have not received samples. This implies ‘problems behind the scenes,’ Hansen said, adding, ‘I doubt this technology will work.'”

Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), was also part of the panel. Neltner noted that while sustainable protein sources are needed, lab-grown meats will be proprietary, meaning the full ingredients list and how they’re made is a trade secret, so “We won’t know their effect or what they are.” The Defender added:²³

“The concept of proprietary foodstuffs … led the panelists to address the regulation of cell-cultured meat and the role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which one panelist called a ‘captured’ agency.

Neltner said he worried cell-cultured meat could be ushered into the food supply under the FDA’s Generally Recognized As Safe program. Under the program, a company simply tells the FDA its product is safe, based on the company’s own documentation, and bypasses the public comment process.’

Neltner, whose primary focus at the EDF is food additive safety, said he preferred companies be required to submit to the FDA a ‘food additive petition,’ which includes a ‘right to challenge.’

Panelists also raised concerns about the effects novel ingredients may have on aspects of the human microbiome. Hansen pointed out that 10 years ago, we could not culture and study microbiome components. But now we can, and it’s important that we know these effects.

For example, Hansen said, it is now known that the genome and genes themselves can be affected by epigenetic changes without even touching the DNA …

Hansen said biopsied cells of an animal used in cell-cultured meat do not contain the immunity actions from the animal’s immune system, which could leave bio-reactor vats susceptible to bacteria like salmonella, fungi and worse unless antibiotics are used. Cell-cultured meat producers claim they may not have to add antibiotics, although even alcohol distillers have to add them to their vats, Hansen said.”

Prepare for Food Shortages

Everything now points to food shortages and famine becoming a reality in many parts of the world, including the U.S. and Europe.²⁴ As yet, stores are still fairly well stocked with essentials, but that will change come winter and into 2023. This means you may only have another six months or so to stock up.

This past Monday, I published an article with suggestions for how to prepare. That article, “Get Prepared With Shelf-Stable Foods,” will be made available for free on Substack, so if you missed it, you can review it 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.

Notes

^{1, 4, 9, 10} Substack, The Freedom Corner with PeterSweden July 1, 2022

² Bloomberg June 28, 2022

^3, 5 Indian Express July 3, 2022

⁶ Science Daily June 29, 2016

⁷ Penn State Nitrogen from the Farm

⁸ Cattle Business in Mississippi April 2009, Protein Requirements of Beef Cattle

^11, 12, 13 Plant Based News September 27, 2021

¹⁴ The Guardian September 9, 2021

¹⁵ Rockefeller Foundation Reset the Table

¹⁶ Weforum June 3, 2020

¹⁷ Rockefeller Foundation Reset the Table (PDF) Foreword

¹⁸ ThreadsIrish June 18, 2022

^19, 20 WEF July 12, 2021

^21, 22, 23 The Defender June 27, 2022

²⁴ Substack Maajid Nawaz April 25, 2022

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

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

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

***

The EU has frozen Russian assets worth €13.8 billion since Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February, but this large sum remains largely untouched across the bloc, a high-ranking European Commission official said on Tuesday (12 July).

“For the moment, we have frozen – coming from oligarchs and other entities – €13.8 billion, so it’s quite huge,” European Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders told reporters in Prague.

“But I must say that a very large part of it, more than €12 billion (…), is coming from five member states,” he said, refusing to name the five countries, adding that he expected other member states to step up their efforts soon.

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner put the value of assets frozen by the country alone at €4.48 billion in mid-June.

At the end of June, an international sanctions task force said its members, including several EU countries, had blocked $30 billion in assets belonging to Russian oligarchs and officials.

The Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force (REPO) said its members, who also include the US, Canada, Britain, Japan and other allies, had immobilised $300 billion owned by the Russian central bank.

The EU has so far adopted six sanction packages against Russia, including a ban on most Russian oil imports approved in early June.

A total of 98 companies and 1,158 individuals, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have seen their property frozen and been banned from entering the EU.

Exploring to seize

However, as the financial reconstruction of Ukraine will require huge sums to rebuild the country after the war, the EU and member states are increasingly looking for ways how to potentially use frozen assets for this purpose.

Ukraine’s Justice Minister Denys Maliuska in Prague on Tuesday repeated calls for seized assets to be used to cover compensation for war damages.

“Currently they are protected by sovereign immunity, but our understanding is that assets of a state (that) started a war, committed aggression, shall not be protected by sovereign immunity,” he said.

“We are suffering from economic losses, and it does not make sense to cover all those losses with Ukrainian or European taxpayers’ money,” Maliuska added.

Many member states, for various reasons, are struggling to freeze assets of people sanctioned by the EU for their ties to the Kremlin. Furthermore, they lack legal powers to confiscate frozen assets.

In May, the Commission unveiled plans to make it easier to confiscate frozen assets linked to serious illegal activities and suspected criminals, including those evading EU sanctions against Russia.

Under the proposal, which still has to be approved by EU leaders, the violation of EU restrictive measures would be added to the list of crimes, which would create a legal basis for criminal offences and penalties across the EU.

Such common EU rules, in theory, would make it easier to investigate, prosecute and punish violations and, in the next step, seize assets with the help of the new ‘Freeze and Seize’ Task Force, set up by the Commission in March.

Although EU leaders initially were meant to green-light the European Commission proposal in June, Reynders said on Tuesday he expected a final political agreement after the summer with the policy possibly taking effect in the autumn.

To determine the feasibility of seizures, the European Commission earlier this month gave its approval to a pilot project to explore aspects such as sanction adoption, asset freezes, asset confiscation, and reintroduction of the confiscated assets into the national economy for social use, as well as into the EU budget for public spending in Ukraine.

*

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.

***

Russia’s account surplus reached a new record for the second quarter, according to data released by the central bank cited by Bloomberg.

The surplus, now more than $70 billion, comes on the back of surging oil and gas—and other commodities as well—exports, which outweighed the sanctions placed on the country by Western powers.

The surplus was also bolstered by high prices and decreasing imports—to $72.3 billion in Q1 from $88.7 billion in Q2—thanks to the sanctions, which have a greater effect on imports than on exports.

The sanctions on Russia’s energy exports have made scant progress in restricting funds flowing into Russia that it could use to carry on its aggression in Ukraine. India, for one, is purchasing record amounts of Russian crude oil—to the tune of nearly a million barrels per day as of June—this is about one-fifth of India’s total crude oil imports, according to Reuters.

China has also been importing record amounts of cheap Russian crude during June, even in the midst of Covid lockdowns. Russia is China’s main supplier of crude oil, and neither India nor China is showing signs of reluctance in snapping up Russian crude—a sanctioned commodity by Europe and the United States.

It’s not just oil. Russia is also said to be close to a deal with Brazil to supply the South American country with cheap diesel, Reuters reported on Monday. Brazilian President Bolsonaro, facing a tough reelection in October due to high fuel prices, has enjoyed an amicable relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russian exports were $153.1 billion in the second quarter after reaching $166.4 billion in the first quarter.

The United States has plans to discuss a possible oil price cap on Russian crude with major crude oil purchasers like India to garner support for such a plan—a plan that would seek to allow buyers to continue purchasing Russian crude but cap the revenues that Russia receives for those purchases.

*

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.

Julianne Geiger is a veteran editor, writer and researcher for Oilprice.com, and a member of the Creative Professionals Networking Group.

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.

***

As the bloody conflict in Ukraine continues, the rhetoric from the imperial spear-holders in Washington and some allies is becoming increasingly fixated with one object: victory against Russia.  Such words should be used sparingly, especially given their binding, and blinding tendencies.  When the term “unconditional surrender” was first used by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the January 1943 Casablanca conference in the context of defeating Nazi Germany, not all cheered.  It meant a fight to the finish, climbing the summit and dictating terms from a blood-soaked peak.

With such language crowning the efforts of the Allies, the Axis powers – certainly Germany and Japan – could continue fighting the war of extermination, aware that no terms they could submit would be taken seriously.  There would be no compromise in this existential confrontation.  It made the Allied advance in Western Europe slower and enabled the Soviet Union to expel German forces and duly occupy most of Eastern Europe.  It made negotiations about whether Japan would retain its emperor on surrendering nigh impossible, leaving the route open for the use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The supply of weapons to Ukraine in its efforts against Russia has become a zealous mission that will supposedly achieve victory. Messianic impulses tingle and move through the Washington and London establishment, with some echo in Warsaw and the capitals of the Baltic states.  An air of unreality – be it in terms of negotiating the future of Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation – fills such corridors of power.

On May 1, after travelling to Kyiv, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the colours.  “America,” she declared with earnestness, “stands with Ukraine until victory is won.”  She made little effort to expound on what this would entail, be it the expulsion of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, or the “meat grinder” solution, leaving Kyiv and Moscow to bleed, weakening the latter and strengthening NATO security over a dead generation.

Her remarks did enough to worry Michael T. Klare, defence correspondent for The Nation.  “Nowhere, in her comments or those of other high-ranking officials, is there any talk of a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, only of scenarios leading to Russia’s defeat, at whatever cost in human lives.”

The vagueness of the term has led to grand, sanguinary calls to battle unenlightened Russian barbarism, with the UK and US governments repeatedly calling this a conflict that involves the whole west, even the world.  Peering more closely at the rhetoric, and another sentiment comes to the fore: the desire to bloody Russia vicariously while arms manufacturers take stock.

For over a decade, Ukraine has been something of a plaything in branches of the US State Department, and US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman can be found telling the BBC’s Newshour that Russia had to “suffer a strategic failure” in Ukraine.

The checklist for doing so, as outlined by US President Joe Biden, is lengthy.  “We will continue providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger antiaircraft missiles, powerful artillery and precision rocket systems, radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, Mi-17 helicopters and ammunition.”

On this score, the hawks are in the ascendancy.  Anyone uttering the view that a Ukrainian victory would hardly be total, let alone likely, have been reviled, as British military historian and journalist Max Hastings writes.  They are tarred and feathered as either “ultra-realists” or appeasers.

Hard-headed peace talks, let alone anything approximating to negotiations have, as a result, also become taboo.  The early June suggestion by French President Emmanuel Macron that, “We must not humiliate Russia, so that the day the fighting stops, we can build a way out through diplomatic channels” was met with disdain and fury in Kyiv.

The previous month, the world’s oldest Machiavellian devotee, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, dared mention the need for the warring parties to commence talks.  Unconvicted war criminal he may be, his view that “negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome” was hardly controversial.  But the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded by foraging in the dustbin of history.  “It seems that Mr Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938.”

In Kyiv, the very idea of making a deal with Moscow is being met with revulsion.

“They have killed too many people,” opines Oleksii Movchan of the Ukrainian Parliament representing Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People Party. “They have destroyed too many cities.  They have raped too many women.  If the war stops now and the world tries to accommodate Putin, then international law will have no meaning.”

For the moment, support from the US is taking the form of logistical and material assistance in what has already been called by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a proxy war against Moscow.  With each ghoulish weapons update, we can read about the types of murderous devices used, and how effective they were.  The latest featured an attack on Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region by Ukrainian forces using US-supplied Himars missiles.  Kyiv’s line: the attack was a success, destroying a Russian ammunition depot, killing dozens of Russian military personnel.  The Russian angle: homes and warehouses storing fertiliser had been pulverised, killing five and wounding 80.

Ukrainians have become surrogate democrats and freedom fighters (these terms are not necessarily identical) and Washington is willing to ensure, at least for the moment, that they have the weapons.  Other countries in Europe are willing to keep the borders open to Ukraine’s refugees.  But how long will this last?  Hearts can, in time, harden, leaving way for national self-interest to take hold.  At some point, the weapons will have to be put down, the war making way for the jaw.  Till then, the unofficial policy of fighting to the last Ukrainian will be in vogue.

*

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 is from OneWorld

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.

***

Protests have continued in Akron, Ohio after the June 27 police killing of Jayland Walker, 25, who had 90 bullets fired at him by officers, 60 of those rounds struck the victim.

After the release of a police video of the shooting of Walker, who was unarmed, people poured into the streets to demand justice for the African American motorist.

Police claimed that Walker had fired at them during a chase, however, he was not carrying any firearm when he was struck down in the hail of bullets fired by Akron police. The police later claimed they discovered a handgun in Walker’s vehicle after he had already been executed.

This incident represents a continuation of police violence directed towards African Americans across the United States. More than two years since the brutal police killings of Breonna Taylor in Louisville and George Floyd in Minneapolis along with the lynching of Ahmaud Arbery by vigilantes in Brunswick, Georgia, the various law-enforcement agencies have been given even more resources by the federal government to carry out their brutal treatment of Black and People of Color Communities.

In fact, Democratic President Joe Biden has repudiated the demand which grew out of the mass demonstrations of 2020 to defund the police. Biden went out of his way during his State of the Union Address earlier in the year to call for more resources being turned over to the police. Substantial amounts of funds which were ostensibly allocated by the U.S. Congress to address the socioeconomic crisis stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, have been turned over to law-enforcement departments around the country.

Akron is a city of 197,000 people, the fifth largest municipality in the state of Ohio within a broader metropolitan area with a population of 703,000, which also encompasses Cleveland and Canton. Once known as the rubber capital of the world due to the role of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, since 1960, Akron as a municipality has lost approximately 100,000 residents. 31.5% of the people living in Akron are African Americans

During the Independence Day weekend, Akron erupted in mass demonstrations and rebellion where several businesses reported property damages. It was reported by local police that 49 people were arrested on July 3-4 and charged with rioting. These developments prompted Mayor Dan Horrigan to declare a state of emergency in Akron.

The Akron Beacon Journal reported on the events saying:

“After Mayor Dan Horrigan and Police Chief Steve Mylett gave a 1 p.m. press conference Sunday (July 3) to discuss the video the city released of Walker’s death, hundreds of people gathered outside Quaker Station on Broadway downtown for an Akron NAACP Community Peace Rally. A large crowd rallied at the Harold K. Stubbs Justice Center downtown at around 10 p.m. As chants demanding justice for Walker continued, some began hurling water bottles and other objects at the building. Despite organizers calling for peace and expelling one person who had pulled down a street sign, the situation grew more hectic as police shot tear gas canisters into crowds of protesters. Protesters fled, while some launched smoke bombs into the streets. One protester began using a bat to break windows of snowplow trucks the city had used to block traffic in front of the Justice Center. On South Main Street windows were smashed and planters overturned. Downtown Akron Partnership President and CEO Suzie Graham said there was damage at 19 properties, with an estimated count of 101 broken doors and windows, as well as a broken pane of glass in a bus shelter.”

State of Emergency Targets Well-known Activists

The unrest in Akron has been downplayed in the national media in the U.S. There was the reporting of the brutal execution of Jayland Walker, yet there has been almost no follow-up on the subsequent demonstrations and arrests. However, other issues have dominated the corporate and government-controlled television, newspaper and radio networks.

Image on the right: Jayland Walker and family (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Much attention is being paid to the January 6 hearings in the Congress. In addition, a series of mass shootings has shifted the focus to the question of gun control. Not to mention the incessant reporting on the Ukraine war where the actual battlefield events are often characterized in Cold War propaganda terms.

Despite the failure of the White House to make a statement decrying the police killing of Jayland Walker, there are those who continue to advocate for an electoral strategy aimed at putting more Democrats in the House of Representative and the Senate. Nonetheless, there is tremendous discontent among the Democratic Party’s electoral base with specific reference to African Americans. This is potentially a serious problem for the Democratic-dominated House and evenly divided Senate.

Family members and supporters of victims of police brutality converged on Akron to express their solidarity with their counterparts in this Ohio city. Jacob Blake, Jr. was severely wounded by Kenosha, Wisconsin police in 2020, being shot seven times while moving away from the police to enter a vehicle. Blake’s father, already suffering from chronic health issues, stepped forward to demand justice for his son. The prosecutorial authorities in Wisconsin failed to indict the police officers involved in this heinous act of law-enforcement misconduct.

In addition, the family of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and Hakim Littleton of Detroit, demanded in public and courtroom settings that the police officers responsible for the death of their loved ones. The response by the courts have been mixed. The murderers of George Floyd were indicted and convicted in state and federal courts. However, no punishment was meted out to the killers of Breonna Taylor and Hakim Littleton.

The activism of the families of police victims has been highlighted in Akron. One report emphasized:

“The aunt of Breonna Taylor, who was killed in a botched police raid, and the father of Jacob Blake, another African American permanently paralyzed after getting shot by Kenosha cops, were arrested this week while protesting against police brutality in Akron, Ohio. Bianca Austin and Jacob Blake Sr. traveled together with Families United, a group against police brutality, to protest against the harrowing shooting of unarmed Jayland Walker. Amid the chaotic protest Wednesday night, Austin was arrested and Blake Sr. was transported to a local hospital. Police booked Austin at the local jail on charges of alleged rioting, disorderly conduct, and failure to disperse, while a bench warrant was issued to arrest Blake Sr.”

This type of conduct by the Akron police indicates clearly that they are more concerned with covering up for those officers under investigation in the brutal death of Walker. The same pattern has been repeated in municipalities, suburbs and rural areas throughout the U.S.

An attempt to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act during 2021 failed in the Senate where even some Democrats would not support any significant reforms related to holding the police accountable for their deadly behaviors. The failure of legislation promised by the Biden administration encompasses a wide array of issues.

There was the inability to codify within legislative action the right of women to reproductive freedom in light of the overturn by the Supreme Court of the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Today there are questions about whether individual states can investigate and prosecute women for seeking abortion care in states other than where they live.

Moreover, the abortion ban raises questions about the potential future actions of the conservative-dominated court. The 14th amendment to the Constitution purportedly guarantees equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to legal due process. Nevertheless, five justices on the Supreme Court were empowered to make a decision which most people in the U.S. do not support that effectively disregards the rights of at least half of the population.

These decisions call for independent action on the part of African Americans, Latin Americans, all oppressed nations and communities, including women of all nationalities, to gather together in order to ensure that the rights of peoples be protected and enshrined in the law. Until this attitude is adopted among the hundreds of millions of those negatively impacted by right-wing legislation and intrusions into the collective will of the people, the ruling class will continue its program to rob the masses of their inherent rights as human beings.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Relatives of Jacob Blake and Breonna Taylor (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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.

***

For months, pandemic critics have pointed out the hypocrisy of government officials suppressing early treatment for COVID-19 and promoting the disastrous public health movement of locking down the world.  Health authorities coerced people (using millions of dollars in propagandized advertisements and celebrity endorsements) into taking a new gene-related therapy with the promise to prevent transmission of a highly survivable viral infection – never mind that later the jab was shown to be completely ineffective at preventing transmission after all.

The gaslit general public is now supposed to believe, of course, that these shots were “never” about stopping transmission but only about reducing the risk of severe illness and death.  However, official data from the UK shows yet again that even that claim is completely unfounded.

Vaxxed individuals in the UK significantly more likely to die of all causes than unvaxxed, analysis of official data reveals

The latest figures released in May by the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggest that people who received COVID shots are much more likely to die of any cause than vax-free individuals.  Incredibly, this trend appears to hold for all age groups. 

