All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
After 15 years of Israel’s ruthless land, air and sea blockade of Gaza – which ensued the US failure to anticipate Hamas win in 2006 Palestine legislative election and brought forth America’s covert Middle East mission to buck up “putschist” Mohammed Dahlan destroy Hamas militarily – the Palestinian coastal enclave is still the major casualty of Israeli repression for they voted out Fatah against the will of Israel and the US.
Nearly 80% people of the besieged territory, according to the United Nations, are in dire need of humanitarian assistance as half of the 2 million population lives in poverty with 80% unemployed youth. The Save the Children paints a bleak picture of the children, four to five of whom are growing up in a climate of “depression, grief and fear.”
Over the last one and a half decade, children in the world’s largest open-air prison have endured five major escalations and the pandemic. While 800,000 children never knew life without blockade, economic deprivation and lack of access to essential services such as healthcare as well as an incessant threat to their lives are adding to the misery of the incarcerated Palestinian children and youngsters.
A symptom of trauma and abuse, temporary reactive mutism, in children is prevalent. Poor hygiene due to inadequate access to clean water and sanitation increases the risk of infection and antibiotic resistance in Gazans. The beleaguered Palestinians are scarily waiting for the apartheid state’s next power display on them to let international community pay another lip service to the Israeli tyranny before redeploying focus on Ukraine.
It was May 2021 when the oppressive Israeli forces launched its last major offensive on Gaza to petrify the orphans of its 51-day bombing campaign in 2014 – which killed more than 2,200 Palestinians including 500 children – and exterminated some 253 Palestinians in addition to completely erasing 1,800 houses. Air raids in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank is a quintessential pastime for the Israeli assailants as they continue hunting down Palestinians to quench their thirst with human blood.
The scale and magnitude of “sorrow and despair” the West feels for Gaza is far lesser than Ukraine because Palestine like Afghanistan and Iraq isn’t “civilized” and a majority of the Palestinians don’t have blonde hair or blue eyes. Unlike the Ukrainians whose video of Molotov cocktails was telecasted on the mainstream media to project their right of self-defense, Israel has the privilege to exercise the punitive expedition against Palestinians without stint.
Israel’s allies delegitimize Palestine’s Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and bill it as anti-Semitic. They, at the same time, support and bully nations to back the isolation campaign against Russia and exclusion of the Kremlin from international bodies and the world economy. This is a perfect illustration of blatant Western hypocrisy that is smitten with racist profile or white supremacy.
A new wave of normalization in the greater Middle East adds insult to Palestine injuries. Several Arab states have already established diplomatic relations under the Abraham Accords with Israel and others are lining up to follow the course. The European Union (EU)’s gas deal with Egypt and Israel during a regional summit in Cairo, aimed at punishing Russia’s economy, tells how the West manipulates between respect of human rights and international law and self-interests.
The EU embargo on Russian oil may cut “a huge source of financing for its war machine”; the tripartite treaty to buy natural gas, to be liquefied in Egyptian plants, from Israel provides transactional immunity to the Israeli jets, tanks and bulldozers to target the confined men, women and children in Gaza with high latitude and then make them starve to death by destroying their farmlands.
Another Palestine’s staunch ally, Turkey, is warming up toward Israel. After 15 years, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last month arrived in Israel to normalize ties and address disagreements. Earlier in March, Israeli President Isaac Herzog reached Ankara where Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan described his visit as a “turning point” and the country’s relationship with Israel “historic.”
Turkey insists its normalization will be antithetical to Gulf rapprochement with Israel, arguing it would augment Ankara’s role in a two-state solution. Yet the Turkish appeasing and submissive posture itself and craving for energy cooperation with Israel is akin to endorse Israeli crimes of apartheid and persecution, putting a big question mark over its commitment to the Palestinian cause.
In the 1990s after signing of the Oslo Accords – through which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) handed over 78% of the Palestinian land to Israel and gave legitimacy to the Jewish state – several Gulf states including Qatar, Bahrain and Oman established diplomatic connections with Israel even as the reconciliation disintegrated in 2000 as tension flared following the second intifada.
The Saudi Arabia’s proposed Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 implied normalization with establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, the plan de facto lent legitimacy to Israeli state. After Egypt and Jordan stepped back from the Khartoum Resolution to recognize Israel – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have forged diplomatic relations with Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intervention in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen to expand region-wide influence as well as tactic to use Palestine as leverage for negotiations with the US has deepened the prospect of any regional consensus on Palestine. Tehran has been selling its “resistance” narrative via its proxy Hezbollah while avoiding a direct conflict with Israel and playing the Palestine card to “garner popular support” in the wider Gulf.
Given there haven’t been any serious peace talks between Palestine and Israel for more than a decade and all countries compete with one another as to how best exploit the leverage over Palestine to its advantage, the Middle East’s promise to Palestine is almost dead. The PLO retraction from historical position gave a walkover to Israel and the ongoing covert and overt connections between Arab states and Israel, spurred by Iran’s pursuit of the regional dominance, alas, will be the last nail in the coffin of the Palestinian independence.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Azhar Azam is a private professional and writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Britain’s military knew that fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist organisation were benefiting from the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011, but continued to support Nato airstrikes in Libya for another two months.
The revelation raises serious questions about British foreign policy and whether the UK’s then prime minister David Cameron misled parliament.
In early September 2011, Cameron updated the House of Commons about the situation in Libya, telling MPs:
“This revolution was not about extreme Islamism; al-Qaeda played no part in it.”
However, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had assessed the month before that:
“The 17 February Brigade is likely to be an enduring player in [the] transition” away from Gaddafi’s regime and had “political linkages” to Libya’s rebel leadership, the National Transitional Council.
The 17 February Brigade, also known as the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, was a hardline Islamist militia named after the date the uprising began against Gaddafi. Its ranks included Salman Abedi, who went on to murder 22 innocent people in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017.
The MOD assessment said,
“Many 17th February Brigade fighters have affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups, such as the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change (formerly LIFG).”
The LIFG, or Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, was banned by Britain in 2005 as a terrorist organisation over its links to Al Qaeda. Its supporters included the Manchester bomber’s father, Ramadan Abedi. The organisation rebranded to the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change during the 2011 war.
Although the LIFG’s leadership renounced ties to Al Qaeda as part of a prisoner release deal it made with Gaddafi shortly before the 2011 uprising, many of its members continued to hold violent Islamist views. It was not until 2019 that the ban was lifted on the LIFG in the UK.
Misleading parliament?
The MOD has only released a portion of its assessment to Declassified following a freedom of information request. It is not clear whether the intelligence was shared at the time with ministers.
Dr Liam Fox, who was defence secretary during the war, told parliament’s foreign affairs committee in 2016:
“I do not recall reading any reports that set out the background of any Islamist activity to specific rebel groups.”
Fox was responding to a question from the committee about whether he was aware that members of the LIFG were participating in the rebellion.
Lord William Hague, who was foreign secretary, told the committee:
“Libyan leaders themselves did not have a deeper understanding of what was happening in their own country” and so “it is probably wrong to expect somebody sitting in the backrooms of the Foreign Office or Vauxhall Cross [MI6 headquarters] to know better than they did.”
General Sir David Richards, Britain’s top military officer during the intervention, said Whitehall’s knowledge about the extent of LIFG involvement in the rebellion “was a grey area”. He told the committee “in a perfect world, we would have known it all” and that “we were suspicious and beginning to build up our understanding during the campaign”.
Richards had argued internally for pauses during the bombing campaign to allow for negotiations, but Cameron overruled him.
The former defence chief told Declassified he was concerned that this particular assessment was not shown to him at the time.
“Given my well known hostility to regime change in Libya, I am certain that my outer office staff would have brought this to my attention if they had seen it,” Richards commented.
“I suspect it remained within Defence Intelligence as one of many sometimes contradictory reports. The report’s importance was also probably not properly understood at the time.”
Defence Intelligence is a branch of the MOD that gathers and analyses information relevant to conflicts.
Failed state
The MOD assessment was compiled sometime in August 2011, when rebels led by former LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj captured Libya’s capital Tripoli. That operation relied heavily on Nato air power and planning.
Ian Martin, the UN’s top official in Libya at the time, has said British attack helicopters were “pivotal…in supporting the final assault on Tripoli”, and that UK special forces accompanied and advised a rebel commander throughout the advance.
Although Nato’s UN mandate allowed it only to protect civilians, the alliance continued attacking Gaddafi’s forces until the end of October 2011, two months after the fall of Tripoli. Gaddafi was lynched by rebels in his hometown of Sirte on 20 October.
By destroying Libyan government forces, rather than seek a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, as the African Union proposed, Nato helped create a power vacuum in the country.
Elections were held in 2012, at which Islamists failed to win a majority and instead used their militias to maintain political influence. Libya then descended into a failed state, as rival militias vied for control.
The chaos created a safe haven for international terrorism, with Al Qaeda’s Libyan branch Ansar al Sharia and the so-called Islamic State group setting up camps in the country.
Among those fighting with Ansar al Sharia in 2011-12 was Khairi Saadallah, a child soldier who several years later went on to murder three men in a park in Reading. Attacks on Western tourists in Tunisia in 2015, that killed 60 people, were also linked to a terrorist base in Libya.
More than a decade after Nato’s intervention, Libya is split between rival governments and run by militias. A recent survey by The Economist found that Tripoli was one of the worst capital cities in the world to live in.
An MOD spokesperson told Declassified:
“Throughout 2011, the UK Government was responding to a rapidly changing and volatile situation in Libya and sought to make timely decisions to protect Libyan civilians and UK national security. All UK military action was taken in accordance with the United Nations mandate to protect civilians.
“Assessments of the different actors in Libya in 2011 were produced as standard by the MoD. These were routinely made available to ministers and senior officials.”
David Cameron, Liam Fox, William Hague and former home secretary Theresa May did not respond to requests for comment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Phil Miller is Declassified UK’s chief reporter. He is the author of Keenie Meenie: The British Mercenaries Who Got Away With War Crimes. Follow him on Twitter at @pmillerinfo
Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
From the onset of the pandemic, social media giants, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, have flagged COVID-related posts the social media giants deem “false or misleading.”
That’s not news — most social media users are aware of the practice, especially amid recent headlines citing increased pressure from Congress and the White House to aggressively crack down on “vaccine misinformation.”
But here’s a less-publicized fact some social media users — and consumers of online news — may not know: Reuters, owned by the $40 billion international multimedia company, Thomson Reuters Corporation, is also in the business of “fact checking” social media posts.
Reuters publishes its fact-checking commentary online in a format designed to resemble new stories, which turn up in online searches.
Last week, Reuters announced a new collaboration with Twitter to “more quickly provide credible information on the social networking site as part of an effort to fight the spread of misinformation.”
In February, Reuters announced a similar partnership with Facebook to “fact check” social media posts.
However, when announcing its fact-checking partnerships with Facebook and Twitter, Reuters made no mention of this fact: The news organization has ties to Pfizer, World Economic Forum (WEF) and Trusted News Initiative (TNI), an industry collaboration of major news and global tech organizations whose stated mission is to “combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation.”
Reuters also failed to provide any criteria for how information would be defined as “misinformation” and did not disclose the qualifications of the people responsible for determining fact versus false or misleading “misinformation.”
Physician kicked off LinkedIn for calling out Reuters’ ties to TNI, Pfizer, WEF
Dr. Robert Malone, a physician and inventor of mRNA vaccines and RNA drugs, said he thinks anyone reading Reuters “fact check” articles about COVID-related content should know about, as Malone says, the obvious conflicts of interest.
regarding the “Trusted News Initiative” and censorship of information regarding COVID vaccine safety, please be aware of the link between Pfizer and Reuters. I would call that a journalistic conflict of interest. What do you think? pic.twitter.com/qQCysxnPX6
Twitter didn’t censor or remove the post. But when Malone posted the same information on LinkedIn, he was banned from the platform the next day for violating LinkedIn’s “User Agreement and Professional Community Policies against sharing content that contains misleading or inaccurate information.”
LinkedIn was purchased in 2016 for $26.2 billion by Microsoft, when the company’s co-founder Bill Gates was still at the helm. Microsoft’s COO and corporate vice president, Kirk Koenigsbauer, also serves on the board of Thomson Reuters.
Gates, who is set to profit substantially from COVID vaccine sales, still owns stock in Microsoft — about $5.1 billion, according to recent estimates. In March, Gates stepped down from Microsoft’s board, but he continues to serve as technology adviser to the tech firm’s CEO, Satya Nadella.
Malone’s LinkedIn profile was eventually restored, but only after a series of emails, initiated by Malone, between him and LinkedIn executives.
In an interview last week with The Defender, Malone discussed his Twitter and LinkedIn posts — why he made them, the reactions they elicited and why it matters that Reuters is partnering with social media companies to call out what its fact-checkers decide is “misinformation.”
Malone’s Twitter and LinkedIn posts focused on TNI and its ties to Pfizer and Reuters. In the posts, he asked his followers if they thought the fact that TNI was censoring information on COVID vaccine safety — given TNI’s ties to Pfizer and Reuters — constituted a “journalistic conflict of interest.”
“I was a little bit tongue and cheek with the question,” Malone said. “But if you go back to the LinkedIn post, there were a huge number of responses to it where people were unanimously saying this is absolutely a conflict of interest.”
Malone explained:
“What we have here is this horizontal integration across pharma, big tech, big media, government and traditional media. It’s not just the Trusted News Initiative. It goes beyond. The same thing is true with Merck and all the others. Pfizer is really playing quite aggressively here.”
In addition to the conflicts of interest Malone identified in his Twitter and LinkedIn posts, Malone said it’s the lack of transparency — whether on the part of Reuters, Facebook or TNI — around who defines “misinformation,” based on what criteria, that is concerning to him.
Malone told The Defender, based on his research, most fact checkers don’t have a background in science or health. Yet even without such qualifications, and without working off of a transparent definition of “misinformation,” fact checkers are able to shut down online communication between scientists and physicians by flagging or deleting posts.
Overwhelming pressure from governments and the public has compelled social media platforms to take unprecedented action on what users share online in the pandemic. But who fact checks the fact checkers? #TheDefenderhttps://t.co/AMiP3PQMGI
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 28, 2021
Worse yet, Malone said, if the fact-checkers label posts by a physician, like himself, as “disinformation,” the fact-checker’s claim potentially could be used as a justification for revoking a physician’s license.
“How is this in the public’s best interest?” Malone asked.
Reuters, the Trusted News Initiative and their social media partners
In December 2020, TNI said in a press release it was expanding its focus to combat the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and conspiracy theories as public confidence in vaccines was crucial to the vaccines’ adoption and success.
According to the BBC, TNI’s other partners include Google/YouTube, Facebook, Microsoft, The Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos), Twitter, BBC, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union, Financial Times, First Draft and The Hindu.
The December 2020 TNI press release stated:
“With the introduction of several possible new COVID-19 vaccines, there has been a rise of ‘anti-vaccine’ disinformation spreading online to millions of people.
“Examples include widely shared memes which link falsehoods about vaccines to freedom and individual liberties. Other posts seek to downplay the risks of coronavirus and suggest there is an ulterior motive behind the development of a vaccine.
“TNI partners will alert each other to disinformation which poses an immediate threat to life so content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly republish dangerous falsehoods.”
Although the TNI press release did offer what it called examples of “anti-vaccine disinformation,” it did not provide a comprehensive list of criteria for how it would define misinformation.
The press release did state this: “ … it is vital that audiences know they can turn to sources they trust for accurate, impartial information” — without disclosing that a member of Pfizer’s board, Jim Smith, is also chairman of Thomson Reuters Foundation, a TNI member.
According to Pfizer’s website, Smith is a member of the board’s audit committee and chair of the compensation committee, which among other responsibilities, establishes annual and long-term performance goals and objectives for Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and determines compensation for Bourla and the executive leadership team.
But Smith also serves as chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, which describes itself as “the corporate foundation of Thomson Reuters, the global news and information services company.”
The foundation says its mission is “to advance media freedom, foster more inclusive economies and promote human rights.”
According to its website, the foundation supports “local media to produce accurate, impartial and reliable journalism that bolsters government and business accountability and ensures public access to information.”
The foundation says it also trains “reporters around the world, promoting integrity, independence and freedom from bias in news reporting.”
But as Malone pointed out, Reuter’s fact-checking initiative regularly “fact-checks” content pertaining to COVID vaccines — including Pfizer’s vaccine — even though Smith sits on Pfizer’s board while also serving as chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Connecting the dots between Pfizer, Reuters and the WEF
According to its website, the Switzerland-based nonprofit is “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” The WEF website also states it “is independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests.”
In October 2019, WEF held a high-level pandemic live simulation exercise (Event 201) in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, using a “novel coronavirus” to “prepare public and private leaders for pandemic response.”
The WEF — and its partners — are part of a global agenda called “The Great Reset” that used the COVID pandemic to call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of the global population’s way of life.
Promoters of The Great Reset frame the plan as “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism,” but critics of the plan say it seeks to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance, is opposed to capitalism and free enterprise, and wants to replace free society with technocracy.
WEF also partners with TPG, a leading global investment firm; Neilson, an information, data and measurement firm; McKinsey and Company, a partner of the global, information and technology practice; and the Blackstone Group.
Thomson Reuters’ current president, CEO and director, Steve Hasker, served as senior adviser to TPG Capital; CEO of CAA Global, a TPG Capital portfolio company; global president and CEO of Nielsen; and spent more than a decade with McKinsey.
On June 14, the Thomson Reuters Foundation appointed Yasir Khan as editor-in-chief to lead its team of reporters and oversee the digital transformation of its news offering. In a press release, the foundation said it expanded its news and digital team with funding from the Skoll Foundation— also a member of WEF.
In 2018, Reuters announced a strategic partnership with Blackstone. As part of the transaction, Thomson Reuters sold a 55% majority stake in its financial and risk business — one of the world’s largest providers of financial markets data and infrastructure — to private equity funds managed by Blackstone, valuing the business at $20 billion.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.
Comments Off on Conflict of Interest: Reuters ‘Fact Checks’ COVID-Related Social Media Posts, But Fails to Disclose Ties to Pfizer, World Economic Forum
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Several protesters have clashed with Ottawa police on the eve of Canada Day right in front of the National War Memorial. At least three have been arrested.
BREAKING: We have exclusive footage of Trudeau's officers taking down protesters, picking them off one by one, and violently assaulting them. Trudeau is ruthless, and he is out for blood. pic.twitter.com/ttFHkt9QcP
Video captured by Andy Lee shows one man attempting to get away from officers being wrestled to the ground by three who then proceeded to slam his head into the stone sidewalk, with one officer ramming his knee into the back of the protester’s neck and shoulder. A fourth officer arrives and restrains the man’s legs as he begins to scream. and writhes in pain.
After being restrained, the man can be heard breathlessly pleading, “Tell me what to do. I want to cooperate.”
In another brawl, two officers can be seen taking another man down as a friend attempts to free him. Additional officers arrive as reinforcements and push him away. In the distance, a third man is arrested.
Several more police officers arrive and begin sectioning off the area.
In a different video, the man who’d screamed in pain while being arrested can be seen being escorted into a police cruiser.
Three people were arrested and just taken away from the War Memorial by police. I couldn’t see what happened that led to the arrested but a good twenty cops bolted forward to arrest these three people #cdnpolipic.twitter.com/lUYcuTGOpV
It is still unclear what brought about the ordeal or whether protesters or police were the first to get physical.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
As proxy conflicts around the world rage on, America is poised to continue proliferating further instability across the globe, particularly in the vicinity of near-peer adversaries, Russia and China, neither of which want escalation, as they need peace and stability to fulfill their development goals. Washington DC (and lately Brussels as well) is determined to prevent that and force the (Eur)Asian giants to bleed cash and resources on new weapons, which in turn helps drive demand from America’s massive Military-Industrial Complex.
In the last 30+ years, the imperialist thalassocracy has tried to redefine its role, going from a self-styled “sole superpower” and “global policeman” to an increasingly isolated great power in decline, losing wars to AK-wielding insurgents in sandals. A string of military failures forced America to rethink its policy of “strategic containment”. Unwilling (or unable) to directly engage even smaller regional powers, the US has relegated most of its interventionist policies to numerous client states, whose sole purpose is to harass US rivals, be it China, Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. America’s role is to provide weapons, logistics, critical information, particularly its extensive ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities, etc.
The vassals are to do all the dirty work, including getting killed or maimed for the imperial metropole. To do this more effectively, they need weapons. One such client entity is Taiwan, China’s breakaway island in the increasingly contested Asia-Pacific region.
In recent years, Taipei has been forced to play a sort of (geo)political zigzag game, where the US would promise to supply weapons, mostly outdated, despite the island’s requests for modern systems, and then either reduce the order or outright cancel it. While America is trying to portray this as an attempt to “reduce the risk of escalation”, the excuse can only be described as comically disingenuous. If the US really wanted to avoid escalation, it would’ve never promised any arms shipments in the first place. The more practical reason is America’s wish to enrich its Military-Industrial Complex while getting rid of rusty tanks, howitzers, jets, etc.
Taiwan expressed interest in the MH-60R “Seahawk”, an anti-submarine version of the “Blackhawk” helicopter. However, the US refused, claiming they are “too expensive” and “fine for peacetime operations, but would not survive an all-out assault from the mainland”. Instead, Taipei is being told to “learn from Ukraine and invest in smaller, mobile systems such as drone swarms, ‘Stinger’ and ‘Javelin’ missiles, which are less vulnerable to China’s advanced weapons”. Taipei officials regularly express frustration due to delays and cancelations of US weapons deliveries. M109A6 “Paladin” self-propelled howitzers and FIM-92 “Stinger” MANPADS orders are being held up “due to a crowded production line”, as the US is now trying to arm both the Kiev and Taipei regimes.
Reportedly, Washington DC is urging Taiwan to invest in “more cost-efficient capabilities” such as “command and control systems, ISR, air defenses, and naval sea mines”. America also suggested the M142 HIMARS MLRS for “a similar capability with a faster delivery schedule”. The US insists Taiwan needs “more asymmetrical capabilities”.
“These are not regular times. If you’re going to spend money, it should be on naval sea mines and anti-ship missiles. These are the kinds of things that we have indicated to industry and to Taiwan. President Tsai gets it,” an unnamed US official told Politico.
The US is telling Taiwan to “watch the war in Ukraine closely”, claiming “many civilians in Taiwan are expressing a greater desire to learn how they can play a role in defending their island and resisting Chinese forces, but it’s not yet clear how far the Taiwanese military will go to help prepare the civilian population.” Such statements clearly show America wants to galvanize civilians in vassal entities to wage wars against its rivals, regardless of the consequences, as Taiwan obviously cannot hope to win against China’s vastly superior forces.
Another strategic hurdle is the looming uncertainty of what the US is capable and willing to do to assist Taiwan in case of a conflict. Unlike Ukraine, which has an extensive land border with NATO, Taiwan is far away, making it incomparably more difficult to supply its forces or even provide ISR capabilities on a scale similar to Ukraine. Additionally, the US claims a Chinese naval blockade is also a possibility. Even if it had any forces in the vicinity in such a scenario, America wouldn’t be able to break through without starting a war with nuclear-armed China. It’s quite unclear how the US would explain to its population they should risk a world-ending conflict with China just so it could keep controlling a Chinese breakaway island 11,000 from America’s shores.
“We’re going to have a lot of challenges if China decides to blockade the island,” the US official said. “People have to start thinking hard… …The trickiest part may be figuring out how to help Taiwan prepare without leaving Beijing feeling as if it must react. We could provoke the attack that we’re seeking to deter,” he concluded.
Such schizophrenic statements clearly indicate that the US foreign policy is a runaway train which nobody in the imperialist thalassocracy’s establishment is trying to stop. On the contrary, it seems whoever is at the helm is speeding up. This is also a clear message to populations in America’s satellite states – “Be ready to die fighting when we decide to sacrifice you for ‘freedom and democracy’, ‘rules-based international order’ and ‘the greater good.'”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta described Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s plan to grant Jeanine Áñez political asylum as “absolutely impudent” and “inappropriate interference in internal affairs”
The government of Bolivian President Luis Arce on Tuesday, June 28, rejected the recent statements made by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wherein he claimed that former de-facto Bolivian President Jeanine Áñez was innocent and offered her political asylum. The Bolivian government described Bolsonaro’s statements as “absolutely impudent” and “inappropriate interference in internal affairs.”
Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta held a press conference in capital La Paz to respond to the Brazilian President and clarified that Bolivia would never allow interference in the decisions that sovereignly relate to its justice system.
“We regret the unfortunate statements by the President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, which are absolutely impertinent, constitute an inappropriate interference in internal affairs, do not respect the forms of relations between States, and do not coincide with the good neighbor relations and mutual respect between Brazil and Bolivia. Under no circumstances we will accept interference in decisions that sovereignly correspond to the Bolivian justice system and the constitutionality of the Plurinational State of Bolivia,” said Mayta.
Mayta, who is also a human rights lawyer, recalled that Áñez is being prosecuted by the Bolivian Justice for “various criminal charges, including having committed serious human rights violations according to the investigation carried out by the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts sent by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).”
He also reiterated that in the first days of Áñez’s rule, she passed a decree (4078) that exempted police and military officials participating in repression operations against protesters on the streets against the coup from criminal responsibility, which subsequently resulted in the massacre of 11 peaceful protesters in Sacaba city on November 15, 2019, and of 11 people in Senkata on November 19, 2019 by security officials, in addition to injuring hundreds of protesters.
Mayta stressed that the deaths and grave human rights violations that occurred in November 2019 “deserve justice” and “for that, the necessary processes must be developed.” He added that the Bolivian state has the “obligation” to carry out the necessary judicial processes to provide justice to the victims of that period, which has also been recommended by various international human rights organizations.
The Foreign Minister stated that “even thinking of a situation in which Áñez could evade justice is inadmissible. Impunity is inadmissible.” He also indicated that the government is working on a “diplomatic espousal” in response to Bolsonaro’s statements.
“La impunidad es inadmisible, ratificamos el compromiso de #Bolivia para lograr el respeto de los #DDHH que fueron transgredidos en esos lamentables días del 2019, tal cual han expresado las recomendaciones del #GIEIBolivia de la #CIDH“, manifestó el canciller @RogelioMayta_Bo. pic.twitter.com/VArV7ZRKLb
— Cancillería de Bolivia (@MRE_Bolivia) June 28, 2022
What did Bolsonaro say?
In an interview with the online program “4 x 4” on Sunday, June 26, Bolsonaro announced that he would offer political asylum to Áñez, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison earlier this month for illegally assuming the presidency in November 2019 following a right-wing civic-military coup that overthrew democratically elected socialist President Evo Morales.
Bolsonaro described Áñez’s detention and the judicial conviction against her as “unfair”, and said that “Brazil is putting into practice the issue of international relations, human rights, to see if it can bring Jeanine Áñez and offer her asylum in Brazil. It is unfair to the woman imprisoned in Bolivia.”
“We are gradually seeing how the whole plan of a coup is becoming much more visible. We were aware that this plan was not only an internal plan, but also an external one,” said Freddy Mamani, the president of the Chamber of Deputies.
Meanwhile, Senator Luis Adolfo Flores rejected Bolsonaro “openly interfering in decisions of independent bodies in Bolivia” and questioned his offer, stating that it went against international regulations for granting political asylum.
“According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), political asylum is only granted to an exiled person or who has fled their country for political reasons. Jeanine Áñez is not contemplated in any of those conditions,” said Flores.
Flores also pointed out that Bolsonaro’s recent confirmation that he had met Áñez in person and her denial of meeting him personally was another evidence of Brazil’s complicity in the coup.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta at a press conference on June 28 rejected Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s statements. (Photo: Josue Cortez/Agencia Boliviana de Información)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Many may have heard of the name Calixa Lavallée as the composer of the song “Ô Canada” which officially became the Canadian National anthem one hundred years after it was first produced in 1880.