Here are some of the most alarming data shared by ONS:

• Approximately 70,000 individuals have died within 28 days following a COVID shot in England, and some 179,000 persons have died within 60 days post-jab
• Getting a COVID vax increases the risk of death among kids aged 10-14 by anywhere from 8,100% to 30,200% (these figures were calculated by the Daily Expose based on official ONS data)
• The dramatic increase in death rates from all causes is apparently showing up within five months

To be clear, these alarming trends were not always the case.  Within the first two months after COVID shots began rolling out in England starting on December 8, 2020, it was the unvaxxed individuals who appeared more likely to die of any cause other than COVID-19.

By April, however, the rates started to normalize, and from May 2021, a major flip happened, with age-standardized mortality rates showing that vaxxed folks were more likely to die than the unvaxxed by any cause other than COVID-19.

Interestingly, the Daily Expose suggests that the age-adjusted mortality rates seem to correlate with the order in which people received the COVID-19 injections, as England rolled out their COVID shot program by age, with the oldest citizens being offered the shots first.

Month after month, the ONS data suggests that younger and younger age groups (from 90+ down to 50-59) began experiencing dramatic upticks in mortality.  The Daily Expose says of their analysis that this data could very well indicate that “the COVID-19 injections take approximately 5 months to completely decimate the immune system to the point where a person’s chances of dying of any cause are significantly increased.”

If this is what official data shows, one has to wonder what’s not being discussed

We would be remiss not to remind readers that the number of injuries, illnesses, and deaths post-jab are most likely underreported, even at this stage in the pandemic.  Doctors are quick to dismiss concerned patients and caregivers, touting the tired adage that “correlation does not equal causation.”

Yes, correlation does not equal causation.  But two factors can’t have a causal relationship without being correlated – and the growing trends in data pointing to a correlation between these mRNA shots and negative health outcomes is nearly becoming too great to ignore.

*

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.

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

***

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

We are witnessing the gradual dismantling of every constitutional principle that serves as a bulwark against government tyranny, overreach and abuse.

As usual, the latest assault comes from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 ruling in Vega v. Tekoh, the Supreme Court took aim at the Miranda warnings, which require that police inform suspects that they have a right against self-incrimination when in police custody: namely, that they have a right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and that anything they say and do can and will be used against them in a court of law.

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of overturning its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, the conservative majority declared that individuals cannot hold police accountable for violating their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

By shielding police from lawsuits arising from their failure to Mirandize suspects, the Supreme Court has sent a message to police that they no longer have to respect a suspect’s right to remain silent.

In other words, concludes legal analyst Nick Sibilla, “the Supreme Court has effectively created a new legal immunity for cops accused of infringing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.”

Why is this important?

In totality, the rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment speak to the Founders’ determination to protect the rights of the individual against a government with a natural inclination towards corruption, tyranny and thuggery.

The Founders were especially concerned with balancing the scales of justice in such a way that the innocent and the accused were not railroaded and browbeaten by government agents into coerced confessions, false convictions, or sham trials.

Indeed, so determined were the Founders to safeguard the rights of the innocent, even if it meant allowing a guilty person to go free, that Benjamin Franklin insisted, “It is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

Two hundred-plus years later, the Supreme Court (aided and abetted by the police state, Congress and Corporate America) has flipped that longstanding presumption of innocence on its head.

In our present suspect society, “we the people” are all presumed guilty until proven innocent.

With the Vega ruling, we have even fewer defenses for warding off government chicanery, abuse, threats and entrapment.

To be clear, the Supreme Court is not saying that we don’t have the right to remain silent when in police custody. It’s merely saying that we can’t sue the police for violating that right.

It’s a subtle difference but a significant one that could well encourage police to engage in the very sort of egregious misconduct at the heart of the Vega case: in which a police officer investigating a sexual assault isolated a suspect in a small, windowless room; refused him access to a lawyer or work colleagues; accused him of molesting a female patient; threatened him with violence; implied that he and his family would be deported; and terrorized him into signing a false confession dictated by the cop.

Although Terence Tekoh was eventually tried and acquitted, the Supreme Court refused to hold police accountable for browbeating an innocent man into making a false confession.

The Vega ruling threatens to turn the clocks back to a time when police resorted to physical brutality (beating, hanging, whipping) and mental torture in order to obtain confessions from suspects without ever informing them of their Fifth Amendment rights.

This was exactly the kind of misconduct that the Warren Court sought to discourage with its 5-4 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.

As the Court concluded in Miranda almost 60 years ago:

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.

The end result as one analyst notes: “Miranda v. Arizona, in creating the ‘Miranda Rights’ we take for granted today, reconciled the increasing police powers of the state with the basic rights of individuals.”

By largely doing away with Miranda, the Supreme Court has made its present position clear: anything goes if you’re a cop in the American police state.

Indeed, pay close to attention to the Court’s rulings lately, and the broader picture that emerges is of a judiciary that is playing fast and loose with the rule of law, picking and choose which rights to uphold and which can be discarded, in order to expand the power of the police state at the expense of the people’s rights.

If left unchecked, this constitutionally illiterate ruling will open the door to a new era of police abuses.

By shielding police from charges of grave misconduct while throwing the book at Americans for violating any of a rapidly expanding assortment of so-called crimes, the government has created a world in which there are two sets of laws: one set for the government and its gun-toting agents, and another set for you and me.

If you’re a cop in the American police state, you can already break the law in a myriad of ways without suffering any major, long-term consequences.

Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing—whether it’s shooting unarmed citizens (including children and old people), raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports, trafficking drugs, or soliciting sex with minors—but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for misconduct, it’s only a matter of time before they get re-hired again.

For instance, police officer Jackie Neal was accused of putting his hands inside a woman’s panties, lifting up her shirt and feeling her breasts during a routine traffic stop. He remained on the police force. A year later, Neal was accused of digitally penetrating another woman. Still, he wasn’t fired or disciplined.

A few years after that, Neal—then serving as supervisor of the department’s youth program—was suspended for three days for having sex with a teenage girl participating in the program. As Reuters reports, “Neal never lost a dime in pay or a day off patrol: The union contract allowed him to serve the suspension using vacation days.”

Later that same year, Neal was arrested on charges that he handcuffed a woman in the rear seat of his police vehicle and then raped her. He was eventually fined $5,000 and sentenced to 14 months in prison, with five months off for “work and education.” The taxpayers of San Antonio got saddled with $500,000 to settle the case.

Now here’s the kicker: when the local city council attempted to amend the police union contract to create greater accountability for police misconduct, the police unions flexed their muscles and engaged in such a heated propaganda campaign that the city backed down.

This is how perverse justice in America has become, and it’s happening all across the country.

Incredibly, while our own constitutional protections against government abuses continue to be dismantled, a growing number of states are adopting Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBoR)—written by police unions—which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

In other words, the LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are treated during criminal investigations: questioned unmercifully for hours on end, harassed, harangued, browbeaten, denied food, water and bathroom breaks, subjected to hostile interrogations, and left in the dark about our accusers and any charges and evidence against us.

These LEOBoRs epitomize everything that is wrong with America today.

Now every so often, police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens. Occasionally, those officers are even sentenced for their crimes against the citizenry.

Yet in just about every case, it’s still the American taxpayer who foots the bill.

The ones who rarely ever feel the pinch are the officers accused or convicted of wrongdoing, “even if they are disciplined or terminated by their department, criminally prosecuted, or even imprisoned.”

In fact, police officers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions.

No matter which way you spin it, “we the people” are always on the losing end of the deal.

With the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vega v. Tekoh, the scales of justice have shifted out of balance even more.

Brace yourselves: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, things are about to get downright ugly.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

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

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

They are regular contributors 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 European Union (EU) has finally admitted that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines destroy the immune system and make people more susceptible not just to COVID but to all diseases.

According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), taking booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccines every four months could weaken the immune system and tire people out. (Related: Qatari study finds mRNA vaccines actually DECREASE immunity against COVID-19.)

Despite this revelation, the EU is still recommending that people take COVID-19 vaccines and boosters. What the EMA wants to change is the time in between booster doses.

“[Boosters] can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly,” said Marco Cavaleri, the EMA’s head of biological health threats and vaccines strategy. “We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”

But this revelation from the EMA has not stopped the EU from approving more vaccine doses for its population.

The EMA and the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) approved the recommendation giving people between 60 and 79 years old second booster doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

People with medical conditions that make them more susceptible to diseases are also now eligible to receive a second mRNA booster in the 27-nation bloc.

The approval of additional boosters for more vulnerable sectors of society was reportedly rushed following the recent rise in infections in perhaps the most vaccinated continent on the planet.

“With cases and hospitalizations rising again as we enter the summer period, I urge everybody to get vaccinated and boosted as quickly as possible,” said European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides. “There is no time to lose.”

“I call on member states to roll out second boosters for everyone over the age of 60 as well as all vulnerable persons immediately,” she added.

ECDC Director Andrea Ammon is also claiming that the continent is seeing “increasing COVID-19 case notification rates and an increasing trend in hospital and ICU admissions and occupancy in several countries.”

“This signals the start of a new, widespread COVID-19 wave across the European Union,” said Ammon. “There are still too many individuals at risk of severe COVID-19 infection whom we need to protect as soon as possible.”

More COVID-19 vaccinations will increase likelihood of death

“The Daily Veracity” host Vincent James noted that even amending the time in between booster vaccinations likely won’t make any difference and people will still experience debilitating effects upon taking the vaccines.

“If the vaccine and repeated doses of the vaccine destroys your immune system, which is what the European Union admitted recently, then this makes you more susceptible to all diseases,” warned James. “And if it makes you more susceptible to diseases, then it makes you more likely to die, because the vaccine destroys your immune system.”

James warned people against taking even just one COVID-19 vaccine, as evidence points to the fact that not only do they destroy the immune system, “but also they just straight up kill you.”

*

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 BigPharmaNews.com

What the Leaked EMA Emails and Docs Reveal: Major Concerns with Pfizer C-19 Vaccine Batch Integrity and the Race to Authorize

By Sonia Elijah, July 12, 2022

The time period of the email correspondence in question stretches from November 10 – 25, 2020, just weeks before the EMA granted CMA (conditional marketing authorization) for the Pfizer-BioNTech Covdid-19 vaccine on December 21, 2020.

NATO: By Making China the Enemy, the Alliance Is Threatening World Peace

By Jonathan Cook, July 12, 2022

As the saying goes, if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The West has the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato), a self-declared “defensive” military alliance – so any country that refuses its dictates must, by definition, be an offensive military threat. That is part of the reason why Nato issued a new “strategic concept” document last week at its summit in Madrid, declaring for the first time that China poses a “systemic challenge” to the alliance, alongside a primary “threat” from Russia.

Ukraine and NATO’s Hardline Position on Expansion: End the War, Lift the Sanctions, Initiate Peace Negotiations

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, July 12, 2022

NATO’s hardline  position on expansion and membership is further reinforced by a motive which has become more obvious in the course of the war. Some members of NATO and the US leadership are keen to exploit the war to emasculate Russia as a military power.

India to Boost Sakhalin-1 Oil Output

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 12, 2022

After Sakhalin-2, Moscow also plans to nationalise Sakhalin-1 oil and gas development project by ousting US and Japanese shareholders. But Moscow will make an exception for India so that OVL which holds 20% stake will remain & continue to work. Moscow grapevine is that while Rosneft will continue to hold controlling share, more Indian companies may be inducted to replace US & Japan and thereby also ensure a sales market in India. 

Ex-NATO Commander Calls on Ukraine to Blow Up Crimean Bridge

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Ukrainian News, July 12, 2022

This bridge was geared towards train transport routes linking Western and Eastern Europe to the Caspian Sea basin, Kazakhstan and China. It is therefore an integral part of the Eurasian Project (linking up with China’s Belt and Road initiative). In recent developments, “former Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, said that the Crimean Bridge is a legitimate target for attack by Ukraine”.

Black Alliance for Peace Condemns Extension of United Nations Mandate in Haiti and Calls on Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to Support Haitian Independence and Sovereignty

By Black Alliance for Peace, July 12, 2022

Since beginning a 2-year term on the UNSC, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico has supported U.S.-backed initiatives that would extend BINUH’s occupation of Haiti. Mexico and the United States are “co-penholders” for this process, indicating the leadership role of the Mexican government in bringing forth this year’s UNSC resolution on Haiti.

‘Head-Spinning’: FDA Quietly Grants Full Approval of Pfizer Comirnaty Vaccine for Adolescents

By Megan Redshaw, July 12, 2022

In an FDA press release, the agency said full approval of Comirnaty follows a “rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data,” and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”

Video: Swedish Study: Pfizer Jab Installs DNA into the Human Genome

By Alexandra Bruce, July 12, 2022

Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Richard Bartlett and Dr Simone Gold join Joni Table Talk host, Joni Lamb to discuss the Swedish in vitro study that shows the Pfizer jab installs DNA into the human genome.

The Nitrogen Problem in Agriculture

By Dr. Vandana Shiva, July 12, 2022

The nitrogen problem in Agriculture is a problem created by synthetic nitrogen fertilisers made from fossil fuels. Nitrogen fertilisers contribute to atmospheric pollution and climate change in the manufacture and the use of fertilisers.

“One-sided News on Ukraine”: Open Letter to CBC on Its Defamation of Eva Bartlett

By Karin Brothers, July 12, 2022

The implication that Eva Bartlett’s reporting is bought and paid for by Russia (made, incidentally, by those whose opinions seem to have been bought and paid for by Canadian taxpayers) is defamatory.

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 May 1, 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci and two co-authors published an article on March 26, 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Anthony  Fauci is head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In the article, linked below, he states that COVID-19 may turn out to be comparable to a seasonal flu or similar to two relatively minor flu pandemics in 1957 and 1968. It is estimated that seasonal flu kills about 500,000 people globally every year and the two flu pandemics he cited each are thought to have killed about a million people globally. Below is an excerpt of the article. 

Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted

“On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.“

It is not over yet, but this is much less than what our hysterical media and politicians have led us to believe. In the beginning of this historic, media-fueled panic, it sounded like millions would die in the US alone and tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, globally.

Ana Laura Palomino García on Patriot Fire Net 

***

Global Research Editor’s note

Ironically, the media panic referred to by Ana Laura Palomino García is being fuelled by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is playing a central role as a spokesperson in mainstream media reports.

His analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine is in sharp contrast with some of his frenzied statements on network TV, often taken out of context and/or misquoted by the media including press reports and headlines.

Dr. Anthony Fauci  is described as America’s trustworthy voice on coronavirus,  “often correcting President Donald Trump” who compares the COVID-19 to the Seasonal Flu. But isn’t that what Fauci is doing in his NEJM article. (In that regard Trump’s comparison is correct).

“Over the weekend, Fauci told CNN that the pandemic could ultimately kill between 100,000 and 200,000 people in the US should mitigation be unsuccessful.”

“Serving a president who initially dismissed coronavirus by comparing it to seasonal flu, Fauci has been even-handed in public.” (emphasis added)

Fauci is by far  a CNN favorite, providing “authoritative” statements on the virus:

Fauci tends to contradict himself.

He certainly does not inform Americans in a cautious way. He does not reassure Americans.

His authoritative statements often have no factual backing.

The Guardian screenshot,  March 29

He not only misleads Americans, he fails to acknowledge the statements of the WHO which confirm unequivocally that:

 The Hill, March 19, 2020

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 31, 20120

***

Thanks to Ana Laura Palomino García for having brought the NEJM article to our attention

*

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.

Featured image: Anthony Fauci (R), director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease and Dr. Anne Schuchat of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention speak with reporters during a press briefing about the Zika virus at the White House in Washington February 8, 2016.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

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 in Ukraine is dragging on. Today, the 11^th of July 2022 is the 138^th day of an armed conflict that began on the 24^th of February when Russian president, Vladimir Putin, declared that his country is launching a special military operation in Ukraine.

As one should expect, a few thousands have been killed so far on both sides. Among Ukrainians both soldiers and civilians are victims. Russian casualties have been mainly soldiers. There has also been massive infrastructure destruction in Ukraine.

The outflow of refugees from Ukraine to Poland and other European countries has been heart breaking. The other consequence of the war has been the imposition of severe economic sanctions upon Russia by the United States of America and other Western countries.

The sanctioning of the export of oil and gas from Russia has plunged a number of European states into economic crisis.

Inflation has soared sky-high and people are struggling to make ends meet especially in those countries where incomes have stagnated for some time. Since Russia is also a major exporter of wheat, Western sanctions have also multiplied the sufferings of people in poor wheat importing countries such as Egypt. Like the fuel supply chain, the global food supply chain has been strained more by the sanctions than by the actual war itself in Ukraine.

In spite of what sanctions and the war have done to families and economies thousands of kilometres away from the scene of the conflict, there are elements on both sides who want the war to go on. There are many Russians who argue that since they have gained control of almost the whole of southern and eastern Ukraine, known as Donbas, (which is where many Russian –speaking Ukrainians live) they should press ahead and consolidate their position. Besides, there is nothing to indicate that NATO is willing to exercise restraint over its eastward push towards Russia or refrain from incorporating Ukraine into NATO — which were the principal reasons why Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine in the first place.

If anything, the strategy document  adopted by NATO at the end of its summit in Madrid in June 2022, asserts emphatically that the doors of NATO  “remain open to all European democracies that share the values of our Alliance“ and “Decisions on membership are taken by NATO allies and no third party has a say in this process.”

NATO’s hardline  position on expansion and membership is further reinforced by a motive which has become more obvious in the course of the war. Some members of NATO and the US leadership are keen to exploit the war to emasculate Russia as a military power. This is why they would like to prolong the war. In Ukraine itself, the government in Kyiv, the capital, and a substantial segment of the populace in the Western part of the country perceive themselves as part of Western Europe and would want to see NATO emerge triumphant in the war. The Kyiv government is determined to re-take territory lost to Russia in recent weeks.

It is because these two positions are antagonistic to one another, that the Russian stance, on the one hand, and the Ukraine-cum-NATO-cum Western stance, on the other, appear so irreconcilable. This may also explain why sincere efforts by Indonesian President, Widodo and Pope Francis of the Vatican have not borne any fruit so far. Nonetheless, men and women of goodwill everywhere should go on trying.

It is in that spirit that we are proposing an international conference that will bring together all the main actors in this crisis and leaders of important nations and regional and international organisations to explore short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions to the crisis that confronts us which actually began in 2014. At the crux of it is of course the current war in Ukraine. The conference must at all costs bring the war to an immediate end. In doing so, it should conduct an honest examination of the trends and forces that led to the war. It must also analyse the central security concerns of our time with the clear aim of constructing a viable global security architecture. This architecture should eliminate the hegemonic power of any one nation or cluster of nations over the international system.

Given the disastrous consequences of sanctions, the conference should also eliminate all unilateral sanctions and subject collective sanctions undertaken through the UN to strict controls and checks by the UN General Assembly. For instance, only if 90% of GA members vote for a sanction should it be applied. Its implementation should be monitored by a special committee of GA members which will recommend when the sanction should be lifted.

Finally, who in the international arena should initiate the proposed conference? All its shortcomings notwithstanding, the office of the UN Secretary-General is the best institution to take up this challenge. It is an office that commands legitimacy in relation to the task at hand. Besides, the UN Secretary-General has the authority to do so.

It is urgent. And he must act immediately.

*

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. Chandra Muzaffar, Founder and President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), prominent human rights advocate, author and academic, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

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

Featured image is from The LIbertarian Institute

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.

***

Global Research Editor’s Note

In December 2013, Moscow signed a bilateral agreement with the Yanukovych government in Kiev pertaining to the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait, connecting Eastern Crimea (which was part of Ukraine) with Russia’s Krasnodar region.

That agreement was a followup to an initial agreement signed in April 2010 between the two governments.

The Russia-Ukraine 2013 agreement pertaining to the construction of the bridge had, for all purposes already been scrapped before March 16, 2014.

Image right: new Kerch bridge links Eastern Crimea (road and rail transportation) to  Russia’s Krasnodar region. (image right).

Crimea’s union to Russia was already in the pipeline prior to the referendum, it was a fait accompli.

Less than two weeks before the March 16 2014 Referendum, at the height of the crisis in Ukraine, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ordered the state-road building corporation Avtodor, or “Russian Highways” “to create a subsidiary company that would oversee the building of a bridge across the Kerch Strait”.

This bridge was geared towards train transport routes linking Western and Eastern Europe to the Caspian Sea basin, Kazakhstan and China. It is therefore an integral part of the Eurasian Project (linking up with China’s Belt and Road initiative).  

In recent developments, “former Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, said that the Crimean Bridge is a legitimate target for attack by Ukraine”.

See Ukraine News article below.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 12, 2022

***

Former Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, said that the Crimean Bridge is a legitimate target for attack by Ukraine. It is reported by Express on Friday, July 8.

Breedlove indicated that damage to the Crimean Bridge would be a devastating blow to the Kremlin, as it links the Russian mainland to the peninsula. The General called on Ukraine to attack the bridge with Harpoon missiles.

“The Kerch Bridge is a legitimate target. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Russians are worried about the Kerch Bridge. For them, it is incredibly important. Now that the West has provided Ukraine with Harpoon subsonic cruise missiles with a range of up to 200 miles (321 km), I think the Russians have every reason to worry that Ukraine could attack the bridge,” Breedlove said.

The General said that all bridges have their weak points, and if to hit the Kerch Bridge in the right place, it can fail for some time, but to destroy the structure a more massive bombardment is needed.

As Ukrainian News Agency reported, on April 21, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksii Danilov said that as soon as Kyiv had a chance to hit the Kerch or Crimean bridge, it would be done.

On June 15, Major General of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Dmytro Marchenko, in an interview with Radio Liberty, said that the Crimean Bridge would be the number one target for destruction.

On June 16, the Defense Intelligence under the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine received and published detailed technical documentation of the Crimean Bridge.

*

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 Ukrainian 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.

***

On Wednesday, July 13, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) will vote on an extension of the mandate of the United Nations Integrated Office (BINUH) in Haiti. Since beginning a 2-year term on the UNSC, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico has supported U.S.-backed initiatives that would extend BINUH’s occupation of Haiti. Mexico and the United States are “co-penholders” for this process, indicating the leadership role of the Mexican government in bringing forth this year’s UNSC resolution on Haiti. 

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) condemns in the strongest possible terms Mexico spearheading the renewal of the United Nations Integrated Office (BINUH)’s mandate in Haiti. The Haitian people view BINUH’s presence as a foreign occupation that undercuts Haiti’s independence and sovereignty. In solidarity, BAP, along with other civil society organizations, delivered an open letter to President López Obrador deploring Mexico’s role in extending the UN occupation.

In this letter, we ask AMLO to reconsider Mexico’s role as a co-penholder (with the United States) of the UNSC mandate, effectively serving the interests of Western imperialism in Haiti. We argue that not only does the UN occupation deny the sovereignty of the Haitian people, but it has both increased violence and instability in the republic while undermining the goal of national independence and self-determination for all countries in the Americas.

AMLO has emerged as one of the more progressive voices in the hemisphere, ostensibly working towards more equitable relationships between the peoples and nations of the region. BAP was heartened by and commended AMLO’s decision not to attend last month’s Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, as a call for fair representation and recognition of the sovereignty of all nations. In this vein, we have asked AMLO if — for some reason — Haiti does not count among those countries whose sovereignty and independence should be respected.

Like Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2004, who displayed his “leadership” by spearheading military action during the 2004-17 UN occupation of Haiti (MINUSTAH), AMLO’s support of BINUH’s mandate will result in the Haitian people paying the price for others’ political gains. Unfortunately, this is all too common among so-called “progressive” and “leftist” politicians in the Americas, who conform to the U.S.-led imperialistic system that these UN occupations represent.

Instead, we ask AMLO to contribute toward ending the foreign control of Haiti. This would be a positive step toward allowing Haitian people to determine their own fate, reversing regional militarization, and facilitating the realization of the Americas as a Zone of Peace, as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States has called for.

We say No to Occupation. Yes to Self-Determination.

*

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 Juvenal Balán

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.

***

Trial Site News recently were able to review leaked internal emails from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and meeting report between the agency and Pfizer. The EMA oversees the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for the European Union. Like other regulatory health bodies, its main responsibility is to protect and promote public health. Snapshots of internal EMA email correspondence; a November 26, 2020, PowerPoint presentation from a pivotal meeting between Pfizer and the agency, as well as a confidential 43-page Pfizer report were provided by an anonymous source because of their trust in Trial Site’s commitment to transparency, accessibility, and accountability in furtherance of a highly ethical, quality-focused and public health-centric biomedical research industry.

Regulatory agencies, like the EMA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. and the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) are chartered to make decisions based to better the public. External influences such as political or media pressure are not meant to be a driving factor in their decision-making, however, when it came to pandemic conditions and the fast-tracked conditional marketing authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines (particularly for the mRNA-based vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), it appears the latter won the day.

The time period of the email correspondence in question stretches from November 10 – 25, 2020, just weeks before the EMA granted CMA (conditional marketing authorization) for the Pfizer-BioNTech Covdid-19 vaccine on December 21, 2020.

The FDA granted EUA (emergency use authorization) for this vaccine on December 11 with the MHRA making it first to the finish line on December 2. Here this author uses the term ‘finish line,’ as the emails do reveal an intense, almost competitive-like rush to authorize the Covid-19 vaccines, as quickly as possible. Understandably, the world was gripped by a pandemic at the time, where there was immense impetus to authorize a vaccine to protect people from the novel coronavirus.

The Rush into EUA

In an email from Marco Cavaleri, at the time the EMA’s Head of Biological Health Threats and Vaccines Strategy, communicated with urgency how the U.S. FDA “are going to rush into EUA.”

Cavaleri refers to this ‘rush’ being ‘pushed hard by Azar and US GOV.’ Under the Trump administration, Alex Azar, former pharmaceutical executive was the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from 2018-2021. The FDA is an agency that falls directly under the HHS.

It’s worth noting that when Azar was former president of Lilly USA LLC, a division of Eli Lilly, drug prices skyrocketed under his leadership. The pharmaceutical company was also embroiled in a class-action lawsuit under his tenure where it was accused of exploiting the drug pricing system to increase profits for its insulin drug. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean this executive was complicit in any way, but the timing is noteworthy.

Cavaleri’s email speaks to the extent of how politics (and the US government) was driving the FDA’s regulatory process, making sure it was going at ‘warp speed’. And of course, on that note Trump’s Operation Warp Speed was to ensure all vaccine development records would be shattered. The intentions were undoubtedly good given the outbreak of the worst pandemic in a century.

However, across the Atlantic in Europe’s regulatory agency tension mounted as the pressure to accelerate deadlines made the air and general mood tense—the pressure and anxiety was palpable in the reviewed email exchanges.

Persons of high integrity and clarity as to their roles and commitments as stewards of public health emerged. For example, one individual demonstrated palpable concern over accelerated timelines to ensure they would meet the ‘deadline’ for vaccine authorization at the expense of a robust assessment. He was Noel Wathion, at the time the EMA’s deputy executive director, but who has since retired. This EMA official importantly pointed out, ‘We are speeding up as much as possible, but we also need to make sure that our scientific assessment is as robust as possible. Let’s not forget the responsibility/accountability attached to the recommendation to the EC to grant a CMA.’

Wathion assumes the FDA (and the MHRA’s) EUA would be issued before the EMA granted its own CMA, which turned out to be correct. What’s interesting is his concern to address the ‘damage limitation’ resulting from the probable outcome of the EMA finishing last in this regulatory race and his fear that this would result in public opinion and the media turning against the agency.   Speed seemingly superseded concerns of quality based on a careful review of these emails.

In a November 19 email, Wathion reveals a ‘rather tense’ TC (teleconference call) with the European Commissioner (Ursula von der Leyen) which was ‘at times even a bit unpleasant.’ This reflects the mounting pressure which the EMA staff were under to issue CMA quickly following an EUA granted by the FDA/MHRA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Von der Leyen is implicated in potentially being responsible for this tense environment with ‘a delay of several weeks…not easily acceptable for the EC [European Commission].’

In early 2022, Trial Sites News reported how von der Leyen was embroiled in scandal when a group of independent MEPs demanded her immediate resignation and full disclosure of a series of private text messages between her and Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla. Only a small portion of these texts were ever disclosed. Of the ones that were, they revealed her negotiating portions of a European-wide vaccine deal, unilaterally with Bourla via a series of texts! Clearly standard protocols in Europe were thrown out the window in favor of expediency and this seemingly was tied to a unified competitive pressure on all three regulatory agencies.

Wathion lays bare his reflections after this particular TC, and shockingly writes how ‘the political fall-out seems to be too high even if the “technical” level at the MSs [Member States] could defend such a delay in order to make the outcome of the scientific review as robust as possible.’  Put another way the continuous broadcast of science first appeared as a cover for politics first.

Wathion points out that a potential delay of several weeks to secure ‘robust assurance in particular as regards CMC and safety’ will be met with ‘criticism from various parties,’ including media, EC (European Commission) and EP (European Parliament). Wathion speaks of his fear that if the deadline ‘to align as much as possible with the “approval” timing by FDA/MHRA’ cannot be met- ‘we will be overwhelmed from all fronts and be in the middle of the storm.’ However, this potential delay appeared to be necessary ‘in order to make the outcome of the scientific review as robust as possible.’ This implies that speed at the expense of safety was the order of the day to avoid ‘political fallout.’ Clearly, politics was dictating Covid-19 vaccine authorisation protocol, not the science.

In the above email from Marco, the EMA official reveals that Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla ‘lobbied’ Peter Marks, and this could be interpreted as highly controversial, given Marks is the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the FDA. Pfizer’s apparent access into the federal watchdog raises significant questions at the least, if not introduces the possibility for disturbing entanglements between industry and a purportedly independent, scientific federal agency.

Major concerns with the integrity between vaccine batches

An email from Cavaleri (see below) reveals at that time the FDA knew of ‘some issues’ associated with the CMC which needed to be sorted out and may ‘end up being the difficult bit.’ CMC refers to the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, also referred to as pharmaceutical quality, which covers various procedures used to assess and ensure the safety and consistency between pharmaceutical product batches.

An email from Evdokia Korakianiti (an EMA scientific administrator) explains in more detail what these “issues” were and how they were in fact major concerns to do with the Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine.

Alarmingly, significant differences in the levels of mRNA integrity between Pfizer-BioNTech’s commercial (large scale) and clinical vaccine batches (small scale) were observed. ‘~78% mRNA integrity’ in the clinical ones and ‘~ 55% in the proposed commercial batches’ with the ‘root cause’ not yet identified. Safety and efficacy implications due to this concern were also noted in the email ‘as yet to be defined.’

In a confidential Pfizer report, which was also leaked along with the EMA emails, the company states that according to Acuitas Therapeutics’ (the biotech company who developed the lipid nanoparticle platform for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine) own general experience, ‘a minimum threshold is approximately 70%.’ (See screenshot below)

Then on page 30 it states: ‘The efficacy of the product is dependent on expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.’ (See screenshot below)

This exact phrase ‘requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule’ was used in the email from EMA staffer, Evdokia Korakianiti, which I included above, sent on November 23, 2020- now we likely know where Korakianiti referenced it from.

For the commercial batches (which were going to be rolled out across the globe) to have such a significantly lower level of mRNA integrity (intact RNA molecule) is greatly concerning given its intrinsic tie to the efficacy and potential safety of the product.

The next day Veronika Jekerle, Head of Pharmacy Quality Office, writes to Evdokia (see below).

The difference in the level of mRNA integrity was again noted as a major concern ‘shared by most member states’ and its ‘potential impact on safety.’ Jekerle highlights in bold, “Anapproval by the end of the year could potentially be possible, if these concerns + GMP will be resolved.”

This gives rise to the critical question- how were all these concerns resolved when CMA was granted only a few weeks later, on December 21? A possible way it was resolved is explained later in this report.

In contrast to the concerns of some of the other EMA officials, Marco Cavaleri writes around the same time in the following email (see below) that the mRNA content is not a major concern, according to the FDA – ‘the issue on the mRNA content not perceived as major.’ He also shockingly states, ‘unclear if GCP inspections ever done.’ This revelation is highly concerning given that GCP refers to Good Clinical Practise, which is ‘an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, conducting, recording and reporting trials that involve the participation of human subjects.’

What’s even more alarming is his following statement- ‘no major interest from FDA.’ This looks to reveal the regulatory agency’s apparent lack of concern or even interest on whether GCP inspections were completed, in the context of Pfizer’s clinical trials, which was relied on by the FDA to grant EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In one of this author’s previous investigative reports for Trial Site News, we noted that the FDA only inspected 1% of Pfizer’s trial sites.

Further damming information is revealed (see screenshot below) when multiple regulatory agencies: Health Canada (HC), EMA, MHRA and FDA are all aware of the issue with % mRNA integrity, yet FDA and Health Canada make an unsubstantiated claim that ‘safety concerns associated. Are more of a theoretical concern.’

Health Canada then appears to contradict itself because its later described as showing particular concern about one region receiving ‘all the suboptimal material.’ Obviously, it didn’t want to be that region.

Shockingly, the end of the email reveals the ‘Applicant [Pfizer] has shared with FDA and us [EMA]/MHRA only today and issue with visible particles in the DP [drug product] appears to be lipid nanoparticle components.)’

This is highly concerning due to this significant issue being made known to the three key regulatory agencies on November 25, only a few weeks away before the EMA granted CMA and the FDA granted EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Alarmingly, it was just days before the MHRA granted authorization in the UK on December 2, 2020. Veronika’s assumption that the ‘visible particles’ could be LNPs (lipid nanoparticles) is hard to accept given nanoparticles are not visible to the naked eye. Other anomalies were apparent, yet this was probably still a historical effort in terms of speed of vaccine development. It seems clear however some more time was needed.

How % mRNA integrity was apparently resolved

The discrepancy between batches appears to have may been resolved when it’s mentioned that the ‘latest lots [received by the FDA] indicate the % intact RNA are back around 70-75%.’

However, in a leaked report of a meeting with Pfizer and the EMA on November 26, 2020, a day after Veronika’s email, it shockingly reveals that the RNA integrity specification was revised down to >=50% for drug product shelf life, significantly lower than the minimum threshold of 70% that Acuitas Therapeutics had stipulated and the average 78% of the clinical batches. Was this the EMA’s (and potentially FDA/MHRA/HC) way of ‘resolving’ the issue to ensure ‘an approval by the end of the year’?

Mention is made of ‘uncertainties about consistency of product quality and hence uncertainty as regards product safety and efficacy of the commercial product.’ Yet, it’s baffling how lowering the RNA integrity specification would remedy that major objection.

In another slide the artifact states, ‘Truncated [shortened] and modified RNA species should be regarded as product- related impurities.’ This confirms that these shortened mRNA species which lowered the level of %mRNA integrity were classed as impurities. Another alarming concern arising from these impurities is flagged ‘the possibility of translated proteins other than intended spike protein (S1 S2) resulted from truncated and/or modified mRNA species should be addressed.’ (See screenshot below)

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.

***

Sri Lanka is collapsing. The economic crisis has led local citizens to take extreme measures, resorting to violence as a way of achieving changes in national politics. On July 9, protesters invaded and occupied several residences of politicians and official government offices, including the presidential palace and the home of the head of the parliament. Some of the invaded places were looted and destroyed with depredation and fire, forming a real scenario of civil conflict.

Consequently, the government entirely disintegrated. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigned, as informed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who shortly afterwards also left his office, making the fall of the government absolute and irreversible. Rajapaksa has been fleeing his official residence since last Friday due to fear caused by the protesters. There is no reliable information about his current location.

A provisional government is being formed in order to operate a process of political transition. Information on how this process will take place is not yet accurate and certainly everything will depend heavily on the ability of the agents involved to garner popular support, considering the moment of strong tension and instability, when the local people seem to be willing to do anything to demand their rights.

Popular fury is comprehensible if the national scenario is analyzed in depth. The Sri Lankan government was unable to manage the situation of economic crisis that affected the country in recent months, reaching the extreme of virtually emptying its foreign currency reserves. The trigger for the crisis was the energy shortage as a consequence of the lack of resources for the importation of fuels. Inflation simply prevented the transit of people and goods through the country, leading the government to implement a radical measure banning private consumption of gasoline and diesel, allocating the fuel stock only to the state sectors. Sri Lanka was the first country in the world to take this type of measure since the 1970s – and, as can be seen, it was not a pleasant experience for the population.

However, the crisis is not limited to recent episodes. The absence of foreign resources is due to a series of imprudent decisions taken by the government since last year, among which the choice for a radical environmental policy stands out. Rajapaksa bet on the ecological agenda as a way to promote his personal political image and garner international support. For example, his 2019 election campaign was awarded as the “world’s first zero carbon campaign”. In his government, he strove to accelerate a project of “green and clean economy”, which motivated him to impose in 2020 a law banning the use of fertilizers and pesticides throughout the national territory.

His goal was to make Sri Lanka the first 100% organic farming nation in the world, which would undoubtedly please the Western pro-green agenda governments and multinational companies that invest in climate improvement projects. However, all he managed to do was generate widespread famine, chaos and financial collapse. In just six months, more than a third of the country’s arable land was completely unusable. Rice production fell by more than 20%, leading the government to spend about 450 million dollars on cereal imports to alleviate hunger, which also did not work well as rice reached an inflation of more than 50% due to the import costs.

In addition, the tea sector, which is the main product of the country’s exports, suffered losses of more than 425 million dollars. The government was then finally forced to distribute an extra package of more than 200 million to reimburse affected farmers, as well as suspending the law and resuming the use of chemicals on crops.

Undoubtedly, Rajapaksa was wrong in betting on making his country the “green paradise” desired by Western liberal democracies. Certainly, if more prudent measures had been taken earlier, the current chaos would have been avoided. If the government had only limited the use of chemical products to safe doses, instead of banning it completely, it would not have generated structural hunger and would not have had to spend so much to import food – which would have made it possible to preserve financial reserves to maintain stable supplies of fuel, avoiding the current crisis.

Rajapaksa was a distinguished political leader in many points and garnered international support for many of his initiatives, but his legacy shows how adhering to the radical environmentalism encouraged by the West can be a mistake with serious social consequences. While a small Asian country has its economy devastated and its government overthrown for adhering to organic agriculture and the zero-carbon project, European governments are currently softening their environmental laws due to the energy crisis resulting from the conflict in Ukraine, even promoting deforestation for resources extraction.

There is a big difference between what liberal democracies advocate in theory and what they actually practice. Rajapaksa tried to fully materialize the utopian discourses of Western environmentalism and the result was the collapse of his 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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter.