Many know of the name Marquis de Lafayette as the young French nobleman, who changed the course of the American Revolution and devoted his life to the creation of republican institutions both in America and around the globe.
However, few people know that Canada’s Calixa Lavallée (1842-1891), whose life was cut short at the age of 48 was known across America as the “Lafayette of American music”.
Recruited from his home in Saint-Hyacinthe to the elite of the cultural music scene by the Institut Canadien which spread beach heads across all of Quebec throughout the mid-19thcentury Calixa soon found himself working in Montreal and studying under the mentorship of the great French composer Charles Wugk Sabatier who composed the famous patriotic song “Le Drapeau de Carillon”. In order to earn a living, Calixa began touring America as a director and performer of minstrel shows just as the first shots on Fort Sumter ushered in the Civil War in April of 1861.
The Civil War Veteran Fights Two Confederacies (south and north)
A devoted republican inspired by the traditions of Louis-Joseph Papineau, leader of the failed Lower Canada Rebellions against the British in 1837-1838, Calixa was quick to join the Union Army in the 4th Rhode Island regiment fighting in one of the bloodiest Civil War battles of Antietam in Maryland in September 1862 where his wounds ended his time in the military.
Papineau had himself created the Institut Canadien in 1844 in order to provide an aesthetical and scientific education to the masses of the Quebec population who did not have the adequate cultural development to properly undertake a complex revolution as he had dreamed years earlier. Papineau’s nephew Louis-Antoine Dessaulles was the President of the Montreal branch of the Institut Canadien and former seigneur and mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe who knew Lavallée’s family well and likely played a role in the early part of the young man’s career.
Struck with the realization that Lincoln’s victory would finally create international conditions favourable to Canada’s liberation from the British Empire, Lavallée returned home to Montreal in 1863 in order to help guide the young nation towards becoming a republic free of hereditary institutions.
Lavallée quickly found himself allied with a powerful network of young nationalists then dubbed “Les Rouges” led by L.-O. David, Médéric Lanctôt (his childhood friend and founder of La Presse), and a young lawyer named Wilfrid Laurier (later to become Prime Minister of Canada from 1896-1911). These republican networks quickly set up a newspaper known as L’Union national which was devoted to overthrowing a London-steered plot to create a British confederate beachhead in the Americas after it had become apparent that London’s “other” confederate operation in the slave owning south was about to fail. That plot came to be called the “British North America Act” and was first drafted after a booze-drenched conference in Charlottetown Nova Scotia in September 1864.
Before it was ratified in London on July 1 1867, Lavallée’s entourage led a two-fold combat against this anti-republican program which they saw as a perversion of human nature (as it embedded hereditary rights and powers into the very constitution of the new nation).
The Union National and La Presse newspapers run by Lavallée’s friends held a clearly defined position that the only two acceptable pathways to the future for Lower Canada was 1) Full independence from the British Empire or 2) Annexation to Lincoln’s America.
All members of this group recognized the dangerous fallacy of composition that would be unleashed should a nation be created on British Imperial foundations and administered by Privy Council networks loyal to a hereditary power structure.
The Battle Against the Ultramontane Church
While polemicizing against Confederation, the L’Union national newspaper and the Institut Canadien de Montéal conducted a second line of battle by advocating a separation of Church and State. This put them into conflict with the Ultramontane Church whose tyrannical leadership under Montreal’s Bishop Bourget demanded that the population of Quebec show their faith to God by remaining as ignorant as Adam and Eve were before spoiling their morality by eating from the tree of knowledge. It was this commitment to keeping the population in a peasant dream state that the corrupt church then found itself so closely aligned with the highest echelons of the British Empire.
When Bishop Bourget excommunicated Joseph Guibord due to his membership in the Institute canadien, as punishment for the institut’s refusal to ban books from the library which were placed on the Church’s black list, many supporters quickly abandoned the fight out of fear and the Institut canadien began crumbling.
The L’Union national newspaper collapsed when the British North America Act passed into law in 1867 whereby the paper lost its raison d’etre.
In spite of these setbacks, the fight was not over for Calixa.
Taking Lazard Carnot’s famous statement seriously that “it is better to have republicans without a republic than a republic without republicans”, and recognizing that the conditions for republicanism was the moral, and intellectual cultivation of the personality in alignment with the ideals of Benjamin Franklin and Friedrich Schiller, Lavallée devoted the remainder of his life to creating durable cultural institutions that could organize, develop and deploy the creative powers of the population so that future generations could succeed where his generation failed.
To undertake this task, Calixa had recognized that he must first cultivate his own artistic powers to a much higher degree. After working as an exile in America for several years becoming the superintendent of the Grand Opera of New York (as an appointee of his friend and soon-to-be assassinated musical patron Jim Fisk in 1872), Lavallée briefly returned back to Montreal bursting with passion to create a conservatory of Quebec and a durable classical musical culture capable of producing native geniuses, and Canadian compositions.
Studying in France from 1873-1875 under the tutelage of the great pedagogue François Marmontel, Lavallée’s powers of performance and composition grew to new heights and several original works were produced including the Papillon, Souvenirs de Tolède, La Grande Marche and the Fatherland Overture.
The Fight for a Canadian Conservatory
Having returned to Montreal in 1875 Calixa gave everything to his mission and made alliances with every person of influence he could come into contact with in order to gain support for his Canadian Conservatory. To pay his bills, he tutored prolifically, arranged countless concerts – often with the Montreal-based Mechanics Institute and worked as organist in many churches across Quebec. In one instance, the new ultramontane Bishop of Montreal Édouard-Charles Fabre passed a decree banning mixed choruses in all diocese churches causing Lavallée to resign, taking the Saint-Jacques Church choir with him.
In response to this attack on culture, Lavallée decided to fight back by organizing his choir to perform Gounod’s Jeanne d’Arc. Jeanne was recognized as a Promethean symbol of republicanism across the world and a figure who saved her nation in a time when all hope for freedom was lost. For this, d’Arc was burned at the stake by an unholy alliance between the Catholic Church and the British Aristocracy who ran a mock trial declaring her to be an agent of the devil.
In the wake of the electric success of the performances of Jeanne d’Arc, Lavallée became president of the prestigious Académie de Musique de Québec (AMQ). The AMQ was founded in 1868 as an instrument to administer musical examinations and conduct talent searches as part of the drive to create a national musical culture. Once made President in June 1876, Lavallée devoted his every free moment to the AMQ. After a successful 1877 session of the AMQ music competition which included performances of the greatest young talents from around Québec, an article published in Le National and attributed to Lavallée read: “Yesterday’s results have clearly shown us that there could be a music school just as there is one for the fine arts and that this school should be funded in a manner that best encourages the continuation of work and the spread of this the most noble and beautiful art, the one that best raises the soul toward its creator.”
Sadly by June 19, 1878 Lavallée was saddened to receive news that his petition to create a conservatory submitted a year earlier had crept through the bureaucracy and became a Bill only to be struck down on procedural grounds. The Québec-city newspaperL’Événement reported on this short-sighted decision saying: “Analyzing the public feeling regarding serious musical institutions, one soon discovers a profound ignorance of the importance of music, of the necessity of institutions organized appropriately in its interest and of its potential as the co-efficient of a superior civilization. This ignorance is found to some extent everywhere, among the governed and the governors, but is most serious among the governors.”
A Change of Strategy
At this point, Lavallée changed his strategy to focus on the failure of the governors. Rather than focus all of his attention to “bottom up” organizing of the population while hoping the elite would respond to the call of the times, Calixa moved to Québec City in 1878 in order to be closer to the Assemblée nationale and the political class whose favor he needed for his plan to succeed. Establishing himself in Quebec City, Lavallée quickly became a founding member of an interesting republican group of artists, poets, musicians and statesmen called “Le Club des 21” (whose name was derived by the 21 member limit). The group’s president was the diplomat musician José Antonio De Lavalle Romero-Montezumaa (aka: the Count of Premio-Real) who served as the Spanish Consul to Quebec.
Calixa worked hard to procure favor and friendship wherever it could be found, devoting an enormous amount of energy to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec and the Governor General the Marquis of Lornes (John Douglas Campbell) who had been appointed to represent the Crown as the new head of state of Canada that year. Many of his compositions featured dedications to members of the Anglo-Canadian elite during this time, which Lavallée has been heavily criticized for over the years. However it is only by understanding his strategic plan to by-pass the bureaucratic channels of government that we can appreciate what he was doing.
Lavallée produced a spectacular cantata for the new Governor General in 1878 and performed a selection of it in Ottawa’s Rideau Hall where it was warmly received by the Marquis and his wife who befriended Calixa, talking with him throughout the night.
When the Marquis finally came to Québec City in June 1879, Lavallée gave the full performance of the Cantata for the first time featuring 150 singers and 60 instrumentalists. Never one to break from his republican passions, the poetry selected for the cantata included a military chorus celebrating the French victory over the English. The translated text is worth citing here:
First Soldier
The drum beats, the bugle rings,
Here, the call of the regiment;
On the ramparts the cannon thunders
Let’s go, companions, forward!
Second Soldier
Let us leave, let us show our banners,
Oriflammes, floats on the wind!
And you, old flag of our fathers,
Unfold your triumphant pleats
Chorus
Ring, battle bugles
Cannons, thunder towards the skies!
Awaken from our walls
The glorious echoes of the past!
And, you magnanimous warriors
That sleep beneath laurels,
Rise, sublime heroes,
Show your proud foreheads!
To the walls of the cathedral
Unhook the white flag;
In the triumphant march
Come to take your rank!
Finale
O days of glorious combat
Where rang the warlike horn!
O all of you, brave soldiers
That sleep under the same rock!
Sun that formerly illuminated
So of great battles
Night discreetly reveals
So many bloody funerals!
The blood everywhere is obliterated:
Gather together our glory,
From great names of our past
Let us sing together our history!
The lyrics were so scandalous that it was decided to not publish the lyrics at the event.
While the Marquis did not indicate any open displeasure towards Calixa, neither he nor any of the elites whom Calixa attempted to win over to the cause supported the conservatory project. Although a hope briefly arose in October 1879, when Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau (a member of Calixa’s Club de 21) became premier of Quebec, it was soon squashed as Chapleau made no moves in support of his friend.
O Canada is Born
By June 1880, the Congrès Catholique Canadiens-français had commissioned Lavallée to compose a national song for Canada. Although many English speakers considered “God Save the Queen” and “the Maple Leaf Forever” as unofficial anthems, these were not pieces that the French could relate to and something more universal was required. Calixa went straight to work.
Working alongside conservative judge and poet A.B. Routhier who authored the original words to the anthem, Lavallée had requested that the poet wait until the music was first composed before choosing the lyrics. As Lavallée had recently conducted a series of performances of works by Mozart such the Twelfth Mass and operas by Verdi, and Rossini, the Magic Flute (the famous “masonic” opera) was likely fresh in his mind when he composed the music to what became known as “Ô Canada”.
Upon listening to the first two measures of Act two (the March of the Priests), the borrowed melody is striking and leaves very little doubt that Mozart was the inspiration for the anthem.
The fact that the ceremony at which the anthem was scheduled to be performed was to follow a Mass given by the ultramontane Archbishop of Quebec accompanied by 500 priests may have been tied to Lavallée’s choice of Mozart’s march of the priests under the leadership of Zarastro as his inspiration.
When one realizes that the priests in Mozart’s opera called for an obedience to a Natural Law that rises above man’s religions, it becomes no surprise that Lavallée’s composition was pulled from its scheduled debut that day. Whatever the case, it was performed to a smaller audience at a national banquet that evening and once more in the morning to very positive effect. In spite of its positive reception, no signs emerged that his dream of a conservatory had come any closer to reality.
In the following weeks, Lavallée received an opportunity to plant his dream in more fertile soil as an invitation to leave Canada for the USA arose. This was an opportunity he did not pass up and in the heat of the night, without any fanfare, Lavallée departed for America.
In Hartford Connecticut, Lavallée wrote to a friend in Quebec describing the spread of slander and gossip against the composer: “When one returns here, one realizes the insignificance of the ideas of our poor country… I have complete confidence in this trip as well as in others, and besides, an artist is not meant to rot in an obscure place and especially in an even more obscure country.”[1]
Lavallée’s friend could see that the composer was frustrated and exhausted after five years of efforts to create a conservatory had found no support. He made an appeal to the Quebec government knowing that it was likely that Lavallée would not return if nothing were done: “In the aftermath of Mr. Lavallée’s wonderful results, the government that has already generously assisted in the organization of this lovely musical event must also help such a talent to develop and produce other works that will contribute to the artistic progress and glory of Canada. We only need to found a music conservatory where our talented young people- which we certainly do not lack- may take shape, and place at the head of that institution a man of unparalleled calibre such as Mr. Lavallée.”[2]
As those wise words fell on deaf ears, Calixa decided to settle roots in America, and establishing himself in Massachusetts. It was here that he chose to devote all of his energy to create an American Conservatory where the Canadian Conservatory project failed. In his new republican home, his efforts would prove infinitely more successful.
The Lafayette of American Music
After composing his first opera, The Widow, to great success, Calixa attempted a second, more radical intervention into the American culture with a satirical comic opera called The Indian Question Settled At Last which featured the real life events surrounding Indian Chief Sitting Bull as a Zorastro-like wise figure who guided foolish soldiers, missionaries and natives into a state of wisdom by encouraging everyone to part with their prejudices and awaken love for each other with various natives and whites falling in love and living in harmony. This second play was deemed too controversial for the stage and it was never performed whereby Calixa decided to leave operas behind him and focus on a new pathway which brought him into contact with the Music Teachers National Association(MTNA) in Rhode Island in 1883.
By the end of this 1883 meeting Calixa recommended to the MTNA President E.M.B. Bowman, the unthinkable idea of organizing a concert made up of American composers the following year. Lavallée’s biographer Christopher Thompson wrote that “it seems that playing a program of music composed by one’s U.S. contemporaries was something no one had considered doing.”