Featured image: Anti-government protest in Sri Lanka on April 13, 2022 in front of the Presidential Secretariat (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

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.

***

Millions of people in the UK are beset by insecurities and worries about the rising cost of living. Fuel and energy prices are escalating, variously blamed on Brexit, Covid, and the war in Ukraine. A recent survey reported that 67% of Britons are worried about paying food and fuel bills, and 56% believe their household finances have worsened in the past 12 months.

The NHS is experiencing huge pressures. Rachel Clarke, a palliative care doctor and the author of ‘Breathtaking: Inside the NHS in a Time of Pandemic’, said in March that the NHS:

‘is not coping much better now than it was at Covid’s peaks. We are drowning – in Covid patients, cancer patients, the patients on the waiting list backlogs, and the patients whose conditions have become infinitely more complex and harmful because they’ve been waiting so long. There are so few staff – and those left are so burned out and traumatised – that patients are inevitably being neglected.’

Too many people in this country are relying on food banks. Between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022, the Trussell Trust network, the UK’s largest foodbank organisation, distributed over 2.1 million emergency food parcels to people in crisis. This is an increase of 81% compared to the same period five years ago.

Hundreds of thousands of disabled and chronically ill people are having to wait an average of five months for disability benefits. Employees are working long hours on short-term and zero-hour contracts. There are persistent delays and poor services on public transport. And people have to wait inordinately long times to obtain driving licenses and passports.

All of this is taking place against the reality of industrial action and rising public dissatisfaction with what passes for ‘news’ or ‘politics’ in the Westminster bubble, or any of the other bubbles inhabited by Western elites.

Public trust in the ‘mainstream’ media has dropped dramatically in recent years. According to a recent analysis by Press Gazette, BBC News experienced the biggest drop in public confidence, along with the Times and the Telegraph. BBC News, regularly touted by its managers and senior journalists as the ‘gold standard’ in reliability and accuracy, has seen trust in its journalism drop from 75% four years ago to 55% now.

For what it’s worth, that still leaves it the most trusted newsbrand in the UK, along with ITV news, also at 55%. Channel 4 News was just behind on 54%. Sky News saw trust in its output decline from 62% to 45%. The Guardian could only manage 48% (remarkably high, given its record), down from 61%.

Press Gazette summed up the findings:

‘Major newsbrands have a crisis of trust’.

Former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook observed:

‘Is the reason all establishment media are seeing huge drops in audience trust the fault of Russian disinformation? Or is it because they act as brazen mouthpieces for the establishment? Be sure all these outlets will tell you it’s down to Russia.’

Commenting on the low trust figures, Cook added:

‘half of audiences think our main news shows actually peddle fake news.’

Rossalyn Warren, Reuters audience editor, recently shared a headline finding from the Oxford-based Reuters Institute that:

‘46% of people (mostly women and young people) actively avoid the news because it has a negative impact on their mood. That’s up from 24% in 2017.’

The prevailing public mood was pithily summed up by writer Umair Haque as a ‘feeling of downward mobility’. This, he said, is how many people feel today:

‘They don’t feel good. Confident. Assured. Optimistic. They feel…worthless. Defeated. Helpless and hopeless. Traumatized and weary.’

Haque continued:

‘I can’t take it anymore. I can’t take it financially — how am I going to make ends meet? I can’t take it economically — no matter how hard you work, little seems to change. I can’t take it culturally — nothing, no one out there seems to help me, aid me, be there for me. I can’t take it socially — this whole society feels like it’s against me.’

There is, warned Haque, a ‘tsunami of demoralisation’ sweeping our societies:

‘And as people grow demoralized, they grow de-moralized. Their moral centers and cores stop working. Only the strong survive, and the weak perish? I had better become ruthless, cunning, cruel. I must learn how to be a knife. Not a lever, not an open hand. A closed fist. In the bitter battle for self-preservation, the great virtues — empathy, grace, truth, knowledge — all themselves become needless luxuries and unaffordable indulgences.’

To some extent, in this harsh depiction, Haque was playing devil’s advocate. But his point was clear. Many of us are struggling and perhaps tempted to protect and preserve what we have, in our own limited spheres; and woe betide anyone who gets in our way.

However, rather than feel despair or harden our hearts, an alternative approach is to admit that many of us sometimes feel demoralised, even overwhelmed, and to share that feeling with others. As Haque said:

‘You’re not alone, my friend.’

That may be a small step on a new journey that we all need to take. Because we have to accept that real change is not going to come from our ‘leaders’, but from ourselves.

Consider the rail strikes that have been taking place in the UK. The most overtly right-wing press – the likes of the ‘soaraway Sun’ – wailed about ‘a return to the 1970s’ driven by ‘Marxist thugs’. Such defamation is to be expected in the vitriolic pages of the billionaire-owned press.

But how different is this from the more subtle vilification by an ostensibly neutral BBC journalist? On the eve of recent industrial action, Nick Robinson, former BBC political editor and now a Radio 4 Today presenter, tweeted:

Who’s the man behind the strikes which are threatening a week of rail chaos ? Is he a champion of workers who deserve a pay rise or a politically motivated dinosaur ? You decide after listening to my half hour conversation with Mick Lynch ⁦@RMTunion⁩ https://t.co/e7EUtsRsig

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) June 16, 2022

‘Who’s the man behind the strikes which are threatening a week of rail chaos? Is he a champion of workers who deserve a pay rise or a politically motivated dinosaur? You decide after listening to my half hour conversation with Mick Lynch @RMTunion’

This might appear a relatively minor example. But it is symptomatic of the insidious, endemic anti-working class, anti-trade union stance embedded in BBC News ‘impartiality’. Robinson would never say of a senior Tory leader:

‘Is he a public servant or an oligarchy-serving, greed-driven predator?’

Scale up Robinson’s attitudes, shared across leading BBC News presenters and editors, and you get what the BBC represents; indeed, what the BBC is: a state-affiliated broadcaster relentlessly pitching elite perspectives on domestic and international affairs. Challenges are routinely met with disdain, blanking or arrogance.

‘Once You See How The Super Rich Run Everything Solely For Their Own Benefit You Cannot Unsee It’

In his calm, articulate determination to get his points across in recent media interviews, many of them conducted risibly by highly-paid celebrity journalists, RMT union leader Mick Lynch has been a ray of hope for many people.

Speaking live on BBC News from a picket line in London last month, Lynch said:

‘The whole country is suffering. And we have got a membership and a trade union that is prepared to fight for what we’ve got. What the rest of the country suffers from is the lack of power.’

Lynch expanded:

‘The lack of the ability to organise and the lack of the wherewithal to take on these employers that are continually driving down wages, and making the working class in this country poorer, year on year on year, while the rich get richer and dividends are accelerated and the stock market is reasonably healthy. We’ve got full employment and falling wages, and that is a situation that has never happened before and it cannot be tolerated by working people or by the trade union movement.’

In a Sky News interview, the union leader highlighted the deceptive rhetoric of many businesses:

‘What we’re seeing here is a smokescreen caused by Covid, and many employers are taking this opportunity. They’re using what is a temporary phenomenon – Covid – and the temporary phenomenon of people being told not to go to work as a smokescreen to get rid of decent conditions, decent pay rates and decent agreements.’

Making the kind of rational, reasonable points that rarely get an airing on state-corporate ‘news’ outlets, Lynch added:

‘Everybody wants our cities, towns and villages to recover. The way we do that, and one of the most important aspects of that, is by having a decent public transport system that can be relied on, is safe and accessible. Cutting staff, cutting services and cutting funding is the opposite to that, and nobody in our community should tolerate that from this government of billionaires who tell everyone else they’ve got to tighten their belts while they’re raking it in.’

Lynch’s assured media performances, particularly when confronted with ludicrous questions, won him praise from many corners. A Guardian piece observed that the union boss had been ‘deft, scornful and effective.’

Political economist Matt Bishop noted:

‘What’s remarkable about the Mick Lynch coverage is just how rarely we hear straightforward, working-class lefty union people in mainstream debate. Our media is dominated by a privately educated professional pundit class, their MP and banker chums, and it’s all the poorer for it.’

Exactly. Although, of course, it is not ‘mainstream’ debate. It is a tightly-controlled ‘debate’ that exists within the severely skewed bias of a state-corporate media, owned and managed by elite interests.

Even Mark Solomons, a former industrial correspondent at the Sun noted in an article in the right-wing Spectator, that:

‘Lynch is currently dominating TV screens and social media, making mincemeat out of politicians and broadcast interviewers alike.’

Solomons added:

‘He has stuck to his guns, confounded his opponents, and used simple, plain-talking language. He comes across as a working-class man who has made it to the top of his profession without selling out his principles, someone who makes it quite clear why the union is doing what it is doing irrespective of whether or not we agree with him.’

There was understanding and support from members of the public. An anonymous 53-year-old manager of an NHS mental health team living in south London blamed the government for the rail strikes:

‘I wish the government would meaningfully and consistently fund public infrastructure and the key workers who keep our city and society running. I’m tired of services being cut to the bone, everything being done on the cheap and workers being told to simply work harder to fill the gaps.’

Giles Barret, a 38-year-old owner of a recording studio, said:

‘Collective action is the reason we have a weekend, among many other hard-won rights, and we must never stop fighting for them – capital certainly won’t.’

And David Ling, a 69-year-old pensioner, also pointed to the bigger picture behind the rail strikes:

‘There’s so many problems in this country that are caused by austerity, privatisation and cutbacks that in the end it’s gonna be a reaction. It’s not just the railway workers – it’s teachers and nurses and everything. In the end, something’s got to give. You can’t carry on cutting back and people scrimping and saving. It doesn’t work.’

Barnaby Raine of Novara Media commented approvingly of Mick Lynch’s media performances:

‘Our whole media debate is a surreal circus until someone bursts it open.’

An opinion poll showed that public opinion had shifted dramatically in support of rail strikes following Lynch’s media appearances. Previously, support for the strike was at 38%, while opposition to the strike was 43%. Afterwards, support for the strike had risen 7% to 45%, while opposition to the strike had dropped 6% to 37%.

On Twitter, political writer John Traynor provided a potent summary of why Lynch had been so effective at getting his points of view across to the public.

First:

‘Lynch knows that what he is saying is both factually correct and consistent. This contrasts with conservative voices who know what they are spouting is [a] pack of lies and drivel, and comically inconsistent.’

Second:

‘Lynch understands fully what he is talking about. His knowledge allows him to counter any derisory interruption. This contrasts with conservative voices who know only a few mendacious soundbites with no in depth knowledge, and this causes them to fall.’

Third:

‘Lynch speaks sincerely; he believes in all the points he makes. This contrasts with conservative voices who believe in nothing and are just playing a part for money.’

Matthew Todd, author of the best-selling LGBT mental health book, ‘Straight Jacket’, said via Twitter that:

‘Ive worked in the media alongside politicians for 25 years. Once you see how the super rich run everything solely for their own benefit you cannot unsee it. If people understood what lies in store for us they wouldn’t be on strike, there would be a revolution #RailStrikes’

Despite this brief opening in permissible debate around the economy, if Lynch continues to be this effective, then the state-corporate media will revert to type and attempt to crush him, just as they did with Jeremy Corbyn.

The Guardian Is ‘A Tool Of The British Establishment’

Indeed, in a recent compelling interview with Matt Kennard of Declassified UK, Corbyn opened up about the experience he had gone through as Labour Party leader during which he had been the target of arguably the biggest ever propaganda blitz against a British political leader. He was particularly scathing of the Guardian which, long ago, may have been regarded by some as a reliable left-leaning newspaper:

‘I have absolutely no illusions in the Guardian, none whatsoever. My mum brought me up to read the Guardian. She said, “It’s a good paper you can trust”. You can’t. After their treatment of me, I do not trust the Guardian.”’

He continued:

‘There are good people who work in the Guardian, there are some brilliant writers in the Guardian, but as a paper, it’s a tool of the British establishment. It’s a mainstream establishment paper. So, as long as everybody on the left gets it clear: when you buy the Guardian, you’re buying an establishment paper.’

Indeed, the Guardian and BBC News were central to the establishment’s cynical exploitation of antisemitism allegations to kill Corbyn’s chances of becoming Prime Minister:

‘an analysis of the Guardian’s treatment of the time that I was leader of the party needs to be made because they and the BBC had more unsourced reporting of anti-semitic criticisms surrounding me than any other paper, including the Mail, The Telegraph and the Sun.’

As for the British media as a whole:

‘We have a supine media in this country. The British self-confidence of saying we’ve got the best media in the world, the best broadcasting in the world, the best democracy in the world. It’s nonsense, utter, complete nonsense. We have a media that’s supine, that self-censors, that accepts D-Notices, doesn’t challenge them, and the vast majority of the mainstream media haven’t lifted so much as a little finger in support or defence of Julian Assange.’

Today, Labour has a new ‘leader’ who is trying as hard as possible to stifle left policies and voices within the party, dragging it relentlessly towards the right; or what Sir Keir Starmer calls the ‘centre ground’. In an Observer opinion piece, ‘Labour has now claimed the centre ground – and has shown it can win’, this Blairite establishment stooge boasted:

‘Since the horror of the last general election, we have rolled up our sleeves and focused on listening to the public and changing our party. We’ve rooted out the poison of antisemitism, shown unshakeable support for Nato, forged a new relationship with business, shed unworkable or unaffordable policies and created an election machine capable of taking on the Conservatives. Being able to win again has taken more than two years of hard graft from all those who ache to see the transformation a Labour government would bring the country we love.’

As political writer Steve Topple noted, Starmer’s comments were largely ‘vacuous dross and detached from reality’. In particular:

‘Labour has “shed unworkable or unaffordable policies” but with no clear reference to what these are. Clearly, it’s those promises he made during the Labour leadership election. Remember those? The talk of nationalisation of industries and services? We can now categorically see that Starmer’s pledges were nothing short of manipulation of party members. This is despite the fact that with things like rail renationalisation, the public consistently supports it.’

A ’Bent’ System Of Government

Peter Oborne, former political editor at the Spectator and former Daily Telegraph chief political commentator, recently warned of the rising oligarchical nature of politics in the UK, whether Conservative or Labour:

‘You would hope that in a well-managed democracy the purpose of political power was to challenge the super-rich, make sure they didn’t get what they wanted. Under [Boris] Johnson, political power has been a vehicle for the super-rich to make sure that they do get what they want.’

Oborne offered this damning verdict on our supposed ‘free press’:

‘The second element of Johnson is that the media class and the political class have merged in Downing Street; they are the same thing. And so all the stuff which we as journalists get taught at journalism school – it’s the task of the press to hold government to account, and there is a sort of separation of powers – is no longer the case. There has been a merger.’

Oborne called Johnson ‘the billionaire’s bitch’. Why? First, because Johnson was, before he announced his resignation as Tory leader on 7 July, dependent on billionaire donors to the Tory party who saw him – until recently, at least – as the best option to represent their interests:

‘You can see what they want is access to power, it’s contracts – we saw this with Covid when Tory donors were rewarded endlessly.’

Second, because Johnson has curried favour with billionaire newspaper proprietors, such as the Barclay brothers, owners of the Telegraph, and Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Times and the Sun.

In an article titled, ‘Boris Johnson is finished. But will the rotten system that created him fall too?’, Oborne pointed out:

‘The Murdoch Press, Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph group control approximately three quarters of the newspaper reading market. These three groups have been central to Johnson’s success.

‘Every title in all these groups supported Johnson’s bid for the Tory leadership, his 2019 general election campaign, and through last month’s vote of confidence. Throughout all of this they played down the corruption, fabrication, scandal, cronyism, law-breaking and incompetence of the Johnson government.’

Oborne found some hope in democratic pressures at last having some effect:

‘Very late in the day the reputational damage of sticking with Johnson has struck home. The newspapers, finally scared of their readers, are running for cover. On Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch’s Times belatedly pulled the plug – “The prime minister has lost the confidence of his party and the country. He should quit now”.’

Faced with the prospect of crumbling support from even the right-wing press, together with multiple resignations across government, Johnson finally bowed to the inevitable and resigned as Tory leader, while remaining as Prime Minister until a new leader can be elected in the autumn.

What will happen next? Oborne warns that nothing much will change:

‘The global super-rich are looking for a British prime minister who will look after their interests without the reputational damage. Ex-chancellor Sunak, now the bookies’ favourite, looks like their choice.

‘A near-billionaire himself, he at least has no incentive to take bribes. But he’s been at the heart of the bent Johnson system of government for almost three years, repeating the prime minister’s lies and tolerating his incompetence, bigotry and incessant sleaze.’

Whether Sunak or someone else takes over, warned Oborne:

‘The next Tory leader will almost certainly pursue the same policies as Johnson.

‘On Brexit. On civil liberties. On the Human Rights Act. The same English nationalism and cheap, ugly, vicious populism.’

He added:

‘Remember that all the leading candidates in the leadership contest served in Johnson’s cabinet. They supported his policies, and in many cases repeated his lies.’

As for Keir Starmer, Knight Commander of the Order of Bath, Oborne is scathing, pointing out that the politician ‘dishonestly’ represented himself as coming from the left when bidding to become Corbyn’s successor. Since Starmer was elected Labour leader, he has been ‘trying to buy into the Blair model’ of relying on donors, appeasing newspaper proprietors, ‘ruthlessly’ excluding the trade unions, and indeed attacking the left, notably Stop the War and any Labour MPs critical of Nato:

‘He made a choice to define himself not against Boris Johnson, the billionaire’s person. He decided to define himself as not being Jeremy Corbyn. That was the classic Blairite pivot. Blair chose to win by sucking up to Rupert Murdoch, and sucking up to the billionaires, and Starmer appears to be doing just the same thing.’

Oborne predicts that, if Starmer ever becomes Prime Minister, all he would be is ‘maybe a more scrupulous version of Boris Johnson’; in other words, ‘a slightly softer version of oligarchical politics.’

If the public is to get what it supports and deserves – not least a basic standard of living, and a rational and urgent response to the climate crisis – we all need to take action 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.

Featured image is from Media Lens

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 a move Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland called “head-spinning,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.

In an FDA press release, the agency said full approval of Comirnaty follows a “rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data,” and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”

Pfizer’s press release announcing the approval said the Comirnaty vaccine has been available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) since May 2021 for the adolescent age group.

Yet, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.

“The approval of Comirnaty for adolescents 12 to 15 is head-spinning,” said Mary Holland, president and general counsel for Children’s Health Defense.

Holland added:

“The FDA failed to convene an expert committee and failed to appropriately weigh the risk-benefit profile of this vaccine for this age group. Even Vaccine cheerleader Dr. Paul Offit acknowledged FDA decisions are being made based on political pressure, not science when, in commenting on the agency’s vote last week to allow reformulated booster shots, he said it felt like ‘the fix was in.’”

Holland said that at base, “this is a move by pharma to ensure liability protection” under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Some states likely will attempt to put Comirnaty on the childhood vaccine schedule, despite the myriad known and unknown risks, Holland said.

“Pfizer‘s fraud and collusion with government is becoming more evident by the day,” Holland said. “CHD, already challenging the authorizations for those six months through age 11, will be at the forefront of challenging this approval for teenagers.”

Efficacy claims based on old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds — before Delta, Omicron variants

Pfizer said Friday’s approval is based on data from a Phase 3 clinical trial of 2,260 participants ages 12 through 15.