The following year, the fruits of Lavallée’s efforts paid off as a 100% American repertoire was performed for the first time in history on July 3, 1884 at Case Hall in Cleveland, Ohio.In the wake of the incredible success of this concert, a letter to the Senate and House of Representatives by MTNA members led to the passage of the first copyright legislation for music into law. In gratitude for initiating this bold new movement, Calixa was named Vice President of the MTNA. Reporting on the concert, Folio magazine stated that Lavallée’s concert had inaugurated “a new departure in the musical history of the country”.
On July 4 1884, the MTNA announced the creation of the American College of Musicians (ACM) with the goal of examining music teachers under various categories of music (voice, piano, organ, theory) and offering various grades of proficiency (master, fellow and certificate of competency). Lavallée gave a stirring speech at the event and he was elected to head the program committee. The College fell under heavy attack by many of the “musical Brahmins” of New England who controlled the musical scene as the self-ordained elite. The primary enemy of the ACM was Eben Toujee, a co-founder of the MTNA who feared that the new institution broke the monopoly enjoyed by the New England Conservatory of which he was president.
Lavallée and Thurber Lead the Movement for a New School of American Music
With Lavallée now firmly driving this new movement, visionary art patron Jeanette Thurber joined the cause going on to found the American Conservatory in 1885. Lavallée’s biographer Brian C. Thompson noted the dramatic growth of the MTNA once Thurber offered her support: “With the financial support of the arts patron Jeannette Thurber, the MTNA raised its profile to a new level with its 1885 summer meeting in New York.”
During the 1886-1887 meeting, President S.N Penfield endorsed Lavallée’s election to the presidency of the institution saying “You may refer to last year, when American compositions were given in a very worthy manner at the Academy of Music in New York, with a large orchestra and chorus, under the auspices of the President and officers of that year. But what led up to that? One modest piano recital of the year before (applause) by a gentleman who staked his reputation upon it. That, in one sense, was the commencement of this policy of the Music Teachers’ National Association, which has now grown to these dimensions. I have the honor to present, as your candidate for the Presidency in the ensuing year, the gentleman who gave that recital, Mr. Calixa Lavallée, of Boston.”
Toasting to the prospects of the new movement, composer Wilson G. Smith said on March 15, 1886: “To Mr. Lavallée (a foreigner, too, be it said to the shame of some of our native artists) belongs the honor of inaugurating the present movement, on behalf of American composers and their works. The history of American art will accord to him this distinction”.
In gratitude for being elected President, Lavallée said that he would “put his heart, soul and all his energy, into the service of American music.”
True to his word, Calixa was known for working 16-18 hours per day, teaching, organizing concerts, programs, composing, fundraising and managing administrative affairs of the MTNA, often out of his own pocket. He worked closely with conductor Frank Van der Stucken, and also E.M. Bowman and Carlyle Petersilea to advance the careers of such composers as George Chadwick, John Knowles Paine, Arthur Foote, Wilson Smith, Ernst Jonas and Emil Liebling among many others.
Although he was the acting President of the MTNA at the 1889 meeting in Philadelphia and re-elected to chair the Program committee for the 1892 meeting at the Columbia Exposition, Calixa had pushed himself too far and succumbed to tuberculosis dying on January 21, 1891 at the age of 48.
At the 1892 meeting’s Presidential address, J.B. Hahn spoke of the new movement and the role played by Lavallée:
“It was in this city- yes, in this very hall, eight years ago, that Calixa Lavallée sounded the key-note of a movement whose reverberations found a re-echoing and a responsive sentiment throughout the length and breath of the land. Many here today will readily remember the occasion- a modest, unpretentious pianoforte recital, with the distinguishing characteristic that it was the first complete programme of American compositions ever presented… For his patriotism, his courage, his judicious selection which led to victory and the leadership he then assumed, all honor to our late associate and ex-President, Calixa Lavallée, the Lafayette of our American musicians.”
Just nine months before his death, Calixa gave an interview to the Boston Herald describing his inspired hope and vision of the new epoch in American composition that he had helped to unleash:
“Somebody must sacrifice themselves for the cause. When I read the dispatch from Washington two or three weeks ago about the successful concert of American composers given at that city I was delighted. I little dreamed six years ago that the incipient effort I made in that direction would find its reward so soon. No, American music has come to stay and the sooner the American public realizes the fact the better for the cause and all parties concerned. Of course, we are working through a transition, which is the fate of every new country, and it may take some years yet before we acquire a national color to our music: but who knows how soon a genius may come to us to crown our labors.”
Epilogue
1892 was an auspicious year for the movement. Although Lavallée did not live long enough to see his prophecy unfold, this was the year that Jeanette Thurber brought another foreign musical genius to America in order to guide the America through its transition in the discovery of “a national color”.
Leading Czech-born composer Antonín Dvořák arrived in New York in September 1892 and set to work to pick up the baton where Lavallée had left it in 1891, becoming the leading figure in Thurber’s National Conservatory of America and creating a new school of American music generated from his intense studies of Native American, and African-American melodies. Dvořák gave an interview to the NY Herald on May 23, 1893 saying:
“I am now satisfied that the future music of this country must be based on what are called the negro melodies. This must be the foundation of any serious and original school of composition to be developed in the United States…These beautiful and varied themes are the product of the soil. They are American.”
Dvorak’s work resulted in his 1893 New World Symphony, and a new generation of African American composers and musicians under the leadership of Harry Burleigh, the Fisk Jubillee singers and many more.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
[1] Brian C. Thompson, Anthems and Minstrel Shows: The Life and Times of Calixa Lavallee, McGill-Queens University Press 2015, P.228
[2] Ibid, p. 230
Featured image is from TCP
The Clash of the Two Americas
Vol. 1 & 2
by Matthew Ehret
In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
What is occurring Worldwide is a massive increase in mortality and morbidity attributable to the Covid vaccine.
The mainstream media reports in chorus point to an increase in Covid cases (PCR positive), without acknowledging that the surge in hospitalizations as well as mortality is largely attributable to the vaccine.
In January 2021 at the the very outset of the vaccination program, a mass funeral protest for children who died after receiving a Pfizer vaccine was held in Geneva, Switzerland.(Bitchute Channel, and Telegram channel)
The Home and Antigen Tests: Pushing Up the Numbers
The other factor which has been carefully ignored is the marketing worldwide of billions of home and antigen test kits which has contributed in the course of the last few months to “pushing up the numbers” of so-called confirmed COVID-19 positive cases, which in turn has contributed to sustaining the fear campaign.
“In the U.S. more than a billion test kits were made available for a population of 340 million Americans.
In Canada, 291 million test kits were distributed. Canada’s population is 38.5 million.”
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 1, 2022
***
Incisive analysis by Jordan Schachtel on Portugal, The Most Vaccinated Country in the EU
Virtually every single adult in Portugal has taken at least two doses of “miracle cure” COVID vaccine, with the vast majority “boosted” as well. Yet this month, the most vaxxed country in Europe has consistently reported its worst outcomes.
— The Portugal News (@theportugalnews) June 20, 2022
Once thought to be the best positioned nation in Europe to deal with future bouts with the coronavirus, a nuclear bomb of reality has hit Lisbon.
Out of all the countries in Europe, “Portugal has experienced the most dramatic wave,” The Guardian reports. “With infections per million remaining at a seven-day average of 2,043 on Monday – the second highest new case rate in the world.”
It appears the “miracle cure” vaccines have not only not failed to curb the COVID issue, but has potentially made it worse.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
On Sunday 19 June, we gathered in Sezano, municipality of Verona (VR), at the Monastery of the Common Good to affirm the need and urgency to ban war, all wars, and build peace without yes or no buts.
To the powerful world leaders who want to continue the war in Ukraine (USA, Russia, NATO member states, the European Union which has become a war front, Ukraine) we say STOP your new world war for world domination, of which the one in Ukraine is a dramatic expression.
Why do you still need tens of thousands of dead in the war camps you call liberation camps and tens of millions of people starving to death because of your economic sanctions (countersanctions, retaliations) that only benefit the profits of your big global corporations?
Enough of Putin, Biden, Stoltenberg, Von der Leyen….the world does not need your war in Ukraine. Stop spending over 2.1 trillion dollars on armaments under the hypocritical pretence of saving the peace.
For 70 years, the United States has been at permanent war on every continent with some 800 military bases of occupation in hundreds of countries around the world– and, following the collapse of the Soviet Union– trying to establish themselves in Ukraine as well.
China has only one military base abroad and Russia has only three!
One must know how to lose the victory to know how to build peace.
Because war has never solved problems, it is pure destruction.
War itself is a crime– and if you keep proposing wars, you are a criminal.
The greatest victory is to make peace, because the right to life is a universal right, for everyone and because it shows that you want and know how to live with others. and do not want to dominate others, but live together in the present to promote a future ever more just and united, in common.
Because the world emergency is to put an end to the profits and enrichment of the strongest and collaborate in building hospitals (not tanks), schools (not fighter planes), food production (not fighter planes), to the production of food (not missiles), of drinking water (not toxic gases), to the toxic gases), to the promotion of fraternity (not arms trade).
We must Stop All Wars that are currently martyring and killing people in Syria, Yemen, Congo, Palestine, Western Sahara, Kurdistan, among others.
The cynical silence of the West on the new military invasions by Erdogan’s Turkey in northern Iraq and north-eastern Syria inhabited by Kurdish populations is intolerable.
Inhabitants of the Earth, defend peace and the rights of all! Denunciation is necessary. Building peace, starting with an immediate cessation of hostilities, is even more necessary and positive for all.
Listen to the Intergovernmental Panel on United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which predicts that global warming is three and a half years away to exceed 1.5 degrees.
Do not listen to the US, Russia, France, Britain, China, North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan who are building nuclear weapons. Listen to the 130 UN countries that support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Signed in from:
Brussels, Verona, Palermo, Rome, Montreal, Trois Rivières, Coyahique (Patagonia CL), Rosario, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Clermont-Ferrand, Paris, Poitou Charentes, Neuchâtel, Dakar, Beirut, Lisbon, Toronto, Vancouver…
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Riccardo Petrella is Professor Emeritus of the Catholic University of Louvain.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Despite the fact that the post Second World War period witnessed the growth and proliferation of a plethora horrendous weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs, human intellectual ingenuity managed to keep the slide into catastrophe at bay. The idea was proffered, and largely accepted, that these weapons were meant not to fight wars but to prevent them. During much of the Cold War period, when nuclear weapons proliferated, particularly among the superpowers, peace was maintained on the premise of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Since the key superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, had the capacity to destroy each other many times over, rational logic prevented both from initiating a nuclear war. Defence was achieved by deterrence, that is preventing the enemy from attacking with threat of overwhelmingly unacceptable level of retaliation (“nuclear deterrence”)
Then in the mid – 1970s the US Secretary of Defence enunciated the ‘Schlesinger doctrine’ named after him. It held that there could be small scale, limited nuclear conflicts, using weapons with greater precision but lower yield, specifically targeted, gradually escalating to higher levels of warfare. In other words, a nuclear exchange could imply ‘limited warfighting’ which could also be winnable. The view was that at one point of equilibrium along the escalating curve, one side would capitulate. Design and weapons-production followed theory. Weapons became smaller and more precise. They were tactical with shorter range and more appropriate for battlefield or theatre use. For these very reasons the propensity for possible use increased mathematically, and logically. Sensing this danger leaders negotiated and signed treaties, bringing down numbers of long distance and shortrange ordnances down impressively. The total size of nuclear arsenal came down from much higher numbers to about 13000 strategic and 2000 tactical weapons. Eventually these treaties expired. However, rationality still held sway, and although wars had not ceased. Nonetheless, the danger of a nuclear war seemed to have receded. At least up until now.
The aforesaid discussion largely reflected the extant western theoretical and doctrinal literature. But what about Russia, the successor of the Soviet Union? Briefly Russian thinking in this regard was encompassed in the two concepts of SDERZIVANIE (“nuclear restraint”) and USTRASHENIE (‘intimidation”). This combination is meant to persuade the adversary that it has no chance of achieving its strategic goals by force. This policy which implies use of conventional and strategic weaponry remains in operation both in peace and war. Nuclear weapons are seen as being only one item in the tool- kit of warfare. It includes the western concept of “deterrence” as well as coercive measures and compellence. It is thus designed to be a multi-domain cross-cutting effort using both soft and hard power. Hence the western perception of the Russian doctrine as “hybrid”.
In June 2020, President Vladimir Putin signed Executive Order355 that outlined Russia’s current strategic doctrine. It contained a systematized asymmetric approach, underscoring the severity and certainty of “punishment”. The document lists a whole series of activities by the adversary that may be constituted as a threat to Russia (and its allies) to be “neutralized by the implementation of nuclear deterrence” (meaning “nuclear weapons”). The order also allows for the use of nuclear weapons not only to counter the enemy’s similar capabilities, but also “other types of weapons of mass destruction of significant combat potential of general purpose forces”. Western analysts believe this as entailing a wide range of options to introduce nuclear weapons at an early stage of conflict to prevent its spread. In other words, a reconfirmation of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy.
Additionally, the Russians are said to have in place what is known as “dead hand” system, or the “perimeter”. It is designed to automatically initiate the launch of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest authority order if an enemy nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors. It will operate even if the commanding elements are fully destroyed, for instance by a pre-emptive strike. The system is normally switched off, but is supposed to be activated during times of crisis. The current war in Ukraine probably fits the bill, especially when Putin has put the nuclear deterrence on “full alert”. In any case, it is said to remain fully functional and can be pressed into service whenever needed. The US does not operate a “dead hand” counterpart, but the National Command Authority has backup authorities in the event of the death of the President and/or of Secretary of Defence.
Presidents Biden and Putin had got off to a what seemed to be a fairly decent start when in a phone conversation in February last year they agreed to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by five more years. By doing so they were reversing the decision earlier of President Donald Trump. But with the Ukraine crisis boiling over right now, that happy moment seems ions ago. In the war in Ukraine whether by tactical design or military compulsion the Russians have eased pressure on other parts including the capital Kyiv and are now consolidating focus on the east, in Donbass and Crimea. One consequence has been a burgeoning sense among western allies that a Russian defeat is possible. Hence the enthusiasm to arm the Ukrainians with deadlier weapons than earlier thought appropriate, or wise. The Russian leadership have been warning that red lines are being crossed. The peace talks in Belarus and Turkey have all but collapsed. The sanctions- noose around Russia is being tightened. We have reached a stalemate. The world is on edge. This is what the great international relations thinker Coral Bell described as a “crisis -slide”. As things stand now, one hasty decision, an accidental shooting down of a plane, one bomb reaching the wrong target can bring unspeakable results. The danger is very real that one side may be persuaded that the use of a nuclear device would be “rational”. We have climbed high on Herman Kahn’s “escalation ladder” to Armageddon. Are we inexorably sleepwalking towards a horrific conflagration?