About half of the participants, “elicited SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs)” demonstrating “strong immunogenicity in a subset of adolescents one month after the second dose,” Pfizer said.

It is unknown what happened to antibody levels after one month, but peer-reviewed research suggests vaccine protection conferred by second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine wanes rapidly against the Omicron variant.

“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses of [the Pfizer-BioNTech] BNT162b2,” said the authors of a May 13 study published in JAMA.

To further support its claim that Comirnaty is effective in the 12 to 15 age group, Pfizer used an old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds conducted before the Delta and Omicron surges.

“The efficacy analysis was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021, which was before the Delta and Omicron surges,” and the “only SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern identified from the confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was Alpha,” Pfizer said in its press release.

FDA experts question neutralizing antibodies as standard for vaccine effectiveness

During a June 28 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), vaccine experts raised concerns that neutralizing antibodies did not correlate to clinical protection — noting Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had a two-fold increase in neutralizing antibody levels compared with Pfizer’s vaccine during clinical trials, but it did not translate into a clinically significant difference in terms of protection against severe disease.

Dr. Ofer Levy, VRBPAC member and infectious disease physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, said during the meeting there is still “no established correlate of protection,” referring to the level of antibodies needed to confer protection.

“You have a lot of data now,” Levy told Pfizer. “What is your relative protection?”

“I would say there is no established correlate of protection,” Kena Swanson, Ph.D., vice president of viral vaccines at Pfizer, told Levy.

Levy said:

“I would like to hear from FDA what their overall approach will be around improving our understanding of correlate protection. We spend a good amount of time reviewing antibody data. We have no doubt antibody data is important. We don’t have a level of antibody that anybody is comfortable stating is correlated [with] protection.

Levy, who said antibodies are important, but T cells are more important, called for federal leadership to establish a “standardization of the T-cell assay and encourage or in fact require the sponsors to gather that information.”

“So what is the effort to standardize the pre-clinical assays?” Levy asked. “This is an effort that’s critical not just now but for future cycles of vaccine revision. If we aren’t able to define a standard for correlate protection we are fighting with one arm behind our back.”

Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, acknowledged the importance of Levy’s question and said they are “having conversations” with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and throughout government about how they might move forward, but it is something they “don’t have an answer to yet.”

Marks said as vaccines are developed in the future, it will “become even more important” to define a standard of correlate protection because “we won’t be able to have a large naive population to vaccinate with newer vaccines.”

“We will need to understand the T-cell response better,” Marks said. “I take your point, it’s just that we haven’t solved the problem yet.“

Comirnaty not available in the U.S. 

According to Pfizer’s press release, Comirnaty was previously made available to the 12 to 15 age group in the U.S. under EUA and 9 million U.S. adolescents in this age group have completed a primary series.

“The vaccine, sold under the brand name Comirnaty for adults, has been available under an emergency use authorization since May 2021 for the 12-15 age group,” Reuters reported. “It will now be sold under the same brand name for adolescents as well.”

Yet, Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available.

The FDA said Friday the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”

The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”

A branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services overseeing the Strategic National Stockpile indicated Comirnaty was not available because Pfizer did not have time to change the labels.

According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.

“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender.

Setty added:

“The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.”

The CDC website confirms this, stating the Comirnaty formulation “will not be manufactured or made available in the near term even if authorized.”

The FDA on Aug. 23, 2021, approved Pfizer’s biological licensing application (BLA) for its COVID-19 vaccine named Comirnaty for people age 16 and older.

CHD challenged FDA on Comirnaty ‘approval’ for adults

As The Defender reported, there were “several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval” that proved confusing — which led to CHD suing the FDA over its approval of Comirnaty.

The FDA acknowledged that while Pfizer had “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine, there was “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under EUA — still available for use.

The FDA said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under EUA should remain unlicensed but could be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

The FDA also said the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were “legally distinct,” but proclaimed their differences did not “impact safety or effectiveness.”

Yet, there is a “huge real-world difference” between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law and cannot be mandated. A licensed vaccine, such as Comirnaty, can be mandated by employers and schools.

Although Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine can be mandated, it has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.

Only COVID-19 vaccines distributed under EUA — which in the U.S. includes Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — have liability protection under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP).

Under PREP, the only way an injured party can sue a pharmaceutical company for an injury caused by an EUA vaccine is if he or she can prove willful misconduct and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

Comirnaty cannot receive liability protection unless it is fully approved for children and added to the CDC’s immunization schedule bringing it under the auspices of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines aren’t interchangeable 

The FDA on Oct. 29, 2021, authorized a manufacturing change to allow an additional formulation of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) used in the originally authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA on Dec. 16, 2021, approved a supplement to the Comirnaty BLA to include a new 30 mcg dose formulation that uses the Tris buffer instead of the PBS buffer used in the originally approved vaccine.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may contain either the PBS buffer or tris buffer, except for the 5 to 11 age group. The Comirnaty vaccine contains the Tris buffer.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine used for the 5 to 11 age group uses a Tris buffer, despite clinical trials having been conducted using Pfizer’s vaccine containing the PBS buffer.

According to Pfizer’s July 8 press release, the FDA relied upon studies conducted prior to the formula change to justify the approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine for adolescents ages 12 to 15.

The type of buffer used in a COVID-19 vaccine can affect the potency of the vaccine, how it is stored and the propensity to develop potential adverse events, TrialSite News reported.

​​According to Cleveland Clinic, Tris is commonly used for the prevention and treatment of metabolic acidosis associated with various clinical conditions such as heart bypass surgery or cardiac arrest. It is also used in other vaccines, including Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, dengue, smallpox and Ebola vaccines.

The FDA categorizes tromethamine as a category C drug and suggests using tromethamine only if clearly needed.

It is unknown if tromethamine will harm an unborn baby, but animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus, and there are “no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans.”

“The FDA-evaluated manufacturing data [to] support the change in this inactive ingredient and concluded it did not impact the safety or effectiveness of the product,” Marks, said during an October 2021, press briefing.

According to the FDA’s Letter of Authorization, reissued on Oct. 29, “analytical comparability assessments” revealed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine formulations containing Tris and PBS buffers were “analytically comparable.”

Yet, no human or animal trials were conducted to determine the safety or efficacy of the new formula.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.

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.

***

Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Richard Bartlett and Dr Simone Gold join Joni Table Talk host, Joni Lamb to discuss the Swedish in vitro study that shows the Pfizer jab installs DNA into the human genome.

Dr Gold, who is also a lawyer says that this discovery opens up a new avenue for lawsuits against the tyrannical vaxxine mandates, citing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which protects individuals against discrimination based on their genetic information in health coverage and in employment.

The abstract of the study, “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line” reads:

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.

***

I recently had a parent write to me that the overnight camp that they were going to send their child to (fees already paid), had just notified them that mask use was to be required of students at all times. Was there anything I could do? Unfortunately, I can not change the mind-set of a summer camp on the west coast. The CDC is once again promoting policies with no basis in scientific fact, but these policies are reflexively accepted by those whom we trust to care for our children.

COVID may be “over” for many of us, but not so for many of our children.

*

Carbon dioxide rises beyond acceptable safety levels in children under nose and mouth covering: Results of an experimental measurement study in healthy children

Environ Res. 2022 Sep; 212: 113564. 2022 May 28. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113564

This shocking paper had no coverage by the state-sponsored media, even though it shows that the average CO2 levels in inhaled air with nose and mouth coverings in children between age 6 and 17 is well beyond acceptable levels.

From the Abstract

We used short term measurements under surgical masks and FFP2 masks according to European norm EN 149, compared to baseline in an experimental, intra-individually controlled study over 25 min. CO2 content was measured every 15 s using an automated dual-wavelength infrared CO2 measurement device (G100, Geotech, Leamington Spa, UK) over 25 min in a short-term experimental setting, with children seated. After baseline measurement children were provided with two types of commonly worn NMC: surgical masks and FFP2–masks in randomized sequence for 3 min each. We kept ambient CO2-levels below 1000 parts per million (ppm) through frequent ventilation. We measured breathing frequency and pulse as potential physiological moderator variables. Forty-five children, 25 boys, 20 girls, with a mean age of 10.7 years (standard deviation 2.6) were measured. We measured 13,100 ppm (SD 380) under surgical mask and 13,900 ppm (SD 370) under FFP2 mask in inhaled air. A linear model with age as a covariate showed a highly significant effect of the condition (p < 1*10−9). We measured 2,700 ppm (SD 100) CO2 at pre-baseline and 2,800 ppm (SD 100) at post-baseline, a non-significant small difference. Appropriate contrasts revealed that the change was due to the masks only and the difference between the two types of masks was small and not significant. Wearing of NMC (surgical masks or FFP2- -masks) raises CO2 content in inhaled air quickly to a very high level in healthy children in a seated resting position that might be hazardous to children’s health.

From the Conclusions:

In conclusion we have produced experimental data that show that carbon dioxide content in inhaled air rises on average to 13,000 to 13,750 ppm no matter whether children wear a surgical or an FFP2 mask. This is far beyond the level of 2,000 ppm considered the limit of acceptability and beyond the 1,000 ppm that are normal for air in closed rooms. This estimate is rather on the low side, as we only measured this after a short time without physical exertion. Decision makers and law courts should take this into consideration when establishing rules and guidance to fight infections.

*

Another recent study showing another major issue with masking:

Face masks disrupt holistic processing and face perception in school-age children

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.

***

Using CDC data, no significant differences were found in COVID-19 case growth between states with or without mask mandates, during periods of low or high transmission

The widespread use of masks did not reduce COVID-19 transmission in Europe, and a moderate positive correlation was found between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe

An update to a CDC study on school mask mandates, using nearly six times more data, found no significant relationship between mask mandates in U.S. schools and COVID-19 case rates

In Kansas, counties with a mask mandate had significantly higher COVID-19 case fatality rates than counties without a mask mandate

One way masks cause harm may be the “Foegen effect” — the idea that deep re-inhalation of droplets and virions caught on facemasks might make COVID-19 infection more likely or more severe

*

During the COVID-19 pandemic, 80% of U.S. states mandated masks to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, but accumulating research shows mask mandates and use do not lower the spread of the virus.¹ While rules requiring masks did increase compliance, they didn’t translate to lower transmission growth rates, whether community spread of SARS-CoV-2 was low or high.

Even before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, mask mandates were put in place without ever properly evaluating efficacy, but that didn’t stop them from dividing communities and being used as a form of virtue signaling and a visible reminder of compliance with the “new normal.”

Now, with research showing not only that masks don’t protect you but may actually make you sick, the rationale behind their widespread mandated usage must be questioned.

Mask Mandates Didn’t Lower COVID-19 Cases

Using CDC data, researchers with the University of Louisville calculated total COVID-19 case growth and mask use for the U.S. No significant differences were found in case growth between mandate and non-mandate states during periods of low or high transmission.

“Surges were equivocal,” they noted, concluding, “Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.”² While stating that their findings “do not support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates decrease with greater public mask use,” they did note that “masks may promote social cohesion as rallying symbols during a pandemic.”³

Similarly dismal results from mask mandates were demonstrated in Europe. A study published in Cureus analyzed data from 35 European countries, including morbidity, mortality and mask usage, over a six-month period. The researchers noted:⁴

“Mask mandates were implemented in almost all world countries and in most places where masks were not obligatory, their use in public spaces was recommended … These mandates and recommendations took place despite the fact that most randomized controlled trials carried out before and during the COVID-19 pandemic concluded that the role of masks in preventing respiratory viral transmission was small, null, or inconclusive.”

When the data were analyzed, the study also revealed that the widespread use of masks did not reduce COVID-19 transmission. Worse, a moderate positive correlation was found between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe, which “suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”⁵

Mask Mandates in Schools Didn’t Reduce COVID-19 Cases

As part of the government sponsored propaganda campaign, a widely cited CDC study, published in October 2021, reported that counties without school mask mandates had larger increases in COVID-19 case rates in children after the start of school compared with counties that had school mask mandates.⁶

The study was used to support school mask mandates, but a team of researchers revisited the research, incorporating a larger sample size and longer study period. The updated study,⁷ published in May 2022, used nearly six times more data compared to the original study and found no significant relationship between mask mandates in U.S. schools and COVID-19 case rates. According to the researchers:⁸

“We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”

On Twitter, surgeon and public policy researcher Dr. Marty Makary pointed out that the CDC’s original study appeared to include cherry-picked data and the agency refused to publish an update using the more extensive data:⁹

“This study demonstrates how the CDC was cherry-picking data to support their school mask dogma. The article states that CDC’s MMWR journal rejected publishing this re-analysis. Most likely because it exposed the CDCs salami-slicing of data & use of science as political propaganda.”

It should be noted that a previous CDC study found mask requirements for students had little effect on COVID-19 incidence in Georgia schools, while improved ventilation, such as opening a window, reduced cases more than mask mandates for staff and teachers.¹⁰

The Foegen Effect: Mask Mandates Increased COVID-19 Deaths

A profoundly important study was conducted by German physician Dr. Zacharias Fögen to find out whether mandatory mask use influenced the COVID-19 case fatality rate in Kansas from August 1, 2020, to October 15, 2020.¹¹ He chose the state of Kansas because, while it issued a mask mandate, counties were allowed to either opt in or out of it.

His analysis revealed that counties with a mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without a mask mandate. “These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention,” he concluded.

That threat, he explained, may be something called the “Foegen effect” — the idea that deep re-inhalation of droplets and virions caught on facemasks might make COVID-19 infection more likely or more severe.

“The fundamentals of this effect are easily demonstrated when wearing a facemask and glasses at the same time by pulling the upper edge of the mask over the lower edge of the glasses. Droplets appear on the mask when breathing out and disappear when breathing in.”

“In the “Foegen effect,” the virions spread (because of their smaller size) deeper into the respiratory tract. They bypass the bronchi and are inhaled deep into the alveoli, where they can cause pneumonia instead of bronchitis, which would be typical of a virus infection.

Furthermore, these virions bypass the multilayer squamous epithelial wall that they cannot pass into in vitro and most likely cannot pass into in vivo. Therefore, the only probable way for the virions to enter the blood vessels is through the alveoli.”¹²

Wearing Masks Could Be Related to Long COVID

Fögen explained that wearing masks could end up increasing your overall viral load because, instead of exhaling virions from your respiratory tract and ridding your body of them, those virions are caught in the mask and returned. This might also have the effect of increasing the number of virions that pass through the mask, such that it becomes more than the number that would have been shed without a mask.

The fact that “hypercondensed droplets and pure virions in the mask might be blown outwards during expiration, resulting in aerosol transmission instead of droplet transmission” is another issue that could make transmission worse instead of better, and the use of “more protective” masks could also backfire, making COVID-19’s long-term effects worse. Fögen explained:¹³

“The use of “better” masks (e.g., FFP2, FFP3) with a higher droplet-filtering capacity probably should cause an even stronger “Foegen effect” because the number of virions that are potentially re-inhaled increases in the same way that outward shedding is reduced.

Another salient point is that COVID-19-related long-term effects and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children may all be a direct cause of the “Foegen effect.” Virus entry into the alveoli and blood without being restricted to the upper respiratory tract and bronchi and can cause damage by initiating an (auto) immune reaction in most organs.”

Clear Risks of Prolonged Mask Use

Two expert reports spoke out against the use of masks for children in 2021. The first, a psychology report,¹⁴ stated that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with development.¹⁵ “The extent of psychological harm to young people is unknown,” the report stated, “due to the unique nature of the ‘social experiment’ currently underway in schools, and in wider society.”¹⁶

The second report focused on health, safety and well-being,¹⁷ noting potential permanent physical damage to the lungs caused by fibrosis from inhalation of fibrous nanoparticles.

“There are real and significant dangers of respiratory infection, oral health deterioration and of lung injury, such as pneumothorax, owing to moisture buildup and also exposure to potentially harmful levels of an asphyxiant gas (carbon dioxide [CO2]) which can cause serious injury to health,” the authors explained.¹⁸

Normally, the CO2 then dissipates into the air around you before you take another breath. In the open air, carbon dioxide typically exists at about 400 parts per million (ppm), or 0.04% by volume.

The German Federal Environmental Office set a limit of CO2 for closed rooms of 2,000 ppm, or 0.2% by volume. If you’re wearing a facemask, the CO2 cannot escape as it usually does and instead becomes trapped in the mask. In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers analyzed the CO2 content of inhaled air among children wearing two types of masks, as well as wearing no mask.¹⁹

While no significant difference in CO2 was found between the two types of masks, there was a significant elevation when wearing masks compared to not wearing them. CO2 in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece masks came in between 13,120 ppm and 13,910 ppm, “which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6,” the researchers noted.²⁰

Also important, this level was reached after only three minutes, while children wear masks at school for a mean of 270 minutes at a time. Even the child who had the lowest measured CO2 level had a measurement three-fold greater than the closed room CO2 limit of 0.2%. However, younger children appeared to have the highest CO2 values; a level of 25,000 ppm was measured from a 7-year-old wearing a facemask.²¹

Bacterial Infection Risk, Problems With Social Learning

The full consequences of prolonged mask use are only beginning to be understood. The University of Louisville researchers noted, however, that using a mask for more than four hours per day “promotes facial alkalinization and inadvertently encourages dehydration, which in turn can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk.”²² Other reported adverse effects include:²³

After a lawsuit was brought by Leslie Manookian’s Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle finally voided the CDC’s U.S. mask mandate on airplanes and public transit in April 2022.²⁴ The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has appealed the court order,²⁵however, making it clear that they don’t intend to give up on mask mandates without a fight. In response, HFDF issued the following statement:²⁶

“DoJ’s statement [that it would appeal] is perplexing to say the least and sounds like it comes from health policy advocates not government lawyers. The ruling by the US District Court ruling is a matter of law, not CDC preference or an assessment of ‘current health conditions.’

If there is in fact a public health emergency with clear and irrefutable science supporting CDC’s mask mandate, does it not warrant urgent action? Why would DoJ and CDC not immediately appeal?

HFDF is left with no option but to conclude that the Mask Mandate is really a political matter and not at all about urgent public health issues or the demands of sound science. While DoJ and CDC play politics with Americans’ health and freedoms, HFDF trusts individual Americans to make their own health decisions.

HFDF is confident that Americans possess ample common sense and education to understand that there are real questions about mask efficacy and risk and that CDC’s policy reflects neither.”

*

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.

Notes

^{1, 2, 3, 22, 23} MedRxiv May 25, 2021

^4, 5 Cureus. 2022 Apr; 14(4): e24268

⁶ MMWR October 1, 2021

^7, 8 The Lancet May 25, 2022

⁹ Townhall June 1, 2022

¹⁰ U.S. CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report May 21, 2021

¹¹ Medicine February 18, 2022

^12, 13 Medicine February 18, 2022, 4.1

^14, 16 Psychology Report in respect of Civil Proceedings April 9, 2021

¹⁵ Express April 11, 2021

^17, 18 Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report in respect of Civil Proceedings April 9, 2021

^19, 20, 21 JAMA Pediatrics June 30, 2021

²⁴ US District Court Middle District of Florida Case No: 8:21-cv-1693-KKM-AEP

²⁵ KHN June 1, 2022

²⁶ Health Freedom Defense Fund April 20, 2022

Featured image is from Mercola

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 nitrogen problem in Agriculture is a problem created by synthetic nitrogen fertilisers made from fossil fuels. Nitrogen fertilisers contribute to atmospheric pollution and climate change in the manufacture and the use of fertilisers.