There must be a rethink by global leaders while there is time. Just as President John Kennedy and Premier Nikita Krushchev walked away from the brink of disaster during the Cuban crisis in 1962, our chance may lie in that bit of history repeating itself. My own long diplomatic career had been devoted to issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. I have never felt as close to catastrophe as I do now. Should good sense prevail, and disaster avoided, we must look to one glimmer of hope in the dark cloud. That is the UN Resolution 72/31 of 4 December 2017 banning nuclear weapons. It will take enormous leadership and courage, and a great leap of faith to commit ourselves to it. They say victors write the history. But a total nuclear war may leave us with no history at all, as there perhaps may be none alive to write it!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg
Featured image: International anti-nuclear weapons demonstration and peace march to the United Nations in New York City. Photo: Collected
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Haiti was the first free nation in Latin America and the Caribbean, the first nation in the modern world emerging from a slave revolt, and the second most long-standing republic in the Western Hemisphere. The Haitian people overthrew the French colonialists in 1804, abolished slavery, and declared independence.
Their revolution was worse nightmare of colonial powers with possessions in the Caribbean – the ghost of Saint-Domingue disturbed the sleep of slave holders for years.
The imperial powers imposed a rigorous cultural, economic and political blockade on the new Haiti, to prevent the extension of its example.
Two decades after independence was proclaimed, in 1825, French warships returned, blockaded the young nation and issued an ultimatum: pay compensation or prepare for war.
An emissary from King Charles X delivered the message. France demanded payment for properties confiscated by the Haitian Revolution: 150 million gold francs, some 21 billion dollars today, payable in five installments.
According to the colonial empire, the young nation was obliged to compensate French planters for the property and slaves they had lost.
On April 17, 1825, Haitian President Jean-Pierre Boyer signed the Royal Decree presented by Charles X, who promised French diplomatic recognition in exchange for a 50% reduction of tariffs on French imports and the outrageous compensation.
For Haiti the figure was impossible to pay, given the conditions of its economy, ravaged by the French naval blockade and a devastating war, but the “generous” colonialists made a proposal “they couldn’t turn down.”
A group of French banks offered Haiti a loan to cover the compensation, resulting in a double debt that, along with the interest, bled the small country to death, over the course of the 122 years required to pay off its “independence debt.”
What’s more, The New York Times recounts in a recent five-part series of articles, when the U.S. army invaded Haiti in the summer of 1915, a group of Marines entered the national bank and stole some 500,000 dollars in gold, that days later made its way to a Wall Street bank vault.
The United States, using the financial and political chaos the island was experiencing as a pretext, occupied the country militarily, continuing its longstanding policy in the region. Haiti was to be governed by a U.S. military proconsul.
For more than ten years, a quarter of all Haitian income went to pay off debts to the National City Bank, incurred by the country to cover the expense of “assistance from the U.S. government,” according to The Times.
Another island dares to challenge the empire
In January 1959, another small Caribbean island, Cuba, defying U.S. imperial power, declared itself the first free territory of the Americas and dared to announce its decision to build the first socialist nation in the hemisphere.
The “crime of insubordination” committed required immediate action by the “superpower.” Since then, all variants of war have been waged against the rebel island, including the economic, without success.
As an essential part of the plan to break the soul and subsequent extermination of the Cuban people, a monstrosity known as the Law for Cuban Democratic Freedom and Solidarity was concocted.
What similarities can be seen between this legal atrocity and the one foisted on Haiti by the French empire? Let’s skip some frightening sections of the Helms-Burton Act, as it is also known, and consider the plan it envisions.
Let’s imagine two hypothetical scenarios, totally impossible for those of us who have confidence in the capacity for resistance and courage of our people.
First: The imperialist enemy and his allies, making use of their military power, would manage to occupy most of the country and establish a transitional government, after proclaiming the end of the Revolution.
Second: Division, deception, and discouragement sown by the enemy would lead to betrayal, another Baraguá, and we would “let the sword fall,” as in 1878.
Would we then have “free and democratic” elections? No, the transitional government, handpicked by the occupying forces, would not call elections until the United States Congress approved such a move.
The U.S. President or his proconsul, appointed for this purpose, would prepare a report to Congress every six months outlining progress being made in the transition process on the occupied island.
How long would this process supposedly last, if they are requiring a report every six months? How long would Yankee troops remain in Cuba?
The answer to both questions is “Who knows?” (Reading the Bush Plan is recommended.)
Finally, after who knows how many years, the U.S. Congress would approve elections. What about the economic, commercial and financial blockade? Would it be lifted when the end of the Revolution was proclaimed?
No, this is not part of the plan; the blockade is to remain intact during the transition, as an ironclad mechanism to apply pressure.
Once the elections were held in U.S. occupied Cuba, with the Revolution removed from power, we would have a president and government, in the style of the imperialists and to their liking.
Insistent questions remain: Would the blockade be lifted? Would the economic war end? The answer is no, that’s not what the Helms Burton proposes.
The new Cuban “president” would verify to Congress that all U.S. citizens who were “former owners” had been compensated with the full value of all properties nationalized or confiscated in accordance with revolutionary laws and in line with international law, including those Cubans who, after 1959, became “Cuban-Americans.”
The “indemnity” or “compensation,” according to U.S. experts in 1997, would have an approximate value of 100 billion dollars.
The empire has a solution that would allow the Cuban government to pay for the legal procedures, compensation and debt: loans from U.S. banks, the IMF, etc., which would generate ever-increasing interest payments and create an endless spiral of plunder.
Cubans, like Haitians years ago, would spend decades paying off a practically impossible debt. How could a country devastated, depleted, impoverished by war and occupation, a country that had lost a good part of its population of working and productive age, afford to do so? It must be clear that they could never occupy our island, without defeating a Cuban people determined to defend every inch of our homeland.
We would be left in the hands of our hangmen, ready and willing to drain every last drop of our national wealth.
Thomas Piketty, one of the economists consulted by The New York Times, in his work on Haiti, referred to this policy as “neo-colonialism by debt.”
The “crime of insubordination” is the greatest “sin” that a people can commit. Empires never forgive rebels. An insubordinate rebel plants a seed that can sprout many generations later.
The Haitian Revolution was a breeding ground of revolutions. The punishment, the viciousness of the colonial master, could not erase its example. Inspired, Our America rose up to fight for its independence, again and again, as tireless as the courageous
Haitians who defeated Napoleon’s best generals, in the first years of the19th century.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: It took Haiti 122 years to pay off its debt of independence, a neocolonial strategy that remains in place and leads to chronic underdevelopment. Photo: 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.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The government of Venezuela welcomed a second high-level US delegation that included Bogotá-based Ambassador James Story and US envoy on hostage affairs Roger Carstens, President Nicolás Maduro confirmed Monday.
Although US officials tried to characterize the visit as being driven by the Biden administration’s efforts to see a handful of US citizens released from Venezuelan custody, the Venezuelan president was explicit that the meeting was a follow-up to previous bilateral talks in Caracas in March. The delegation was met by ranking Chavista politician and National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez on Monday evening.
“Jorge Rodríguez is welcoming an important US government delegation […] to follow-up on the bilateral agenda between the US government and the Venezuelan government,” said Maduro Monday night during a televised broadcast.
Early press reports indicated that the trip was a “welfare visit” focused on the detained US citizens. Bilateral talks in March led to the release of US citizens Gustavo Cardenas and Jorge Fernández, with the State Department similarly then denying that their release was tied to a deal concerning Venezuelan oil.
However, the US delegation’s visit comes amidst an ongoing struggle by US and European leaders to find a solution to a brewing energy crisis driven by the imposition of sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.
Maduro made explicit reference to France’s call for Venezuela and Iran to return to “Western” oil markets as a means of alleviating the supply squeeze and bringing down energy prices globally. Venezuela and Iran signed a 20-year cooperation agreement during a recent Maduro trip.
G7 leaders recently agreed to study potential price caps on Russian oil and gas in order to ensure a consistent supply of oil while simultaneously limiting Moscow’s income from sales. The proposal is viewed by analysts as unlikely to succeed, meaning other oil-exporting nations like Venezuela will continue to be given special consideration as energy prices are expected to continue to rise.
The Venezuelan government has insisted that it is willing to resume oil shipments provided unilateral sanctions are lifted. The Venezuelan oil industry has been crippled by US coercive measures, including financial sanctions, an oil embargo and secondary sanctions Caracas is presently producing less than a million barrels per day despite counting on the world’s largest reserves.
Nonetheless, Venezuela is well positioned to ramp up production to meet global demand with countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia reportedly unable to ramp up production quickly.
When asked Tuesday if the meeting was tied to a potential oil deal, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivanreiterated Washington’s position that any sanctions relief would be tied to progress in talks between the Venezuelan government and the US-backed opposition. Sullivan claimed that a recent license to allow Italy’s Eni and Spain’s Repsol to resume oil-for-debt swap deals with Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA was driven by the US’ desire to see talks restart.
The negotiations held in Mexico City between the Maduro administration and the hardline opposition were suspended in October 2021 following Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab’s arrest in Cape Verde and his extradition to Florida to face money laundering charges. The Venezuelan government has blasted the case as “politically motivated.”
Maduro pledged to restart the dialogue process with the opposition following that first-contact meeting with US officials and there was widespread speculation that a deal that would see the US lift its oil sanctions on Venezuela was in the cards. However, those expectations were dashed in light of a bipartisan backlash inside the US against a potential détente.
US President Joe Biden’s strategy concerning Venezuela recently came under heavy criticism from regional leaders such as Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador after Biden opted to exclude Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua from the Summit of the Americas, leading the Mexican president to boycott the event along with several others.
Venezuela broke off diplomatic relations with the US in 2019 after the latter recognized opposition figure Juan Guaidó as “interim president.” However, direct talks with the Venezuelan leader have undermined the US’ strategy in Venezuela and its support for Guaidó, whom the Biden administration insists they still recognize as “interim president.”
With no legitimacy inside Venezuela and unable to exercise any actual governance power, Guaidó relies almost exclusively on foreign backing to maintain his position. The former lawmaker and his allies suffered another setback after Colombians elected Gustavo Petro in recent presidential elections, leaving the hardline opposition leader without a key ally.
According to AP, US Ambassador Story met for two hours with Juan Guaidó upon his arrival in Caracas. Guaidó was snubbed by US officials in their last visit.
Under the leadership of right-wing President Iván Duque, Colombia played a key role in US-led destabilization efforts in Venezuela. Maduro and President-elect Petro spoke by phone following his election victory where they discussed the normalization of diplomatic relations.
“A new stage of peace, brotherhood and cooperation with Colombia seems to be on the horizon,” said Maduro on Monday.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro greets the audience during the ceremony to award the National Journalism Prize. (@NicolasMaduro / Twitter)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
An alliance of Indigenous organizations in Ecuador have held daily demonstrations after sharp increases in the costs for fuel and food.
The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) began their general strike actions on June 13 after huge price hikes crippled the capacity of rural and urban communities to access transportation and food for their households.
Ecuador general strike in June 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
In response to the demonstrations and an assortment of other forms of resistance, President Guillermo Lasso has declared a state of emergency in several provinces of the South American state. The order reads in part that:
“To declare a state of exception due to serious internal commotion in the provinces of Azuay (south), Imbabura (north), Sucumbios (east) and Orellana (east).” (See this)
Although the Indigenous organizations sparked the mass demonstrations which in some cases have turned violent, other key sectors of the population such as students and workers have joined in the nationwide protests. Conservative President Guillermo Lasso has failed to meet the demands of CONAIE and other organizations.
CONAIE has put forward ten demands to the government of President Lasso which calls for additional fuel subsidies, the reversal of plans to privatize state assets and a moratorium on the development of any new oil and mining projects. In the recent period inflation has swept through many countries in South America and across the world.
Many have suggested that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic related to supply chain bottlenecks and the failure of various capitalist governments to implement policies aimed at controlling prices, as being major triggering factors in the rapid increase in commodity prices and shortages. In Ecuador, demonstrators are blocking roads to prevent transport trucks from reaching their destinations. The military leadership of the country has committed to reopening the highways in order for commerce to resume.
The turmoil inside the country has impacted the political stability of the Lasso administration which recently survived an impeachment attempt by the parliament. Lasso came into office one year ago promising to create a more business-friendly atmosphere for foreign investment.
Guillermo Alberto Santiago Lasso Mendoza is a 66-year-old veteran businessman-banker and right-wing politician. He has served as the 47th president of Ecuador since taking office on May 24, 2021. The ascendancy of Lasso represented the first-time in two decades since there has been an ideologically conservative head-of-state.
The president had previously served as the Governor of Guayas during 1998-1999. Later in 2003, he was appointed as an Itinerant Ambassador of Ecuador during the administration of Lucio Gutierrez. As a businessman, he is the previous CEO of Banco Guayaquil. When the left-wing government of Rafael Correa was in power, Lasso was a fierce critic of his policies.
Lasso was also appointed as the CEO of operations for Coca-Cola corporation in order to rebuild the company in the face of its bankruptcy in Ecuador. He has held seats on the Board of Directors Guayas Transit Commission and the Andean Development Corporation.
Later in 2012 he founded the Creating Opportunities Party and then ran for president the following year against Correa, when he lost by a landslide. In 2017, Lasso again failed to win the presidential election by a very narrow margin against Lenin Moreno. In 2021 he won the presidency and immediately imposed neo-liberal economic policies.