The manufacture of synthetic fertiliser is highly energy intensive. One kg of nitrogen fertiliser requires the energy equivalent of 2 litres of diesel. Energy used during fertiliser manufacture was equivalent to 191 billion litres of diesel in 2000 and is projected to rise to 277 billion in 2030. This is a major contributor to climate change, yet largely ignored. One kilogram of phosphate fertiliser requires half a litre of diesel.^[1]

Nitrogen fertilisers also emit a greenhouse gas, N2O, which is 300 times more destabilising for the Climate System than CO2.

Nine planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015)

The linear extractive agriculture system based on fossil fuels is rupturing ecological processes and planetary boundaries. The 3 planetary boundaries that have been transgressed to a danger zone are Biodiversity and nitrogen pollution from chemical fertilisers. The most severe violations of planetary boundaries is due to fossil fuel, chemical intensive industrial globalised agriculture -the disruption of Biodiversity Integrity and Genetic Diversity leading to biodiversity loss and species extinction and the biochemical nitrogen and phosphorus cycles caused by large scale monocultures and large scale use of chemical pesticides Erosion of genetic diversity and the transgression of the nitrogen boundary have already crossed catastrophic levels. All three overshoots are rooted in the chemical intensive, fossil fuel intensive industrial model of agriculture. 93% of cultivated crops have disappeared.

The scientific and just response to the nitrogen problem is to shift from fossil fuel chemical agriculture to biodiverse ecological agriculture and regenerative farming and to create transition strategies for farmers to shift to ecological agriculture which regenerates soil nitrogen while making farmers free of harmful and costly chemicals. Chemical free food is good for the Health of the Planet and People. ^[2]

The unscientific, unjust, and undemocratic response to the chemical industry created nitrogen problem is to reduce farmers instead of reducing dependence on chemical fertilisers as is happening in the Netherlands. ^[3]

To reduce chemical fertiliser use, governments need to make the fertiliser industry pay for nitrogen pollution, and redirect subsidies from industrial agriculture to ecological farming. Criminalising farmers for the crimes of the chemical industry is unfair and unjust. We need more farmers, not less, to regenerate the earth through an economy of care and belonging, and to produce real food which regenerates the health of the planet and our health.

There is a dystopian vision of a future of “Farming with farmers”, a digital agriculture with larger farms, more fertiliser use, more biodiversity loss.

While creating “Farming without Farmers” billionaires like Bill Gates are promoting more synthetic fertiliser use, aggravating the nitrogen problem.

Gates is promoting nitrogen fertilisers and chemical intensive GMO soya as raw material for  lab made fake food which is being labelled as “plant based”. ^[4]

The billionaire recipe is to have larger chemical intensive monoculture artificially fertilised by synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, which will emit nitrous oxide, a greenhouse Gas.

In total denial of climate science and the soil ecology, Gates is continuing the “chemical hocus pocus” when he says we need to use more fertiliser.

“To grow crops, you want tons of nitrogen-way more than you would ever find in a natural setting. Adding nitrogen is how you get corn to grow 19 feet tall and produce enormous quantities of seed”^[5]

This statement is scientifically and ecologically false.

Soil is a living system. There are multiple pathways to regenerate the Soil and Soil Nitrogen and heal the nitrogen cycle.

The living soil was forgotten for an entire century with very high costs to nature and society. Soil was defined as an “empty container” for pouring synthetic fertilisers into, which were falsely seen as the source of soil fertility. “Bread from air” was the slogan after the discovery of the Haber Bosch process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen by burning fossil fuels. The illusion grew that we did not need soil.

There was the exaggerated claim that artificial fertilisers would increase food production and remove all ecological limits that land puts on agriculture. Today the evidence is growing that artificial fertilisers have reduced soil fertility and food production and contributed to desertification, water scarcity and climate change. They have created dead zones in the oceans.

The Process used to make explosives by burning fossil fuels at high temperature to fix atmospheric nitrogen were later used to make chemical fertilisers.

Justus von Liebig was the father of organic chemistry, the first scientist to explain the role of nitrogen in plants, which was quickly appropriated by greed for commerce. A new industry was created for external inputs of nitrogen, dubbed as “growth stimulants”. Outraged at the distortion of his scientific findings, in 1861 wrote a book, ”The Search for Agricultural Recycling”.

Liebig’s book was the voice of a true scientist, protecting his truth from distortions of a pseudo-science being created by commercial interests. As he writes “I thought it would be enough to just announce and spread the truth as is customary in science. I finally came to understand that this wasn’t right, and the altars of lies must be destroyed if we wish to give truth a fair chance.” The truth that Liebig was defending was that the soil is living, and its life depends on recycling, or what Sir Albert Howard later called “The Law of Return” in his “An Agricultural Testament” nearly half a century later. The lie he wanted to destroy was what he called the “chemical hocus pocus”, that you can keep extracting nutrients from the soil, giving nothing back, and have “high yields”.

Selling more fertilisers is good for the profits of the chemical industry, but it is not good for the soil or the climate. It violates nature’s law of return. And it denies farmers the ecological alternatives to regenerate and renew soil nitrogen.

Farmers did not create the nitrogen problem. The problem is created by the chemical industry. According to the Polluter pays principle, the chemical industry must pay for the pollution. Farmers are consumers of fertilisers, not the manufacturers. They are victims of a chemical intensive industrial agriculture system, like the biodiversity of plants, and animals, and the consumers whose health is degenerating with industrial food style chronic diseases. The planet and people need more farmers, not less.

Sacrificing farmers pretending to address the nitrogen problem is dishonest because it blames the farmers for a problem created by the chemical industry. It is dishonest and inconsistent to say farms and farms must be reduced while continuing to promote the use of chemical fertilisers as Gates, the Chemical Industry and governments are doing.

While the chemical industry has spread the myth that chemical fertilisers are necessary for food production and address hunger, they have destroyed biodiversity by promoting monoculture, and they have contributed to desertification of soil by destroying the biodiversity of living soil. The destruction of soil organic matter destroys the capacity of soil to conserve moisture, thereby creating the need for intensive irrigation, and therefore further disrupting the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.

Our practice and research at Navdanya over the last two decades shows the regenerative ecological agriculture builds up soil nitrogen, while synthetic fertilisers deplete it. ^[6]

Reducing fertiliser use does not reduce yields.^[7]

The more nitrogen fertiliser you use the more you must use, because nitrogen fertilisers kill the live organisms in the soil.

Fertiliser response has dramatically reduced. Sharma and Sharma (2009) mentioned about the declining fertiliser response for the last thirty years from 13. 4 kg grain kg nutrient in 1970 to 3. 7 kg grain kg nutrient in 2005 in irrigated areas. According to Biswas and Sharma (2008) while only 54 kg NPK / ha was required to produce around 2 t /ha in 1970, around 218 kg NPK/ha was used in 2005 to sustain the same yield.

Chemical fertilisers are leading to a decline in productivity because they are destroying soil health. During three and half decades, fertiliser productivity has declined from 48 kg food grains/kg NPK fertiliser in 1970-71 to 10 kg food grains/kg NPK fertiliser in 2007-08.^[8]

Since synthetic fertilisers are fossil fuel based, they contribute to the disruption of the carbon cycle. But they also disrupt the nitrogen cycle. And they disrupt the hydrological cycle, both because chemical agriculture needs ten times more water to produce the same amount of food than organic farming, and it pollutes the water in rivers and oceans.

Pulses fix nitrogen non-violently in the soil, instead of increasing dependence on synthetic fertilisers produced violently by heating fossil fuels to 550 degrees centigrade. Chick-pea can fix up to 140 kg nitrogen per hectare and pigeon-pea can fix up to 200 kg nitrogen per hectare that fix nitrogen non-violently.

Returning organic matter to the soil builds up soil nitrogen. A recent study we are undertaking shows that organic farming has increased nitrogen content of soil between 44-144 %, depending on the crops.

Since war expertise does not provide expertise about how plants work, how the soil works, how ecological processes work, the potential of biodiversity and or- ganic farming was totally ignored by the militarised model of industrial agriculture. ^[9]

To address the nitrogen problem, we need to bring back biodiversity in farming.

Farming did not begin with the green revolution and synthetic nitrogen fertilisers. Whether it is the diversity based systems of India-Navdanya, Baranaja, or the three sisters planted by the first nations in North America, or the ancient Milpa system of Mexico, beans and pulses were vital to indigenous agroecological systems.

As Sir Albert Howard, known as the father of modern agriculture, writes in “An Agricultural Testament, comparing agriculture in the West with Agriculture in India:

“Mixed crops are the rule. In this respect the cultivators of the Orient have followed Nature’s method as seen in the primeval forest. Mixed cropping is perhaps most universal when the cereal crop is the main constituent. Crops like millets, wheat, barley, and maize are mixed with an appropriate subsidiary pulse, sometimes a species that ripens much later than the cereal. The pigeon pea (cajanusindicus), perhaps the most important leguminous crop of the Gangetic alluvium, is grown either with millets or with maize. . . Leguminous plants are common. Although it was not until 1888, after a protracted controversy lasting thirty years, that Western science finally accepted as proved the important role played by pulse crops in enriching the soil, centuries of experience had taught the peasants of the east the same lesson.”^[10]

Vegetable protein from pulses is also at the heart of a balanced, nutritious diet for humans. The Benevolent Bean is central to the Mediterranean diet. India’s food culture is based on “dal roti” and “dal chawal”. Urad, moong, masoor, chana, rajma, tur, lobia, gahat have been our staples. India was the largest producer of pulses in the world. And our proteins are rich in nutrition, delicious in taste.

Pulses have been displaced by the Green Revolution monoculture, and now the spread of monocultures of Bt cotton.

The nitrogen problem due to synthetic nitrogen fertilisers is real. Uprooting farmers is a false, violent, unjust solution. Governments that have subsidised and promoted the fertiliser industry now need to shift public tax money to regenerative agroecology that is chemical free. New Agroecology schools need to be open for farmers to make a transition to ecological agriculture over a 3–5-year period. We need democratic debates on the use of public money to serve the public good, not private greed. Since how we grow our food impacts our health and the health of the planet, growers and eaters of food need to join hands to regenerate the health of the soil and communities.

The Living Soil is the answer to the Nitrogen problem. To regenerate living soil, we need regenerators. Farmers are the custodians and caretakers of the land. We need to create a new culture of Earth Care in agriculture. Getting rid of farmers is an extinction and extermination project which has no place in free, democratic just societies.

*

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.

Notes

^[1] Shiva V., Soil Not Oil, 2008

^[2] Shiva V., “Agroecology and Regenerative Agriculture: Sustainable Solutions for Hunger, Poverty, and Climate Change”, Synergetic Press, 2022 https://synergeticpress.com/catalog/agroecology-and-regenerative-agriculture-sustainable-solutions-for-hunger-poverty-and-climate-change/

^[3] Gus, Camille. ‘Police Fire on Dutch Farmers Protesting Environmental Rules’. POLITICO, 6 July 2022, https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-protest-nitrogen-emission-cut/

^[4] Gates, Bill. ‘Why I Love Fertilizer’. Gatesnotes.Com, https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Why-I-love-fertilizer

^[5] Gates, Bill, How to avoid a Climate Disaster, Allen Lane, 2021 – pg 123

^[6] Navdanya, “Seeds of Hope, Seeds of Resilience”. 2017 https://navdanyainternational.org/publications/seeds-of-hope-seeds-of-resilience/

^[7] Harvey, Fiona, and Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent. ‘Using Far Less Chemical Fertiliser Still Produces High Crop Yields, Study Finds’. The Guardian, 27 June 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/27/using-far-less-chemical-fertiliser-still-produces-high-crop-yields-study

^[8] Aulakh, M. S. and Benbi, D. K. 2008. Enhancing fertiliser use efficiency. In  Proceedings of FAI Annual Seminar 2008, 4-6 December, 2008. The Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi, India. pp. SII-4 (1-23).

Subba Rao, A. and Reddy, K. S. 2009. Implications of soil fertility to meet future demand: Indian scenario. In Proceedings of the IPI-OUAT-IPNI International Symposium on Potassium Role and Benefits in Improving Nutrient Management for Food Production, Quality and Reduced Environmental Damages, Vol. 1 (Eds. MS Brar and SS Mukhopadhyay), 5-7 November 2009. IPI, Horgen, Switzerland and IPNI, Norcross, USA. pp. 109-135.

^[9] Navdanya, “Pulse of Life”, 2016. https://navdanyainternational.org/publications/pulse-of-life-the-rich-biodiversity-of-edible-legumes/

^[10] Sir Albert Howard. An Agricultural Testament. pg 13

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 battlefields in Syria are quiet, but the conflict is far from resolution.  Despite the lack of focus on Syria by the US, EU and NATO, there are still developments in the region and among the various players.  Resolving the Syrian conflict seems to be on the back-burner of the Biden administration, and yet the US President will soon visit the Middle East.  

What new developments are brewing in Syria?  To answer that question, Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Basma Qaddour, a Syrian journalist, co-author of “Voices from Syria” book, and head of the news department at Syria Times e-newspaper.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):   Turkey broke a good relationship with Syria in 2011 by supporting the US/NATO attack on Syria. There are reports that Iran may be meditating between Turkey and Syria. In your opinion, do you think Turkey can repair their relationship with Syria?

Basma Qaddour (BQ):  Erdogan is a dodgy person, and what he is doing is just a tactic for gaining time and scoring internal points before the elections [to be held in June 2023], which is his most important goal.

He tries to take advantage of any Iranian or Russian initiative, if they serve his interests.

At the same time, he wants to tell the West that he has other options if Turkey’s demands are not met since the Financial Times summed it up by saying: “Erdogan is an infuriating, but indispensable ally!”

SS:  Turkey has threatened a new military operation in northern Syria. James Jeffrey, former US envoy to Syria, has told the Kurdish SDF that they should repair the relationship with Damascus who could defend them against Turkey. In your opinion, will the Kurdish militia make a deal with Damascus?

BQ:  These goals are clear and known; therefore, it has been reported that the goal of the current Iranian mediation between Syria and Turkey is to defuse the potential explosion in north of Syria by putting pressure on the “Syrian Democratic Forces” [SDF] and making them understand that the only solution is to hand over certain areas to the Syrian Army in order to prevent the Turkish military operation.

Here, we have to mention that Moscow conveyed the same message to the SDF leaders clearly, but the information indicates that the SDF leaders are trying to maneuver as new reinforcements for the Syrian army have entered the border areas and the leaders have not decided their position regarding the complete handover of these areas, which is currently the only possible solution.

According to information from Tehran and Ankara, Iranian Foreign Minister informed the Turkish President about Tehran’s strong opposition to any Turkish military operation, and that it would not allow the change of equations in the north of Syria, and it would support its Syrian ally with all capabilities, including the direct military presence, which is the same message Erdogan received from Moscow. So Erdogan accepted the political and diplomatic approach as the best current solution.

Actually, Erdogan’s margin of maneuvering is narrowing because NATO has not offered him anything new. He knows that those who support the separatist project in Syria are his American and European allies, and that the solution to this file will be reached only through coordination with Damascus.

The facts related to Turkey’s occupation of 8,830 km2 of Syrian territory, and its Turkification operations in the areas it occupies are among the reasons that makes Syria skeptical about Turkish intentions.

SS:  Recently, the Iranian foreign minister was in Damascus and met President Bashar al-Assad. In your opinion, are there new developments between the two countries?

BQ:  Damascus welcomed the Iranian mediation because of its confidence in the Iranian ally, and not because of the words Erdogan, who does not keep his word.

To sum up, Iranian mediation may succeed in imposing a truce, nothing more, to prevent the Turkish military operation towards Manbij and Tal Refaat, and it is too early to talk about the expansion of the mediation towards a future vision for bilateral relations between Syria and Turkey.

SS:  “Israel” has made repeated airstrikes on Syria since 2011 recently, an “Israeli” airstrike did heavy damage to the Damascus international Airport. How will Syria and the resistance respond?

BQ:  War is not picnic. Syria is aware of the fact that the Israeli enemy wants a pretext to ignite the region, especially after it was unable to drag the United States to wage a war against Iran despite all the incitement.

Therefore, Syria, which has now reached the highest point of “Strategic Patient”, will never be drawn into a battle whose time and place are defined by the enemy.

Syria fights against one enemy in many fronts, and it knows that the only deterrent that Israeli enemy’s leaders understand is the military deterrent that causes losses to the Israeli entity.

SS:   Recently, the sleeping cells in south of Syria, have been assassinating Syria army soldiers and civilians.  Do you think that the Syrian army will start a military operation in Deraa to clean out these terrorist cells?

BQ:  It early to predicate what would happen in the south of Syria before the end of Biden’s visit to the region this week. The sleeping terrorist cells implement the orders of their operator and they serve western agenda. As you know, there are reports about a plan to establish a “safe zone” there with the support of US and Israel. This plan dates back to 2015 regardless of the change of reasons for establishing it.

All US’s acts, plans and decisions in the ME region serves only the Israeli entity, you can take this to the bank.

*

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)

List Price: $6.50

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.

***

The lobbying of Uber should, along with those of other corporate giants, only surprise those prone to pollyannaish escapism.  Its hungry, desperate behaviour takes place in plain sight, and denials merely serve to emphasise the point.  It resembles, in some crudely distant way, the operating rationale of the notorious British sex pest Jimmy Savile, who preyed upon his victims with the establishment’s complicity.

In terms of the gig economy, there are few more ruthless buccaneers than this San Franciscan ride-share company that has persistently specialised in cutting corners and remaking them.  Those taken aback by the latest leaked files about Uber’s conduct would do well to remember the initial stages of the company’s growth, and the protests against it.  Globally, the taxi fraternity raged against the encroachment of this new, seemingly amorphous bully.  Some authorities heeded their wishes, seeing an alternative option in transportation.

In September 2017, Transport for London refused to renew the company’s license, accusing the company of lacking “corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications.”  For all such rowdy, boisterous resistance, the company continued to spread its tentacular reach, inculcating users and drivers with ratings, incessant surveillance and behavioural observation.

The Uber leaks give us ringside seats to the decision making of the company.  Files numbering some 124,000 spanning the period between 2013 to 2017, were leaked to The Guardian and found their way to 180 journalists across 29 countries through the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).  These include the savoury essence of over 83,000 emails, iMessages and WhatsApp messages exchanged between then CEO Travis Kalanick and various company executives.

The ICIJ brings out a big gun from the off.  In 2015, France’s taxi drivers showed their incensed displeasure with the company by setting fire to tyres, overturning cars and blocking access to airports.  The result of the protest was initially significant, leading to a suspension of the company’s operations and a nationwide ban.  “Needing a friend in government to smooth things over,” states the ICIJ with gotcha confidence, “Uber’s chief European lobbyist sought help from a young French minister on the rise: Emmanuel Macron.”

They had good reason to feel plucky.  Mark MacGann, the lobbyist in the question, is found sending a text to the then French economy minister on October 21, 2015 expressing concern about the ban.  “Could you ask your cabinet to help us to understand what is going on?”  Macron promises to “look into this personally” and urges “calm at this stage”.

Within hours, the suspension order was being reconsidered.  “The local government in Bouches du Rhones will modify its decision and press release to clean up the statements that set off such confusion,” a relieved and grateful MacGann informs Macron.  “Thank you for your support.”  Macron expresses his own gratitude for the company’s “measured response.”