“Ecuador President Guillermo Lasso survived an impeachment vote late Tuesday (June 28) after a hard-left opposition party failed to rally other smaller groups in congress to oust him as his government moved to make concessions to defuse the political crisis. With only 80 of 137 lawmakers voting to remove Lasso, the impeachment attempt failed to clear the 92-vote hurdle needed to remove the president from office. Another 48 lawmakers rejected the motion, with nine abstaining after a session that lasted about 12 hours and included three voting attempts.”
Developments in Ecuador can be viewed as a harbinger of the political mood throughout the South America, Central America and Caribbean region. In 2019, similar demonstrations led by the Indigenous communities erupted over the neo-liberal policies of former President Lenin Moreno.
Ecuador rebellion in June 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
A recent attempt by the administration of President Joe Biden in the United States to host a Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles was marked by controversy and boycotts. The Los Angeles gathering clearly illustrated the decline of U.S. hegemony over the Southern Hemisphere.
Colombia Elects a Left-leaning President
Results of the national elections in Colombia were announced on June 19 resulting in the ascendancy of a left-wing administration headed by Gustava Francisco Petro Urrego as president and Francia Elena Marquez Mina as vice-president. Marquez is the first Colombian of self-identified African ancestry in its two centuries of independence.
Marquez is a longtime environmental activist, feminist and human rights lawyer. She along with Petro became a part of the Historic Pact for Colombia Coalition which consists of several other political parties.
Petro was the founder of Humane Colombia political party in 2011. He is a former guerrilla fighter with the 19th of April Movement which demobilized and became the M-19 Democratic Alliance party. A split within M-19 leading to the creation of Humane Colombia.
Some analysts have viewed the overall economic crisis in the oil-producing state as prompting the recent national results. There are a host of burgeoning problems stemming from a failed peace agreement with the armed revolutionary movement of FARC, the persistent impoverishment of millions inside the country and the inflation which has plagued the entire capitalist world.
One policy shift announced by the incoming Petro government is the re-opening of the border with the neighboring Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Relations between Colombia and Venezuela became extremely strained after repeated attempts by the U.S. to foment a pro-imperialist coup in Caracas.
A report on the elections published by Telesur on June 25 welcomed the initiative by Petro. The article emphasized:
“The contact held with the Venezuelan government shows the political will of president-elect of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, for opening the binational border, Tachira´s governor, Freddy Bernal, acknowledged. In statements to Union Radio, the Venezuelan western state´s highest authority said that the formal opening of the border crossings between the two countries will bring huge benefits to the economy of the region. For the last two years -he recalled- contacts have been maintained with the authorities of the Colombian department of Norte de Santander; the border remained closed ‘only and exclusively’ by instructions of the outgoing president, Ivan Duque, Bernal said.”
Nonetheless, in a separate article also published by Telesur, seeks to draw a distinction between the South American governments which came to power during the late 20th and early 21st century, and the current wave of administrations. In Venezuela, since the time of the late President Hugo Chavez, the objective of government policy under the United Socialist Party has been non-capitalist development. President Nicolas Maduro has been unwavering in the government’s solidarity with Cuba and other socialist and anti-imperialist states.
Since February 24, when the Russian special military operation began in Ukraine, Venezuela, although having been approached by the U.S. State Department, has expressed its solidarity with Moscow and emphasized the need for a diplomatic solution to the war. Venezuela understands clearly that the expansion of NATO membership and military bases would be an existential threat to all peace and freedom-loving peoples throughout the world.
In a news analysis commentary published on June 24, Telesur notes:
“However, some characteristics of the new progressive wave differ to a certain extent from the first one. Whereas all the progressive governments have as their main concern the social problems and the well-being of the lower social classes, who have been impoverished and marginalized by the liberal policies historically applied in Latin America, the political narrative and ideological orientation are divergent when comparing both waves. The new wave of progressivism aims to change the society but not the system, as the intention to impart justice and redistribute wealth is carried out within the rules of capitalism. Thus, the aspiration to transform Latin America under the model of the ‘Socialism of the 21st Century’ has been lately forgotten. Without mincing my words, it seems socialism as a feasible society in the narrative of the progressive leaders died with Hugo Chavez and is no longer a benchmark for the current wave of governments. All in all, only time will tell which of the two waves obtain greater results regarding the implementation of people’s rights.”
However, the intervention of the masses as in Ecuador, Chile, Argentina and other states could portend much for a sharper turn to the Left in regard to socialist-orientation and anti-imperialism. What is clear is that Washington cannot provide an alternative to the leftward political trajectory in South America and the Central America-Caribbean region. The social contradictions prevalent in the U.S. have exposed the inconsistent foreign and domestic policies of Washington and Wall Street. The question is whether the rise in inflation and repressive state measures will spark discontent in the U.S. aimed at addressing the central concerns of workers and oppressed peoples.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Ecuador rebellion by Indigenous communities, June 2022 (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.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Leaders of the member countries of the imperialist NATO military alliance concluded their annual summit in Madrid today. This summit was a clear display of NATO’s commitment to continuously fuel the fire of international conflict as the major capitalist powers drag the world back into a Cold War-style period of global confrontation.
In preparation for the summit, NATO members prepared a new “Strategic Concept” document that described the alliance’s key goals moving forward. The Strategic Concept’s principal target is Russia, which it labels “the most significant and direct threat” to NATO. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg promised even more support for Ukraine’s military in its war with Russia.
But the Strategic Concept also included a new and highly notable addition to NATO’s official enemies list: China.
The document labeled China a “systemic challenge.” While hostility to China has been NATO’s de facto approach for years, this announcement is a notable escalation. In essence, the NATO members are publicly announcing that China poses an existential threat to the world order that they dominate. China is pursuing a “no limits partnership” with Russia as it aims to fundamentally change the global political landscape such that the Pentagon and Wall Street no longer reign supreme. This is unacceptable to NATO.
Many NATO states like Britain have called for increasing arms shipments to Taiwan, which is rightfully claimed by China as part of its national territory. The United States has been the principal military and political backer of Taiwan since the island was seized by the defeated dictator Chiang Kai-shek at the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
NATO — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — pretends to be a defensive alliance where all states come to the aid of any member that is attacked. But as NATO’s own documents show, their ambitions are certainly not limited to the North Atlantic. It is in fact an instrument for the maintenance of an imperialist-dominated world order, threatening unthinkable violence against any country that dares to challenge it.
On Tuesday, Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Zhang Jun expressed deep concerns and urged NATO to “learn its lessons and not to use the Ukraine crisis as an excuse to stoke worldwide bloc confrontation or provoke a new Cold War, and not to look for imaginary enemies in the Asia-Pacific or contrive disputes and divisions.”
Although NATO’s Strategic Concept hides behind the language of democracy, peace and independence, NATO’s actions before and during the summit are aimed at triggering a new Cold War with China and Russia. NATO countries and their strategic goals only fuel the danger of catastrophic global war as they ignore the economic, social and environmental toll of their military buildup. The working class across the world already is suffering greatly with the start of another Cold War and has every interest in the end of imperialist escalations.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is from Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Iran’s nuclear talks are back on track. There are not very high expectations though and some experts in fact believe that deal or no deal, an Iranian-Israeli future war is almost inevitable for a number of reasons.
For years, the Islamic Republic and the Jewish State have been waging a kind of shadow war – with no real dialogue or any advance towards reconciliation. In fact, one could very well argue that Tehran, on the one hand, and Tel Aviv and Washington, on the other, have been involved in a non-official war since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Tel Aviv has been confronting the Tehran backed Shiite organization known as Hezbollah and various other proxy wars have been fought.
For years, Israel and the United States have been playing a game in which the former threatens to attack Iranian nuclear sites, and the latter avoids opposing such an idea too much while at the same time signaling it would be an unnecessary and dangerous move it does not approve of at all. Sometimes, Washington also signs that it has the ability to prevent any Iranian counterattack in case Israel strikes. For example, in 2012 it blocked the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States supports its ally Israel and for years has denounced Iran as a “threat” to the Jewish state and the other nations in the area, especially Saudi Arabia. And yet Washington certainly fears that the Islamic Republic response to any Israeli attack would destabilize the entire region. The uncertainty factor also plays a role: no one really knows how advanced the Iranian nuclear program is. A fatwa (Islamic decree) stating that the Iranian Republic considers the use of nuclear weapons a sin is listed on Khamenei’s official website. It further states that Tehran supports the idea of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. There is however intense debate in the country and a growing call for this fatwa to be reconsidered given the circumstances of today’s world.
In any case, it would seem there are quite irreconcilable differences not only between Tehran and Tel Aviv but also between the latter and its own ally Washington. Cultural differences might play a role here: while both of them have similar views on the Islamic Republic, they disagree on how to deal with it. The Israelis do not tolerate risks very much, and the Americans cannot accept the possible global effects of an Israeli-Iranian war in terms of destabilization and unpredictability.
So, a complicated tension-game has been unfolding for many years. Israel act as if it always were on the very verge of being attacked by Iran, and bluffs by threatening to take a preemptive strike against the country, while claiming it does not do so because it is contained by the US, which, in its turn, takes credit for stopping an Israeli attack (which perhaps was never really intended anyway). Washington basically wants to keep Tehran relatively isolated and is quite content to see that its presence in Syria has diminished, for instance. For the Americans, it is all about containing the Islamic Republic without going to war – in this way, during the Barack Obama administration, for example, the State Department tried to reorient Damascus away from Tehran, according to American diplomat Frederic Hof. The Jewish state, on the other hand, has its own concerns and agendas.
Iran, in its turn, certainly sees that defense ties between Israel and various Arab states are on the rise. This has been so since the Abraham Accords initiative and it has changed the very geopolitical map of the Middle East. A Wall Street Journal report claims that some Israeli and “Arab military chiefs” from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, and the UAE held, in Sharm El Sheikh (Egypt), a secret meeting pertaining to the “Iranian threat” and their air defense. Fars News has published claims according to which the Kingdom of Jordan opposes such “Arab-Israel NATO”. However, the Jordanian King Abudallah II has stated that he would support more countries in the region coming into a military alliance. These developments of course hamper Saudi-Iranian efforts towards rapprochement, even though Iranian Foreign Ministry stated on June 27 that Riyad is ready to have more direct bilateral talks.
Israel, the US, Bahrain and the UAE have also taken part in naval exercises in the Red Sea and so there is a situation of increasing militarization of the region. All of this certainly provokes Iran.
In May, various drones attacked a suspected Iranian nuclear research facility, killing one engineer. Days before, an Iranian colonel was killed by two assassins. Tel Aviv is believed by many to be behind such covert actions. Moreover, the new Israeli government has advanced its “Octopus Doctrine”, which greatly expands the campaign against Tehran. While Iranian-Israeli wars have been going on for years, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has stated he wants to fight not merely “the tentacles” but also the “head” of the “Iranian octopus”. It is a dangerous game and at some point, a red line might get crossed.
Amid Iranian-American and Iranian-Israeli tensions, Moscow, in its turn, has agreed to activate its strategic pact with Tehran – similar to the one China has also signed with the Islamic Republic.
Both Iran and Israel are dominant powers in the Middle East and their long shadow war could escalate into a major regional conflict. In today’s highly tense world, this could spiral into a global confrontation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”
Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”
In a report published July 28, 2020, “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,” the foundation described “a hunger and nutrition crisis … unlike any this country has seen in generations.”
The authors blamed the crisis on COVID-19.
The report concluded the crisis would have to be addressed not by strengthening food securityfor the most vulnerable, but by revamping the entire food system and associated supply chain — in other words, we would need to “reset the table.”
The Rockefeller Foundation called for this food system “reset” less than two months after the World Economic Forum (WEF), on June 3, 2020, revealed its vision for the “Great Reset.”
Some of the contributors to the Rockefeller Foundation report are WEF members; a few of which, along with other proponents of “resetting the table,” also have ties to entities pushing vaccine passports and digital ID schemes.
Rockefeller Foundation: ‘changes to policies, practices, and norms’ are needed
The WEF describes the Rockefeller Foundation as a “science-driven” philanthropic organization that “seeks to inspire and foster large-scale human impact that promotes the well-being of humanity around the world” and which “advances the new frontiers of science, data, policy and innovation to solve global challenges related to health, food, power and economic mobility.”
In the foreword to its 2020 “Reset the Table” report, foundation President Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, who is a former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), states:
“America faces a hunger and nutrition crisis unlike any this country has seen in generations.
“In many ways, Covid-19 has boiled over long-simmering problems plaguing America’s food system. What began as a public health crisis fueled an economic crisis, leaving 33 percent of families unable to afford the amount or quality of food they want.
“School closures put 30 million students at risk of losing the meals they need to learn and thrive.”
The report did not explain how the Rockefeller Foundation was able to know about this food crisis mere months after the pandemic took hold — especially as the report states it was developed out of “video-conference discussions in May and June 2020.”
The report also didn’t provide any insight into the role pandemic countermeasures such as lockdowns — which the foundation championed along with the WEF — played in contributing to the food crisis..
In its report, the Rockefeller Foundation proposes a series of solutions, derived from “dialogues with over 100 experts and practitioners.”
One recommendation calls for moving away from a “focus on maximizing shareholder returns” to “a more equitable system focused on fair returns and benefits to all stakeholders — building more equitable prosperity throughout the supply chain.”
This may sound like a good idea, until one considers “stakeholders” in this case refers to “stakeholder capitalism” — a concept heavily promoted by the very same large corporations that have been beneficiaries of the shareholder capitalist system.
The WEF also heavily promotes “stakeholder capitalism,” defining it as “a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”
For some context, economic fascism, as personified by the regimes of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, encompassed government-mandated “partnerships” between business, government and unions organized by a system of regional “economic chambers,” and a philosophy where “the common good comes before the private good.”
It is, of course, unclear how the “needs [of] society at large” are determined — or by who.
The Rockefeller Foundation report declares, “Success will require numerous changes to policies, practices, and norms.”
What does such “success” entail? The report names three main objectives:
Data collection and digitization: The report calls for “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food, direct farm-to-consumer purchasing, telemedicine, teleconsultations, as well as [broadband access that is essential to] education, finance, and employment.”
The report describes the lack of universal broadband access in this context as “a fundamental resiliency and equity gap.”
“Stakeholders” working together with the goal of forming a “collaborative advocacy movement.”
“Changes to policies, practices and norms,” which the report says would be “numerous.”
These objectives, dressed up in “inclusive” language, are further described in the report as being beneficial to human health, ensuring “healthy and protective diets” that “will allow Americans to thrive and bring down our nation’s suffocating health care costs.”
The report goes as far as to describe this as a “legacy” of COVID-19, even predicting that doctors will “prescribe” produce for patients.
According to the report:
“One of Covid-19’s legacies should be that it was the moment Americans realized the need to treat nutritious food as a part of health care, both for its role in prevention and in the treatment of diseases.
“By integrating healthy food into the health care system, doctors could prescribe produce as easily as pharmaceuticals and reduce utilization of expensive health services that are often required because of nutrition insecurity.”
But as Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out, despite this purported emphasis on healthy, nutritious food, the words “organic,” “natural” and “grass fed” do not appear in the report.
What does appear is the phrase “alternative proteins,” in this case referring to proteins derived from the consumption of insects — another concept promoted by the WEF.
In 2021, for instance, the WEF published a report titled “Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems,” suggesting that “insect farming for food and animal feed could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis [emphasis added].”
Yet again, an “impending food crisis” is forecast, which may lead some to ask how entities such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the WEF even knew what was coming.
As stated by Mercola:
“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.
“It seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee ‘natural disasters’ and foretell coincidental ‘acts of God’. They know everything before it happens.
“Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.”
Mercola suggests such crises are inevitable because they are part of “an intentional plan” by the very same actors.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s amazing ‘predictions’ of future crises, and its ties with Big Tech and Big Pharma
Lending credence to Mercola’s view, and as recently reported by The Defender, the Rockefeller Foundation, WEF and other entities accurately predicted a remarkable number of crises that then came to pass.
For instance, Event 201, held in October 2019 and co-organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, accurately “predicted” the global outbreak of a coronavirus.
Similarly, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which co-organized a “tabletop simulation” predicting the global outbreak of monkeypox in March 2021, with an imaginary start date of May 2022, has received $1.25 million in grants from the Rockefeller Foundation since January 2021.
In turn, the other co-organizer of the monkeypox “tabletop simulation,” the Munich Security Conference, in May 2022 held a roundtable with the Rockefeller Foundation on “Transatlantic cooperation on food security.”
Among the suggestions arising from this roundtable include a “focus on transforming the global food system and making it more resilient to future shocks, with steps taken now and over the long term.”
As previously reported by The Defender, the GAVI Alliance proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”
GAVI is also a core partner of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The GAVI Alliance — and the Rockefeller Foundation — also work closely with the ID2020 Alliance. Founded in 2016, ID2020 claims to advocate in favor of “ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID,” adding that “doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties.”
For the past two years, the Rockefeller Foundation and entities such as ID2020 and the WEF have been closely involved with the push for digital “vaccine passports.”
For instance, on July 9, 2020, the Commons Project, itself founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, launched “a global effort to build a secure and verifiable way for travelers to share their COVID-19 status” — that is, a vaccine passport.
The Commons Project also was behind the development of the CommonPass, another vaccine passport initiative, developed in tandem with the WEF.
Other members of the Good Health Pass Collaborative include Accenture, Deloitte and IBM — which developed New York’s “Excelsior Pass” vaccine passport system.
The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also funded an August 27, 2021 document issued by the WHO titled, “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: Vaccination status.”
“This is a guidance document for countries and implementing partners on the technical requirements for developing digital information systems for issuing standards-based interoperable digital certificates for COVID-19 vaccination status, and considerations for implementation of such systems, for the purposes of continuity of care, and proof of vaccination.”
And in another remarkably prescient “prediction,” the Rockefeller Foundation, in 2010, published a report — “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” — which presented four future scenarios.
One of these hypothetical scenarios was “Lock Step” — described as “[a] world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.”
The description of this “Lock Step” scenario goes on to state:
“Technological innovation in ‘Lock Step’ is largely driven by government and is focused on issues of national security and health and safety.
“Most technological improvements are created by and for developed countries, shaped by governments’ dual desire to control and to monitor their citizens.”
This scenario also predicted “smarter” food packaging:
“In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.”
Moreover, the “Lock Step” scenario remarkably predicted China would fare better than most countries in a hypothetical pandemic, due to the heavy-handed measures it would implement:
“However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular.
“The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement in public health is not new.
Going back more than a century, the foundation heavily promoted “scientific medicine” and formalized medical practice based on the European model on a global scale, at the expense of homeopathy and other traditional and natural remedies.
The foundation’s “philanthropic” activities have been described as “de facto colonialism in countries including China and the Philippines.”
Moreover, the foundation helped give rise to the first global public health entities, the International Health Commission (1913-16) and the International Health Board (1916-1927).
It also helped finance the earliest public health programs at universities such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins — today home to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
For the first time ever, the European Union has imported in June more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States than gas via pipeline from Russia, as Moscow slashed supply to Europe earlier this month, Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), said on Thursday.
“Russia’s recent steep cuts in natural gas flows to the EU mean this is the 1st month in history in which the EU has imported more gas via LNG from the US than via pipeline from Russia,” Birol tweeted today, sharing an analysis from the IEA.
“The drop in Russian supply calls for efforts to reduce EU demand to prepare for a tough winter,” the head of the Paris-based agency added.
The significantly lower supply from Russia since the middle of June and the upcoming annual maintenance at Nord Stream that will completely halt deliveries through the pipeline for two weeks in July have left Europe scrambling to fill gas storage sites to adequate levels before the winter.
The EU has been importing record volumes of American LNG in recent months, although analysts say LNG imports alone cannot replace Russian pipeline gas.
The European Union and the UK saw a record high level of LNG imports in April, as higher spot prices in Europe compared to Asia attracted suppliers with destination flexibility to ship LNG to Europe. Those suppliers were mostly from the United States, the EIA said earlier this month.
In April 2022 alone, five European countries—France, Spain, the UK, the Netherlands, and Poland—accounted for 54.1% of total U.S. LNG exports, data from the U.S. Energy Department showed earlier this month.
Despite the record intake of American, and other, LNG, Europe still faces supply troubles this winter if it doesn’t take measures to conserve energy, analysts and the IEA say.
Europe faces a “red alert” for gas supply next winter, Birol said earlier in June.
“Recent disruptions to natural gas supplies, notably Russia steeply cutting flows to EU countries, is set to remove around 35 billion cubic metres of gas from the market this year, posing big challenges to efforts to refill storage. This is a red alert for the EU for next winter, Birol tweeted in mid-June.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Tsvetana is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing for news outlets such as iNVEZZ and SeeNews.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The one and only good I see coming out of the Covid Plandemic and catastrophic, quasi-mandatory vaccine policies, is that we’re seeing some Americans emerging as heroes during this dark time.
Many of us have long since known the names of key villains in our fight for the Republic and for liberty—people in the psychopathic billionaires’ club such as George Soros, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Ted Turner, —and lesser, but equally destructive players, such as the Clintons, the Bushes, the Bidens, Pelosi, Newsom, Canada’s Trudeau, France’s Macron, etc.
But most of us likely had never heard of Dr. Scott Atlas, Dr. Lee Merrit, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. John Ioannidis, or the U.K.’s former Pfizer VP, Dr. Michael Yeadon. Along with dozens of others, these men and women have risked their careers by taking a stand to save lives and speak the truth—which, in a time of universal deceit, as Orwell warned us, has become a revolutionary act.
The Knights Expose a Massive Criminal Conspiracy
But, lest we forget, I want to focus on a particular group of similarly remarkable men and women who, in January of this year, participated in a 5-hour hearing conducted by another hero who has taken a brave public stance: Senator Ron Johnson.
Senator Johnson (R-WI) has emerged as perhaps the most courageous, principled and insightful man in Congress—and I do mean both houses. Here’s a short sampling of our true American heroes featured in this roundtable: Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Christina Parks, and a number of others including some brave nurses, some tragically vaccine-injured individuals, and a pair of formidable attorneys including firebrand Tom Renz, fighting for doctors and their patients.
Speaking of Thomas Renz, even among so many horrific tales, his brief presentation was mind-blowing. Attorney Renz, working with several brave DoD whistleblowers who furnished him with data we weren’t supposed to see, shocked the room with his findings: among our mandatorily-vaccinated military, miscarriages increased by 300%, cancer by 300%, and serious neurological disorders by 1000%. Says Renz, “Our soldiers are being experimented on injured, and sometimes possibly killed.”
“Based on data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), Thomas Renz, an attorney who is representing three Department of Defense (DoD) whistleblowers, reported that these whistleblowers found a significant increase in registered diagnoses on DMED for miscarriages, cancer, and many other medical conditions in 2021 compared to a five-year average from 2016-2020. For example, at the roundtable Renz stated that registered diagnoses for neurological issues increased 10 times from a five-year average of 82,000 to 863,000 in 2021.”
I wish I could say that this became front page news throughout our nation. But instead, the DOD, with backup support from the Leftwing rag Politifact, ran to the rescue with damage control. Politifact’s Jeff Cercone had the gall to announce there had been a “glitch” in the data. More brazenly yet, DOD spokesman Peter Graves claimed the entire Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) was discovered to have been wrong from 2016 to 2020—meaning it can’t be used for comparison to assess any anomalies in 2021. Hmmmm… Graves announced DMED has been “taken offline” to “identify and correct the root-cause of the data corruption.”
Anyone think we need Sherlock Holmes to identify the root cause of this mess? Forget the fake “data corruption”—I mean the real thing: the DOD’s corruption! I guess it was too late for them to simply erase the injuries the whistleblowers had discovered among the vaxxed, so they went for the other side of the equation instead—nullifying the grounds for comparison.
The Real Experts
All told, Senator Johnson’s five-hour roundtable delivers a shocking exposé of the American medical system gone completely off the rails. The stories these brave men and women told brought some of them to tears, as they did this viewer.
These are the real experts—men and women who went into medicine for the right reasons—to actually heal patients. It is heart-wrenching to watch Dr. Marik announce that the hospital he’d worked out for decades tied his hands, refusing to allow him to treat his patients with proven safe and effective therapeutics. Here’s what this expert physician said, while blinking away his tears: “I had to stand by idly, watching these people die!” Dr. Marik is the only one present whom I heard use the word “evil”, though he applied it only to the hospital and its phony review board as they stripped him of his hospital privileges, ending a stellar decades-long medical career.
And another of our nation’s most distinguished and highly esteemed physicians,Dr. Peter McCullough, may even lose his license to practice medicine if the American Board of Internal Medicine has its vindictive way. His crime? Trying to save lives—I mean spreading “misinformation.” It doesn’t get more Orwellian than this.
All Roads Lead to the ‘Vaccines’
If you connect the dots, it quickly becomes apparent that all the atrocities we’ve seen—from denial of therapeutics, to enforced use of Remdesivir, to pumped up “positive cases” through inaccurate PCR tests, to vaccine mandates, etc.—serve to ensure and promote widespread inoculation with a novel, highly experimental, genetic-disrupting “vaccine technology.”
How so? Well, the rampant PCR testing at high threshold cycles makes it look like we have a “pandemic” crisis, as the numbers of “cases” climb. This ramps up fear and makes it more likely people will willingly take the sometimes fatal shots.
The deaths of thousands of our countrymen resulting from the horribly cruel denial of safe therapeutics such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, various steroids, etc., is likely viewed as mere collateral damage by the perpetrators of this heinous crime, as they needed to preserve the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J “vaccines.” You see, if doctors everywhere started saving lives by using safe, repurposed and readily available drugs, Big Pharma would lose its Get Out of Jail Free card: the EUA that protects them from liability. Not only that, but the “emergency” disappears if Covid becomes treatable with therapeutics. And they couldn’t have that, now, could they?
And what about hospitals forcing Fauci’s Favorite “Remdesivir” on helpless patients—a drug known to cause kidney failure? As I learned from Robert F. Kennedy’s blockbuster book “The Real Anthony Fauci,” nurses have dubbed this drug “Run-death-is-near.”
Why inflict this on patients? Well, there’s a hefty perverse incentive, as hospitals receive huge bonuses for every “Covid death” and even more if they prescribe Remdesivir, and another lump sum for finishing the patient off on a ventilator. Hmmm… Besides, isn’t death of the victim the purpose of bio-weapons? So if Covid didn’t do the job, they evidently have their hospital backup plan, as attorney Thomas Renz and brave whistleblowers have documented. Renz estimates hospitals that play this game get around $100,000 per “Covid” patient.
Co-opting the Medical Profession
So how do you get hundreds of hospitals and thousands of physicians to perform in lockstep? Simple—though the Rockefeller/Gates/JohnsHopkins consortiums spent a good deal of money to figure this out.
You use two trusted methods: bribery and threats. You bribe the venal and the pushovers, and you threaten those who seem to have a stronger moral compass.
Sadly, as we’ve seen, the majority succumb to these pressures. It is not an easy decision to risk losing one’s medical license and therefore livelihood and means of supporting one’s family. It takes courage—what Aristotle called the first of the virtues, upon which all the others are dependent—and, as we’ve seen writ large in the past few years—it’s rare.
The Billion Dollar Question
After listening to several hours of horror stories about unnecessary deaths from Covid-19, and maiming and deaths off the charts from vaccine injuries, I think it was Senator Johnson who asked the key question: Why?
Why are the CDC, FDA, NIH, medical boards, hospitals, etc., all seemingly on board with such obviously cruel and unusual practices?
Dr. Pierre Kory provided this answer: “Corruption!” “They’re putting profits ahead of lives!”
Well, yes, we see the money sloshing around, and hospitals, Big Pharma, and Dr. Mengele Fauci, among others, are making out like bandits, but as for the “why” question, I beg to differ. After all, we’ve seen corporate corruption and profiteering at the cost of lives before. Take the tobacco industry moguls. They knew cigarettes caused lung cancer fairly early on. But hey, there was big money to be made. So…they hid that knowledge and kept selling cigarettes.
That’s how corruption works. It’s got to be secretive. But that’s not what we’re seeing now. The downright coldblooded murder of our fellow citizens in hospitals is not hidden. Nor is the carnage from the vaccines for anyone who knows how to search for it on the internet. Besides, given enough time, the truth will out. And Senator Johnson and the heroes he assembled are doing their best to speed that up.