This picture, according to the leaked messages, emerges from some dozen undisclosed communications and, at the latest count, four meetings between representatives of Uber and Macron.  It prompted French MP Aurélien Taché to call it “a state scandal.”  Mathilde Panot, parliamentary leader of the left opposition party France Unbowed gave the perpetrator of the scandal an even better description.  Macron had shown himself to be a lobbyist for a “US multinational aiming to permanently deregulate labour law”.

The current French President is not the only one to have been taken in by the service.  The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, had some advice to give the company.  “Right now you are seen as aggressive,” he said with dreary triteness.  His solution to Kalanick: “Change the way people look at the company”.  Focus on the good.  “This will make you seem cuddly.”

Given the protests against Uber globally, both in terms of drivers and users, the company chewed over a strategy of reverse emphasis.  The true problem, went this line of marketing, was the vicious, lazy, monopolising taxi driver.  Along the way, the company could also discount the welfare of Uber drivers while extolling the merits of a more liberal marketplace hankering for transportation options.  “Violence,” exhorted Kalanick like the privateers of old, “guarantee[s] success.”

Spokesperson for Kalanick, Devon Spurgeon, comes close to degrading the old cabbies, suggesting that the Uber model was refreshingly competitive in the face of industry sclerosis.  Kalanick and company, explained Spurgeon to the ICIJ, “pioneered an industry that has now become a verb.”  To do so required them to break a few eggs and rules on the way “in an industry where competition had been historically outlawed.  As a natural and foreseeable result, entrenched industry interests all over the world fought to prevent the much-needed development of the transportation industry.”

Perhaps most revealingly of all, and typical of the East India Company ethos of this titan, was the delight company members found in flouting laws and soiling regulations.   Its “other than legal status” was a point of constant excitement, notably in a range of countries from South Africa to Russia.  In the uncoated words of Uber’s head of global communications, Nairi Hourdajian, written to a colleague in 2014 as attempts in Thailand and India to shut down the company were afoot,  “Sometimes we have problems because, well, we’re just fucking illegal.”

The battles against Uber’s corporate banditry continue, none more passionately and committedly waged than by the workers themselves.  Uber drivers have managed to make a case in the Netherlands and the UK that they are protected by the jurisdiction’s labour laws.

The same cannot be said about the United States, where freedom of contract and the tyranny of uneven pay prevail.  As Joe Biden, well wooed by Kalanick as US Vice President, said in his adjusted 2016 speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos, there was a company able to give millions of workers “freedom to work as many hours as they wish, manage their own lives as they wish”.  The Uber cofounder was less enthused by the vice presidential vessel.  “Every minute late [Biden] is,” he wrote in a text to a co-worker, “is one less minute he will have with me.”

The company’s board can also rest easy in one respect.  They have majority shareholder support to ensure that a lack of transparency regarding spending and lobbying activities will be permitted to continue.  While the veil continues to operate, current CEO Dara Khosrowshahi is also aggressively pursuing a policy of sprucing and cleaning the company’s image.  This pirate of transportation is turning cuddly.

*

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.

***

Guests:

Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, lawyer and counsel in the military appeal proceedings of two German army officers

Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, human biologist, immunologist, cell biologist and expert witness in advertising appeal proceedings

Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz, former professor of electrical engineering and advisor of the Bundestag

This session is about:

On July 8, the 5th day of the trial, the court agreed with the legal opinion of the defendant and dismissed the lawsuit of two Bundeswehr officers, who objected to the administration of the COVID vaccines to the Bundeswehr.

*

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.

***

On the morning of July 6th, the CBC crossed the line from merely putting out its usual one-sided news on Ukraine to a defamatory attack on independent journalists who report live from the Donbass.  While they named Americans John Mark Dougan and Patrick Lancaster, they reserved particular venom for the highly-respected Canadian Eva Bartlett.

The National News anchor Ian Hanomansing featured Justin Ling, a writer who has written hit pieces on journalists whose accounts counter state propaganda. They suggested that those who report the news about the Ukrainian conflict with any acknowledgement of Russia’s perspective must be in Russia’s pay or in some way controlled by Russia.

The implication that Eva Bartlett’s reporting is bought and paid for by Russia (made, incidentally, by those whose opinions seem to have been bought and paid for by Canadian taxpayers) is defamatory.  She has a well-earned reputation for courageous eyewitness in the most dangerous situations, including in Gaza when it was under devastating Israeli bombardment in 2008/9, in Syria (where she publicized western false flag attacks), as well as in Ukraine, where she showed the reality of the supposed “mass graves” in Maripol.

Implying that those who call out US responsibility for fomenting the Ukrainian conflict are Russian pawns is cover for those propagating western propaganda — propaganda that:

• ignores the US-backed 2014 coup against the democratically- elected Ukrainian president;
• ignores Zelensky’s landslide victory on the platform of making peace with Russia;
• ignores the U.S. undermining of the Minsk Accords that would have enabled that peace;
• ignores the Kiev government’s ongoing attacks on Donbass civilians [now with the use of new U.S. weaponry!] that have killed over 15,000 Ukrainians since 2014; and that
• even ignores the now-public evidence that the US motive in training tens of thousands of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi soldiers for the last eight years was to prepare them for this proxy war that would weaken Russia and get rid of Putin.  (Note that Canada has also trained Ukraine’s neo-Nazi soldiers.)

Americans who have spoken out about the U.S. set-up of Russia for this conflict include:

• Former Pentagon advisor Col. Douglas McGregor;
• Former Virginia State Senator Col. Richard Black;
• Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago;
• Former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Wall Street Journal Editor Paul Craig Roberts;
• Former CIA Russia specialist Ray McGovern;
• Veteran of the CIA and State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism Larry C. Johnson; and
• Former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

The CBC owes Eva Bartlett and her colleagues a public apology for their defamation.

To make amends, it might present one of Eva Bartlett’s reports to show viewers a sample of honest reporting on this issue.

Sincerely,

Karin Brothers, Toronto

*

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.

***

The current 2021-22 attempt to foment regime change in Cuba, backed by the US, Europe and even Canada, began in 2018/2019. Many of the individual artists involved in the 2018/2019 protests against the Cuban government (especially its Ministry of Culture) served as the vanguard of the July 11 protests. They have very recently been tried and sentenced, provoking another backlash by their sponsors (the US and its allies) on the occasion of the July 11 anniversary, aimed to subvert the Revolution.

In this article written in April 2019, Arnold August outlines what the 2018/2019 incidents were all about. “There is a wide-open debate/polemic in Cuba regarding Decree 349 on culture and the drafting of the rules for its future application. The controversy is also stirring on the international scene, especially in North America, Europe and Latin America.”

In this video our Contributing Editor expressed, from the point of view of a Canadian, that Cuba having a Ministry of Culture is actually very positive.

Only several days after the 2021 July 11 protests, August was interviewed by TeleSur.

On July 26, 2021, a webinar took place titled “What is Happening in Cuba?” Here is the video contribution by August on the role of US and its allies in fueling the protests.

On August 29, 2021, a webinar took place on the topic: Ending US aggression on Cuba is Key to World Peace. It was organized by the International Manifesto Group, the Black Alliance for Peace, No Cold War and Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. The Canada Files was the media sponsor. Among the speakers was Cuban journalist Iroel Sánchez, providing a valuable and not often heard about insight from the ground in Cuba.  See video below.

TCF posted an expanded video version of the August 29, 2021 contribution by August to the webinar “Ending US Aggression on Cuba is Key to World Peace,” for which TCF was the media sponsor. The thrust of this video is: Canadian ‘left’ media & government support colour revolution narratives against Cuba.” 

On September 21, 2021, The Real News Network (TRNN) contributor Radhika Desai is joined by August to discuss the protests in Cuba, the media narratives about the protests, and the prospect that the Biden administration will succeed in exploiting Cuba’s current troubles to achieve its interventionist ends. Video here.

More on the media manipulation on July 11 by August. Video July 28, 2018.

From the July 11 protests, the US-led regime change policy led to another attempt to provoke incidents, this time scheduled for November 15, 2021. In this article for TCF by our Contributing Editor, it is pointed out that “as a follow up to the July 11-12 protests, the same opposition figures and groups that participated in them, requested permission for marches to be simultaneously held in several cities across Cuba on November 15.” Read article here.

Despite their request to demonstrate being refused, the regime-change activists went ahead with their plans for a “peaceful demonstration.” August’s article for TCF was unique, as he wrote: “On July 11, 2021, regime-change demonstrations of the ‘colour revolution’ type broke out in several cities across Cuba, turning violent in some instances. They were driven mainly by pro-US social media prompts, with some Cuban citizens joining in for legitimate reasons in the context of the current system and not against it. Since then, the same forces, operating under a new banner and a private, two-month-old Facebook group named Archipiélago, are gathering for a second round of demonstrations to take place on November 15. To delve into it, I applied to become a member and was eventually (and surprisingly) accepted.” Thus, while much has been written about the November 15 plans, this is the only one that deconstructs from the inside the false narrative of “peacefully artists” in their own words and images. The article, also serves as an anti-dote to the current US-led outcry regarding the trials and sentencing of “artists” involved in the July protests. Article here.

The November 15 colour revolution attempt failed. Once again, the only article that unearthed the main reason for its failure is this one by Arnold August: “Archipiélago’s Cuban Protest Failure: Repression, Suppression, Intimidation, Detention – or Revolution? ”

On June 30, 2022, Arnold was interviewed on By All Means Necessary (Radio Sputnik) by Jacquie Luqman to discuss the real story of the prosecution of the artists responsible for the song “Patria Y Vida” in Cuba, the US involvement in using these artists to undermine the Cuban revolution in an effort to overthrow the Cuban government, why the desecration of Cuban symbols and US involvement in this song matter so much to the Cuban government, and how the race card has been used by the US government to undermine Cuba under a veneer of progressivism. Interview here.

The Canada Files will carry follow up articles and videos on the Cuban “protest” issue.

*

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 Canada Files.

Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news outlet founded in 2019. Jonah has broken numerous stories, including how the Canadian Armed Forces trained neo-Nazi “journalist” Roman Protasevich while he was with the Azov Battalion, and how a CIA front group (the NED) funded the group (URAP) which drove the “Uyghur genocide” vote in parliament to pass this February. Jonah recently wrote a report for the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council, held in September 2021.

America’s New “Angels of Death”: Inject Humanity with a Gene-altering Death-dealing Technology. Medical Professionals Cannot Claim Ignorance

By Prof. Bill Willers, July 11, 2022

Early in the declared Covid19 Pandemic, America’s medical community —  and this included America’s pharmacies  —  coalesced around a system of outlawing medicines known to be effective, safe and inexpensive, notably ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine  In time, it became obvious that withholding early treatment was crucial for the pharmaceutical industry’s project to vaccinate the world against a claimed Covid19 virus.

True Leadership at a Time of Crisis

By Julian Rose, July 11, 2022

Minds that work three dimensionally cannot solve the problems of the world. They can only make them worse. Those who see themselves as being ‘in charge’ of world events are not able to understand the actual nature of the problems they are supposed to deal with, so obviously they can’t change them for the better.

Blinken’s Gone Bonkers: Russia Is Alleviating, Not Worsening, Sri Lanka’s Crisis!

By Andrew Korybko, July 11, 2022

By pointing to dramatic footage of recent events in Sri Lanka and telling everyone that President Putin was personally responsible for provoking chaos in a far-away land, Blinken is scaremongering by getting Westerners to fear that their country might be the next to go bankrupt and subsequently descend into disorder unless they support all of their government’s efforts to preemptively “thwart this tyrant”.

The Imposition of Global “Green Capitalism”: Farmers Demand Their Rights in Europe

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, July 11, 2022

The impositions of global “green capitalism” are not being pacifically accepted in all parts of Europe. Dutch farmers have started a popular insurrection against a bill that severely harms local agribusiness. The protests quickly spread, resulting in an international phenomenon, with episodes in other countries which have similar problems.

World Economic Forum ‘Anti-Corruption’ Champion Is Pfizer Director and Reuters CEO. “No Conflict of Interest”

By Natalie Winters, July 11, 2022

Jim Smith – whose concurrent roles as a Pfizer board member and Reuters CEO appear to pose a conflict of interest – serves as a board member of the World Economic Forum’s anti-corruption initiative.

Taiwan and the Making of an “Asian” NATO

By Danny Haiphong, July 11, 2022

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.

Is Iraq’s Notorious ‘Oil for Food Program’ to be Repeated in Libya?

By Dr. Mustafa Fetouri, July 11, 2022

The United States Ambassador to Tripoli, Richard Norland, who is also his country’s Envoy to Libya, has been openly pushing forward a plan to deny the Libyan State the freedom of using the oil revenues in accordance with Libyan sovereignty over its resource. Oil makes roughly 98 per cent of the country’s foreign currency earnings and the country has plenty of it.

Pfizer Classified Nearly Every Severe Adverse Reaction During COVID Vaccine Trials as “Not Related to Shots”

By Ethan Huff, July 11, 2022

The reason why Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” was declared to be “safe and effective” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is because Pfizer lied about the outcomes of its clinical trials.

The Dollar vs. the Yuan: Global Inflation, The Federal Reserve and China’s Measures to Stabilize Her Economy

By Peter Koenig, July 11, 2022

Under normal circumstances inflation occurs, when too many monetary units (US dollars, Euros, Chinese Yuan) chase too few goods. But we are not living in normal times. To the contrary. We are living in an increasingly divided world, not only in political terms – West vs. East / Global North vs. Global South – but also in monetary terms.

Being Salt of the Earth… And the Plight of Children of the World. Prof. Siegwart-Horst Günther

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, July 11, 2022

Salt is the sustaining principle that counteracts corruption or rot. The imagery of the “salt of the earth” was recently expressed by a wonderful interviewee, which immediately won me over. The topic of discussion was the human sense of community as the unshakeable logic of human coexistence and the question: Will human sense of community and the spirit of responsibility overcome greed for power and violence?

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.

***

Various right-wing groups across the Americas are preparing demonstrations in support of the one-year anniversary of the exaggerated and media-manipulated protests that took place in Cuba on 11 July 2021. In perfect lockstep, the Biden administration has issued further sanctions on Cuba—visa restrictions on 28 Cuban officials whom they have declined to name. The Black Alliance For Peace (BAP) denounces these efforts to smear the Cuban process and continues to stand in revolutionary solidarity with the peoples of Cuba.

“It remains clear,” says BAP South member, Salifu Mack, “that the enemies of African people and the Cuban Revolution will not rest until total death and destruction are visited upon the island, all in the name of white supremacy and U.S. imperialism.”

In announcing the 28 new sanctions on Cuba on 9 July 2022, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is quoted saying that the sanctions have been implemented to “support greater freedom and economic opportunities for the Cuban people.” The Biden administration has declined to name the 28 Cuban officials that they claim these sanctions have been applied to. BAP understands that sanctions targeted toward any person or group of persons, especially in a country like Cuba, which has struggled under the weight of 60 years of a U.S. economic blockade, severely limits the country’s ability to advocate for itself on the international stage. The U.S. economic blockade already excludes Cuba from international trade and banking, punishes countries which try to circumvent it, and overcomplicates immigration from the island.

“We have seen how sanctions have been used to attack efforts toward self-determination in countries like Libya, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea,” says Austin Cole of BAP Haiti/Americas Team. “And we have also seen recently how sanctions against Russia backfire as the U.S. and NATO attempt to maintain hegemony in Eastern Europe.”

Of the 28 new sanctions being imposed upon Cuba, Blinken remarked that this measure is aimed at those who, in his opinion, allowed or facilitated violent and unjust arrests, false trials and prison sentences for those involved in the riots that took place in July of last year. As a continued strategy, U.S. imperialism is leaning into the trope of “critical support to political prisoners.”

Today the United States holds more than 2 million people within its jail cells, the equivalent of roughly 25% of the world’s prison population. Among that prison population is an aging demographic of political prisoners, like Mutulu Shakur, Mumia Abu Jamal, Joseph Bowen, Veronza Bowers, Kamau Sadiki, Ruchell Magee, Leonard Peltier, Ed Poindexter, and Rev. Joy Powell. While the enemies of the Cuban revolution attempt to make heroes out of Cuban citizens who now face the consequences of collaborating with U.S. imperialism, African freedom fighters are rotting away in prisons, being denied life-saving medical treatment, and are only strategically released on their deathbeds.

Additionally, there is an extreme irony in a country that supports reactionary riots throughout the world, yet regularly brutalizes protestors seeking justice within its borders and is helpless to stop its epidemic of mass shootings.  As U.S. hegemony continues to weaken, meeting formidable challenges across Latin America and the Caribbean, its violence returns home and compounds against its domestic colonies.

The week to come is certain to be filled with the same circular and baseless attacks using “anti-Blackness” in Cuba as a tool to turn Africans in the U.S. away from support of the Cuban Revolution. BAP is clear that anti-Black racism, a development of colonialism, will only be eradicated with the defeat of colonialism. While U.S. non-profits and NGOs pour billions every year into toothless “diversity and inclusion” and “anti-racist” marketing schemes, we have faith in the people of Cuba to lead their own processes, without U.S. interference, in establishing a world where People(s)-Centered Human Rights—based on materialist reconfigurations of land, healthcare and education—are at the forefront.

When Black people in the U.S. repeat the same positions and talking points of the U.S. government they are not helping Afro-Cubans in Cuba. They are giving cover to the regime change agenda of U.S. imperialism.

The Black Alliance for Peace calls on all serious anti-imperialists in the U.S. to continue standing with the Cuban Revolution. We must be clear that sanctions and other forms of U.S. interventions are an affront to national sovereignty and the right to self determination. It is the duty of African people living within the belly of the beast to remain vigilant against opportunism and co-optation.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

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.

***

Minds that work three dimensionally cannot solve the problems of the world. They can only make them worse.

Those who see themselves as being ‘in charge’ of world events are not able to understand the actual nature of the problems they are supposed to deal with, so obviously they can’t change them for the better.

For example, those trained in banking have a two dimensional thinking process. They can see only ledgers, numbers and material gain.

Those heading leading corporations see only what their corporations can profit from. How to make them ever more profitable. Those who go into politics accept the three dimensional prison that politics is. Anyone thinking outside this box won’t last long in politics. The list goes on – interminably.

But suffice it to say that the great majority of ‘leaders’ of this world come from the above categories. Plus a smattering of billionaires, royals and a handful or two of psychopaths and megalomaniacs.

None of these, quite obviously, come anywhere near fulfilling the need for wisdom or the pursuit of truth and justice. Such values don’t even enter the picture. They are seen as the preserve of those lost in a world of illusion.

So long as this status quo prevails, no change for the better can happen – on the global stage. That place where all attention is focussed, therefore from which all actions emanate. Two/three dimensional actions bereft of insight, wisdom, truth or courage.

Those who believe and follow the edicts of these incapacitated directors of society, live in a prison of their own construction. It’s a dark place of delusional slavery to whatever they hear on ‘The News’. The State uses them to keep its two/three dimensional plans on-track.

In the world we want to become manifest, none of the two/three dimensional thinkers has any part. As we know, if we care to stop and reflect on it, only those with genuine breadth of vision, qualities of humane leadership and a deep devotion to the manifestation of truth, can fulfil the necessary qualities to direct our planet in the way – deep down – we all want and long for.

It’s a surprisingly simple message I am articulating: joining together in refusing to cooperate with those who we know have no qualities capable of improving the health and welfare of humanity and of our planetary ecology – is the only strategy which can end their sterile destructive reign.

We know that only those capable of a deep grasp of life’s challenges and how to set-about confronting them, can put us on the road we all want to be on. Make us feel moved to support the path of liberation from our slave driving oppressors – and from our own weakness –  that leads over and over again into submission to their toxic demands.

The path to victory demands dedication. Dedication to listening to our hearts, not our minds. Only to our minds when they are first informed by our hearts and by a sound sense of morality.

We are becoming aware that this is the channel through which victory will be achieved. The only channel. It is the opposite dimension from the destroyers we are up against. They fear it, because they don’t understand it. It is outside their two/three dimensional prison. Yet it is our greatest asset; our wealth as true sentient humans. Our power as spiritual warriors.

It is time to ditch all distractions from this path. Only that which supports our great awakening must be put at the top of our ‘must do’ list from now on. And the further items down that list must all be in support of this great affirmation, this passion for truth.

There is nothing else ‘to do’.

If we fail to listen and act on the voice of our deepest hearts and intuitions, we can never be free. That message, determinedly put into practice in the outside world, will unlock the gates of all barricades erected to disempower us – and will set us free.

There is no other task.

*

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.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. Julian’s acclaimed book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: http://julianrose.info/ 

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.

***

Guests: Jeroen Pols, co-founder of Viruswaarheid and lawyer and Willem Engel, co-founder of Viruswaarheid.

This session is about the farmers’ protests in the Netherlands, settlement plans on farmland, expropriation of one-third of farmers based on intended nitrogen application savings and farmers’ protest responses, and use of police armed force.

*

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.

***

The impositions of global “green capitalism” are not being pacifically accepted in all parts of Europe. Dutch farmers have started a popular insurrection against a bill that severely harms local agribusiness. The protests quickly spread, resulting in an international phenomenon, with episodes in other countries which have similar problems. With this, it is evident that the globalist pseudo-ecological agendas will not be so easily received in all countries and may face strong popular resistance.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte intends to impose a law to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 70-95% by 2030. This gaseous chemical compound comes mainly from the urine of cattle, pigs and other animals, but can also be observed in the use of ammonia in fertilizers. Dutch farmers claim that this measure will result in the extinction of at least 30% of all the country’s farms, considering that rural workers could be banned from using fertilizers and would have to reduce the number of animals in their own properties. The protesters’ dissatisfaction is also justified by the fact that nitrogen reduction measures are not imposed on other sectors of the economy, such as the airline industry – which makes the topic seem something like a specific attack against agribusiness, promoted by the environmentalist militants.

In fact, agribusiness is a very important sector of the Dutch economy. Currently, the country has about 55 thousand rural enterprises, totaling more than 95.4 billion euros. The instability of the sector has led to crises, tensions and instabilities. Farmers are protesting with full force, obstructing food supplies in cities, which is leading to shortages and rising prices. In several images and videos posted on internet it is possible to see supermarkets with empty shelves and people desperate in search of basic products.

The farmers are led by Sieta van Keimpema, president of the “Farmers Defense Force” and have been active since June. The intensity of the demonstrations has increased in recent days precisely due to the government’s refusal to listen to the demands of rural producers, in addition to threats made repeatedly by the authorities to confiscate farms from agriculturalists who do not respect the new rules.

The police reaction, as expected, has also been violent. Several arrests have already been made. In the second week of July agents went to the extreme of firing shots at the civilian population during some demonstrations, which has been the target of criticism by activists around the world. In addition, very strong blockades have been organized by the police, with cars forming barricades to prevent the insurgents from passing. The objective of the agents is to prevent the situation in the country from reaching absolute chaos, but in fact this seems to be getting closer and closer.

As there are similar bills in other countries, Dutch farmers have received international support. Farmers in Italy, Poland and Germany also joined the demonstrations started by the Dutch. As the pressure to increase ecological policies is a global agenda, with strong international incentives for the approval of measures against the emission of gases, the formation of a united front between rural workers from different countries is strengthened. These workers share in common the fear that the direct effects of such measures will lead to the bankruptcy of rural enterprises that guarantee the income of the European peasant population. On the other hand, the governments of such countries seem little concerned with such issues, being only committed to obeying the pro-green capitalism agendas imposed by international elites.

The most interesting point is that the topic has been largely ignored by Western media agencies. In the headlines of the main western media, the issues most talked about are the Ukrainian conflict and the political crises around the world, but the case of European farmers remains largely ignored, despite the episode representing a potential continental crisis. The objective of this strategy is quite simple: to omit from the public opinion the arguments of the farmers and to spread the image that the environmental laws are “positive for all”. Something similar happened with other events, such as the truck drivers’ protests in Canada, when popular clamor against sanitary impositions were ignored by media agencies in order to prevent “anti-vaccine riots” from occurring around the world.

In fact, what is happening is just another episode of confrontation between producers and ideological militants, where workers who generate material riches have their interests harmed by an agenda that, in the name of “ecology”, imposes norms that severely hurt the lives of ordinary citizens. It is obvious that environmental concerns are legitimate, but it also seems clear that supply chains cannot be abruptly interrupted and modified just to seek “ecologically correct” results. In the same way that there is a human interest in preserving natural resources for future generations, there is a human interest in feeding the current population – and providing food in a satisfactory way will become impossible if Western governments continue to promote the failure of rural enterprises.

This posture of submission by European governments to the agendas vertically imposed by the WEF will lead to a scenario of internal polarization with a strong potential for civil conflict, opposing producers against decision-makers and ideological militants. Either European governments act sovereignly, banning globalist agendas that do not interest their people, or the political crisis that currently affects the continent will continue for many years to come.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter.

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.

***

Jim Smith – whose concurrent roles as a Pfizer board member and Reuters CEO appear to pose a conflict of interest – serves as a board member of the World Economic Forum’s anti-corruption initiative.

Smith’s leading role with the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Partnering Against Corruption Initiative follows controversy over his position at the pharmaceutical giant and mainstream media outlet, which frequently reports on Pfizer. Reuters has published tens of thousands of articles covering or mentioning Pfizer, though the articles never disclose Smith’s affiliation with either entity.

Smith serves on the board of the WEF’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative, dubbed the “leading business voice on anti-corruption and transparency.”

“It is one of the Forum’s strongest cross-industry collaborative efforts and is creating a highly visible, agenda-setting platform by working with business leaders, international organizations and governments to address corruption, transparency and emerging-market risks,” explains a WEF synopsis.

In this role, Smith has contributed articles to the WEF website, including a 2017 piece: “Corruption and the Erosion of Trust.”

“Today’s common struggle against corruption goes far beyond compliance. More problematic is the profound and worsening trust deficit that exists between institutions and individuals,” Smith begins before lamenting the public’s loss of trust in mainstream media outlets:

“The widespread perception that institutions—both public and private—are not acting in the interests of the people they serve pervades the thinking of communities across the globe. News organizations, which have historically served as the watchdog for governments and business leaders, are less trusted by the public than ever before.”

“Public confidence has been corroded by a concentration on near-term priorities and payoffs, propelled by election-cycle politics or quarterly results targets that too often leave children worse off than their parents,” laments Smith.

The article, however, comes amidst the Federal Drug Administration and Pfizer attempting to delay the release of documents related to the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine.

The WEF has been accused of exploiting COVID-19 to advance its “Great Reset” agenda to advance its radical agenda of abolishing private property ownership.

*

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.

Natalie Winters is the Lead Investigative Reporter at the National Pulse and co-host of The National Pulse podcast.

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.

***

Thanks to US blockade and other factors, Cuba’s economy is in very bad shape. So-called freedom protests are set to kick off again, and  Cuban Gen. Luis Alberto Rodríguez López-Calleja sudden death, due to a heart attack, has possibly created a kind of power vacuum, as he was a potential next leader. A year ago, the largest protests in decades took place in the island, on July 11 and July 12. They were motivated mostly by problems regarding shortages, power outages, and long lines for food items and fuel. Today, the same problems remain, albeit with some improvements.

COVID-19 restrictions have been relaxed and that has partly revitalized the country’s tourism sector. It depends heavily on foreign tourism and foreign currency. However, the economy remains in crisis. Even though American President Joe Biden has eased some of the North American sanctions, most of the ones imposed by the former President (Donal Trump) remain in force and the Cuban economy thus remains squeezed. Havana’s government has taken some measures, albeit still timid, such as allowing the opening of some small businesses, but these too have had limited effect so far. Inflation is on the rise and so is emigration. In this sense, Cuban economic policy is much more strict than that of other socialist nations, such as China and even Vietnam.

The recent shift to a single Cuban currency, as well as the loss of Venezuelan subsidies do not seem to have worked very well. Of course, the global economic situation does not help. Of course, this gives an opportunity for dissidents to attack the Cuban system itself and to demand liberal democratic reforms and so on. In any case, the Cuban government fears an American-fueled “spring” of protests aimed at “regime change” – a goal Washington has long pursued – and therefore conducted a severe crackdown of the demonstrations last year.

However this might have backfired in the sense that it has generated further dissatisfaction among many sectors of Cuban society. The authorities insist that people have been charged with crimes such as vandalism for violating public order and therefore they cannot be considered political prisoners.

To make things even worse, the sugar harvest this season has been only half of what was expected. It will cover domestic demand but meeting international commitments will not be possible. The causes of this lie in pandemic related shortage of oxygen, but are also worsened by US sanctions.

The problem is that the Cuban economic crisis is also a migration crisis: since the beginning of the year at least 2,000 Cubans who tried to emigrate to Florida by sea have been deported by North American authorities, and last month 25,000 crossed the Mexican border after emigrating to different Central American countries. Emigration in fact has reached a new peak, with a total of 140,000 Cuban citizens having illegally entered US territory since October last year. Those are higher figures than that of the famous Mariel exodus crisis of 1980. All of this creates just the right climate for further demonstrations. And the economic and emigration crisis are also part of a larger domestic political crisis.

Even though Washington focuses mostly on countering Beijing on the Indo-Pacific, by broadening its engagement in South Asia and beyond, it cannot help but notice that China has also increased its presence in the Caribbean. In November 2020 I wrote that Havana should be in the spotlight in the near future, due to its increased cooperation with Beijing since at least 2018, when Chinese National Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Cuban Minister of the Armed Forces Cintra Frias pledged to deepen both nations’ military and security ties. Since then, there were some signs of Chinese military presence on the island, although this has not been confirmed. Washington in turn has been quite busy militarizing the Caribbean Sea since at least 2020 to encircle Venezuela. The two great powers also compete for influence in both Guyana and Suriname, in the context of major oil discoveries in the region in 2020.

On July 1, Cuban representatives signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese company Zhongyulidu Technology Ltd to promote Cuba’s cultural heritage and tourism on Chinese digital platforms. A month ago Cuba-China cooperation presented their jointly-produced Pan-Corona Vaccine. Overthrowing the government in Havana and supporting pro-Western political actors would certainly serve American geopolitical interests in the region.

To sum it up, one should expect an escalation of protests in Cuba over the domestic crisis and one should also expect an attempt by Washington to exploit the situation by pushing for regime change in the island through the usual means of clandestinely fomenting “spring” revolutions – as it has attempted to do so in recent years in Belarus and elsewhere.

*

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.

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

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.

***

The United States Ambassador to Tripoli, Richard Norland, who is also his country’s Envoy to Libya, has been openly pushing forward a plan to deny the Libyan State the freedom of using the oil revenues in accordance with Libyan sovereignty over its resource. Oil makes roughly 98 per cent of the country’s foreign currency earnings and the country has plenty of it.

In a tweet on 28 June, the US embassy has, for the first time, unveiled what it called “efforts” to “establish a Libyan-led mechanism to provide transparency regarding how oil revenues are spent”. The idea is not new, but the way it is being presented now is completely unheard of before and remains vague, with very little details.

Basically what is being floated by Ambassador Norland was agreed to in the first Berlin Conference on Libya in January 2020. As part of stalling the Libyan conflict, the Conference agreed to establish a Libyan-led economic commission of experts to oversee “structural economic reform”, creating the economic track of the settlement process facilitated by the United Nations. The aim, then, was to make sure that oil revenues are equally distributed among Libyans through a unified mechanism to avoid any suspension of oil production and exports of the country’s lifeline, oil, ultimately de-weaponising oil in the conflict.

But what Mr. Norland’s proposal goes far beyond a process to, equally, share oil revenues among Libyans and, if implemented, it will, literally, strip the Libyan State and its relevant sovereign institutions, like the Central Bank and Audit Bureau, of any freedom in handling oil money. Any present or future government will not be free to budget freely as it is supposed to, until the entire conflict is settled.

Critics believe what the US Ambassador is proposing is an amended copy of the notorious “oil for food program” that was imposed on Iraq in 1995 to deny Iraq the freedom of managing and utilising its oil revenues. The program, part of sanctions against late Saddam Hussein’s government, ultimately became highly corrupt bureaucracy, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as more of them became poorer and unable to afford food and medicine. Under that mechanism, Iraq was unable to buy its needs without the approval of the program management, which usually investigated every single purchase including baby formula and other basic necessities.

Ambassador Norland’s idea, which he dubbed “Mustafeed” beneficiary in Arabic, lacks clarity and very little has been said to clarify it. Yet, it has been the subject of wider debate among Libyans across social media with most comments criticising what they see as serious infringement of Libya’s independence and sovereignty. However, in a tweet on 28 June, after meeting the current Prime Minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, in Tripoli, Richard Norland tweeted “I complimented the PM’s engagement on Mustafeed so far,” implying that Mr. Dbeibeh is supporting the proposal.

“Mustafeed” refers to a supervisory process in which all oil money is allocated into the budget of Libya through recommendations of a panel made up of the UN, European Union, Egypt, US and Libya as its Chair. Until a political settlement is reached, all oil money, usually used to finance imports of food, medicine and other essentials, will not be spent on any other budgetary items, except essentials. Furthermore the accounts of the Libyan State will be reviewed by a third party—likely to be an independent accounting firm—illegal under current Libyan laws.

The aim is to deny the militias the funding they have been enjoying over the years through their nominal support and sometimes blackmail of the successive governments that came to power in Libya over the last decade.

While this is a noble cause that would limit the financial attrition of the country, it is also a  clear attempt to deny the Libyan State its sovereign decision-making over its resources by simply handing it over to foreign powers that are, essentially, the main cause of the country’s ills since 2011. Before “Mustafeed” was unveiled, many foreign players in Libya were calling for some kind of sharing of the oil revenue, a step many criticised because it could lead to partition of the country along its geographical regions: East, West and South—an idea supported by many politicians, particularly in eastern Libya, disguising it as federalist system similar to what Libya used to be in the wake of its independence in 1951.

Many believe the international military intervention in Libya in 2011 was, partly, to dominate and control part of the country’s huge oil wealth. Today, as it was then, Libya remains a wealthy nation with proven oil reserves estimated to be more than 48 billion barrels, the third in Africa, but the decade-long conflict has diminished its production capacity. Because of the conflict and lack of central government, the country is producing less than half a million barrels/day, when it should be capitalising on higher energy prices through increased production. International oil prices have skyrocketed since the start of the war in Ukraine, but Libya, despite its potential, has not benefited from this windfall.

The “Mustafeed” plan, if implemented, will not be anything but another form of “oil for food program”, since the country is still considered as a threat to international peace and security. Dozens of UN Security Council resolutions, since 2011, were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN designating Libya as security threat.

However, “Mustafeed” is very likely to be a difficult political sell for any politician who might be tempted to sign up to the idea. Despite everything that happened in the country, the majority of Libyans still reject foreign meddling in their affairs.

Foreign interference in Libya has been one of the triggers of the recent wave of public demonstrations that has been taking place across Libya over the last two weeks.

In a wider context, Ambassador Norland also linked “Mustafeed” to the White House initiative of conflict prevention and resolution unveiled by the Biden administration last April. In this case, taking control of Libya’s oil money will certainly limit the potential of waging war among different Libyan protagonists, but will not end the conflict while it will certainly eat away whatever sovereignty Libya has left.

As the political stalemate continues, similar ideas to “Mustafeed” are likely to become part of the debate about how to end the country’s political conflict which is poisoning every aspect of life, but fail to offer a solution.

*

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 MEMO

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 Canadian expert in messenger RNA (mRNA) was suspended for two months without pay for criticizing the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine for children.

Dr. Patrick Provost, microbiology and immunology professor at the Université Laval (ULaval) in Quebec province, was punished for remarks he made in front of a panel of doctors and scientists back in December 2021. He said that the risks of injecting children with an experimental gene-altering mRNA COVID shot outweigh the potential benefits.

His remarks were not without basis as he studies mRNA in his own laboratory as part of his position at the university.

“Being censored for doing what I’ve been trained to do – and hired to do – well, it’s hard to believe,” said Provost. “I had some concerns about something, [so] I searched the literature, I prepared a speech [and] delivered it to the public.

The professor only learned on June 14 that ULaval was suspending him for eight weeks without pay.

“We need to be allowed to question again,” Provost remarked. “We should be able to discuss any ideas [and] any opinions. Because I express opinions against the narrative of the government, I was suspended.”

Provost was not the only academic who was punished for standing up against COVID-19 vaccines for children. ULaval also suspended biology professor Nicolas Derome for bringing up his concerns about the shots back in November 2021.

Simon Viviers, vice president of ULaval’s faculty union, said a grievance against the “attack on academic freedom” had been filed. He added that the penalties on Provost and Derome will make other professors think twice about making public comments on certain issues.

“To allow [a university] to judge the validity of the comments made by a university professor in public and to sanction him in this manner is extremely problematic,” he commented. “It could really have a dissuasive effect [and] even lead to self-censorship.”

MSM takes down Provost’s article shortly after publishing it

Apart from his suspension from ULaval, Provost’s article titled “The true portrait of COVID-19 in Quebec” was removed by the mainstream media outlet that first published it.

The piece published on June 22 in Le Journal de Quebec debunked the mainstream COVID-19 narrative. Provost wrote that the COVID-19 death rate is “greatly overestimated” due to a number of factors, including an infection rate “several times higher than reported” and the inclusion of “deaths with, and not because of, COVID-19” in the tallies.

He went on to say that a higher rate of “all-cause” death amongst the elderly only took place during the first wave from April to June 2020, as well as shortly after the imposition of the holiday lockdown or curfew and the deployment of the third vaccine dose in January 2022.

While he did not associate the vaccines with higher death rates, he presented the data from around the world compiled by insurance companies showing an almost 40 percent spike of excess death-rate claims in largely vaccinated or boosted populations.

Provost asked: “Did the pandemic … justify imposing such severe and comprehensive health measures, rather than targeted ones, to circumscribe a threat that targeted a well-known category of people?”

Quebecor, the parent company of Le Journal de Quebec, took down the article – but independent media outlets such as Libre Media have republished it.

“You are condemned by the media, by the government, and you are chased and put down,” lamented Provost.

Visit MedicalCensorship.com for more stories about the silencing of doctors critical of COVID-19 vaccines.

Watch the video of a British TV executive revealing the MSM’s shocking censorship on “The HighWire.”

*

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 Chemical Violence