Motive and Opportunity: The Great Reset
So if it’s not primarily about money and corruption, what could the motive be?
Ask Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer VP in the UK. Early in this saga, Dr. Yeadon detected a “whiff of evil.” He was the only one at that time who used that word, thus making him one of my early heroes, since I detected that same whiff.
What Senator Johnson’s group may not understand is that America, and indeed, the world, is now in the grip of evil. We’re in the End Game of the psychopathic billionaires’ One World Government club, and they long since announced they want to drastically reduce the world’s population. And they didn’t mean over the next hundred or two hundred years. They mean in the next three to five years. Make that in the next seven years, if you sense a Biblical connection.
We’re witnessing planned genocide being enacted. The parallels with Nazi Germany are legion. I was horrified listening to Dr. Richard Urso saying that in the early days of Covid, hospitals would not only refuse to let family members enter the room of their loved one who was dying, but after death, they would not release the body to the family for burial! What did they do? They incinerated it! The Nazis would have been proud.
The globalist cabal call it “depopulation” which is Orwellian doublespeak for mass murder. That’s why this is happening, Senator Johnson. These maniacs have bought up politicians, medical associations, hospitals, doctors, and the entire mainstream media which they use as their PR mouthpiece day in and day out. They own the narrative. And while they and their minions like Fauci and Big Pharma moguls no doubt love the blood money they’re raking in, the New World Order oligarchs don’t need money—that’s not what they’re after. They want absolute power and they want a much smaller population to control. They’re simply culling the serfs.
The globalist cabal behind this entire evil agenda are all in for maximum deaths of those they likely regard as “useless eaters” after the manner of past psychopathic power-mongers like Stalin.
And of course all their Covidian machinations translate into preserving the all-important narrative: the world’s first never-ending “pandemic,” necessitating never-ending vaccine booster shots, digital vaccine passports, digital currency, tracking, tracing, 24/7 surveillance, ID2020, Social Credit Scores, the Great Reset, and Internment Camps for dissidents, while everyone else will “own nothing and be happy” under a One World Government that makes Orwell’s masterpiece 1984 look like a walk in the park.
That’s why they’re doing what they’re doing.
And that’s why they must be stopped!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Cherie Zaslawsky is a writer, freelance editor, and private educator/teacher/writing coach for high school students, as well as a confirmed Constitutionalist who nevertheless lives in California. Her work appears in Renew America, Lew Rockwell, American Thinker, Canada Free Press, WND, The Published Reporter, and more.
Featured image is a screenshot from a Youtube 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.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
If countries in Europe are already beginning to ration certain things due to “supply problems”, how long will it be before it starts happening in the United States? Up until the past couple of years, many of us in the western world always considered shortages to be something that only “unsophisticated” poor countries on the other side of the planet had to deal with. But the last couple of years have shown us that painful shortages can happen to wealthy countries in the western world too. At first we were told that they were “just temporary”, but the months went by and we just kept having more shortages. In fact, in 2022 “supply problems” have become so serious that many supermarkets in Europe have been forced to strictly ration essential items at various times. For example, it was being reported that due to the war in Ukraine flour, sunflower oil and sugar were all being rationed by stores in Greece…
After limiting the sale of some flours and sunflower oil online, Greek supermarkets are turning to rationing the sale of sugar as well, now including in their stores, over supply problems.
The AB Vassilopoulos is setting a maximum limit on the purchase of all brands of corn and sunflower oil and of flour per customer while Mymarket put a ceiling on sunflower oil purchases and Sklavenitis has added sugar to the rationed sales of corn oil through its online store, with a maximum of four packs, the products in high demand from restaurants, some of which said they have to stop selling french fries and other fried foods.
Over the past few months we have seen similar measures implemented in other major European nations as well. For example, the war in Ukraine prompted some pretty severe rationing in Spain…
Sporadic shortages of products like eggs, milk, and other dairy products also hit Spain since the war in Ukraine began. And major supermarkets including Mercadona and Makro began rationing sunflower oil earlier this month.
Now, stores will temporarily be allowed to limit “the number of goods that can be bought by a client,” according to information in the Official State Gazette published on Wednesday.
Looking forward, natural gas rationing is the next big thing that many people in Europe are talking about. The flow of Russian natural gas into Europe has been cut back, and it appears that this may soon cause widespread rationing in Italy…
Italy may start rationing natural-gas consumption to certain industrial giants, after Russia’s Gazprom halved supplies on Friday.
On the weekend, the newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that the Italian government and energy industry would meet Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss the crisis, with the likely outcome being the introduction of a state of alert under the country’s gas emergency protocol.
And CNN is reporting that Germany is “one step closer to rationing supplies” now that Russia has decided to reduce the flow of natural gas going to that country…
Europe’s biggest economy is now officially running short of natural gas and is escalating a crisis plan to preserve supplies as Russia turns off the taps.
Germany on Thursday activated the second phase of its three-stage gas emergency program, taking it one step closer to rationing supplies to industry — a step that would deliver a huge blow to the manufacturing heart of its economy.
Of course there are other parts of the globe that are dealing with problems that are far, far more serious than what Europe is facing right now.
As I discussed in an article that I posted earlier this week, significant numbers of people are starting to literally drop dead from starvation in portions of eastern Africa. Global food supplies just keep getting tighter, and the head of the UN is openly telling us that the world is heading into an “unprecedented global hunger crisis”.
So if you have plenty of food to eat tonight, you should be thankful.
Here in the United States, economic conditions are deteriorating fairly rapidly, and most Americans are completely and totally unprepared for any sort of a major economic downturn. Earlier today, I came across yet another survey that shows that about 60 percent of all Americans are currently living paycheck to paycheck…
“We find that consumers in all income brackets — including those who make more than $100,000 annually — are living paycheck to paycheck. PYMNTS’ research finds that 61% of U.S. consumers were living paycheck to paycheck in April 2022, marking a 9 percentage point increase from 52% in April 2021, meaning that approximately three in five U.S. consumers devote nearly all of their salaries to expenses with little to nothing left over at the end of the month.”
So what is going to happen when those people start losing their jobs in large numbers?
Already, we have seen the number of tech layoffs greatly accelerate over the last couple of months.
Sadly, the layoffs will get much worse in the months ahead.
And as inflation continues to systematically eat away at our standard of living, Americans are turning to credit cards at a record pace…
As Americans grapple with the highest inflation in 40 years, the number of new credit cards have surged as more Americans rely on them to keep up with high prices. According to a recent report from the Federal Reserve, revolving credit (credit cards and lines of credit) increased by 19.6% from the previous year to $1.103 trillion.
At this point, almost everyone realizes that things are going to get bad. According to one recent poll, a whopping 85 percent of all Americans believe that the U.S. is “headed in the wrong direction”…
The national dissatisfaction is bipartisan. Most Americans, 85%, say the country is headed in the wrong direction. A majority of Republicans have been unhappy with the direction of the country since Biden’s election. Democrats had been positive about how things were going, but now 78% say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
I was astounded to see that 78 percent of Democrats believe that the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction with a Democrat in the White House.
I have never seen a number like that ever before.
But this is just another indication that the hour is late and that things are about to start getting really crazy out there.
For the moment, life is still at least somewhat normal in the western world.
Sadly, it won’t stay that way for long, and so I would recommend using your time wisely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“What do you do with someone with an allergy? What do you do with someone who’s immunocompromised, or someone who for religious reasons…or deep convictions, decided that no, they’re not going to get a vaccine? We’re not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.”~ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Brandon Gonez Show, May 9, 2021
In 1928, Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays published a book titled Propaganda. Bernays emphasized in Propaganda that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country” [1].
Bernays laid out a number of strategies when employing propaganda to achieve desired political objectives. We can look at these strategies as a way to reflect on the recent media propaganda about the truckers’ freedom convoy in Canada. The convoy became a thorn in the side of powerful establishment, elite interests, expressed especially in statements and actions of the Trudeau Liberals. The prime minister, numbers of cabinet ministers, and the legacy media got the convoy in their crosshairs. In 2022, politicians and the media gave Canadians a lesson on the real limits of democracy in Canada.
1) If you manipulate the leader of a group, the people will follow
Bernays states “If you can influence leaders…you automatically influence the group which they sway.” [2] At the time the freedom convoy protests were unfolding in Ottawa, there were news reports about powerful people influencing Justin Trudeau and other members of the Liberal caucus. A National Post headline on February 2, 2022, declared “Chrystia Freeland’s side-gig with WEF is endangering Canadian democracy.” [3] Current Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland became a Rhodes Scholar in 1993. In the mid-90s, she began her career as freelance journalist in the Ukraine [4] working for the Financial Times. For more than a decade, Freeland has been part of the elite who gather for meetings of the World Economic Forum.
Reporter Rupa Subramanya described how “The World Economic Forum (WEF), which has met at the Swiss ski resort of Davos every year since its creation in 1971 by German academic and entrepreneur Klaus Schwab, was forced to convert its annual schmoozefest into a virtual event this year due to COVID-19. Of note on the main agenda was a “stakeholder capitalism” panel, which included Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland.
The former-journalist-turned-politician has been a fixture at the WEF for years. Rubbing shoulders at Davos with the world’s rich, famous and powerful was one of the inspirations for her 2012 book, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else.” Is the WEF part of an invisible government, among other key influencers, shaping Canadian federal policies?
The National Post article noted since 2019 Freeland has sat on the WEF Board of Trustees. Another Canadian, former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, also sits on the WEF Board of Trustees. As well, former United States vice-president Al Gore, co-founder of the Carlyle Group (USA) David Rubenstein, Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé, Mark Schneider and cellist Yo-Yo Ma, among the group of 31 trustees chaired by Klaus Schwab. [5]
Being on the WEF Board of Trustees is not a token gesture meant simply to embroider someone’s resume. According to the WEF, the board of trustees “act as guardians of its mission and values” and are its “highest-level governance body.”
Could being a “guardian” of the WEF’s mission and values put Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in a conflict of interest? Are there Canadian traditions and values, such as the right to own private property, that are in conflict with the mission of the WEF? The WEF has posted at least one ad depicting “The World in 2030: You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” [6] 2030 is just seven and a half years away. What does owning nothing and being happy mean for individuals who own homes, vacation homes, commercial property vehicles, boats and more?
Justin Trudeau is a graduate of the WEF Young Global Leaders program. [7] As the WEF holds strong positions on global policy, its underreported influence on the Trudeau Liberal caucus should be of concern to Canadians. In 2017, Klaus Schwab boasted at the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard-John F. Kennedy School of Government about WEF influence on nation states. Said Schwab,
“We penetrate the cabinets. I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half this (Canadian) cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. It’s true in Argentina, it’s true in France—now with the President, who is a young global leader.” [8]
In addition to Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland, there are others in the Trudeau cabinet who are either graduates of the Young Global Leader WEF program, and/or have attended Davos meetings. [9] These include:
Marie-Claude Bibeau (2015-present, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food)
Randy Boissonnault, (2015-present, Minister of Tourism, Associate Minister of Finance)
Jim “James” Carr (2015-present, former Minister of Natural Resources, Minster of International Trade Diversification, and current Chair of Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security)
François-Philippe Champagne (2015-present, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry)
Sean Fraser (20015-present, Minister of Immigration)
Karina Gould (2015-present, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development)
Patty Hajdu (2015-present – former Minister of Health, Minister of Indigenous Services)
Ahmed Hussen (2015-present, Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion)
Helena Jaczek (2019-present, Minister of Community and Social Services)
Mélanie Joly (2015-present, Minister of Foreign Affairs)
Mary Ng (2017-present, Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development)
Ginette Petitpas Taylor (2015-present, Minister of Official Languages).
In a 39-member cabinet, at least 14 ministers around the table have WEF connections. A block of the cabinet, headed by Trudeau, embracing the mission and values of the WEF, can plausibly try to achieve the WEF mission in federal decisions. In addition, there are former cabinet ministers and deputy ministers who have WEF connections.
Michael Sabia was appointed Deputy Finance Minister in 2020.
Navdeep Bains (2004-2021, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Registrar General of Canada)
Scott Brison (1997-2019, former Treasury Board President)
Ralph Goodale, (1974-79, 1993-2019, current Canadian High Commissioner to the UK, former Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
John Manley (1988-2004, former Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Minister of Foreign Affairs)
Maryam Monsef (2015-2021, former Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Minister of Rural Economic Development)
Bill Morneau (2015-2020, former Minister of Finance).
As Klaus Schwab pointed out, 19 members of the Trudeau cabinet in 2017 had WEF connections. Other persons of influence in Canadian politics with WEF connections include:
Ailish Campbell (Ambassador of Canada to the European Union)
Jean Charest, (former Premier of Quebec from 2003-2012, and current leadership candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada)
Elissa Golberg, (Assistant Deputy Minister for Strategic Policy, Global Affairs Canada – 2017-2021, and current Ambassador of Canada to Italy)
Renée Maria Tremblay (Senior Counsel, Supreme Court of Canada).
Schwab and the WEF have broadcast the pandemic as a window of opportunity for a “Great Reset” under which the global economy would be built back better. Justin Trudeau participated in a virtual press conference with the UN on September 29, 2020 telling how Canadian pandemic policy was part of an economic “reset.” [10]
The Great Reset is part of what the WEF envisions as catalyst for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Trudeau Liberals have an agreement with the NDP to keep the government in power until 2025. NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, is also a WEF Young Global Leader graduate. [11]
2) Words are powerful, and the key to influencing group emotions is through the clever use of language
Edward Bernays advises that effective propaganda employs key words and phrases as emotional drivers to shift opinions of the masses to adhere to the agenda of those in charge.
On March 31, 2021, Justin Trudeau lauded Canadian truckers as heroes of the pandemic. He tweeted: “While many of us are working from home, there are others who aren’t able to do that – like truck drivers who are working day and night to make sure our shelves are stocked. So when you can, please #ThankATrucker for everything they’re doing and help them however you can.” [12]
In the past, Justin Trudeau has drawn on classic liberal values of tolerance and inclusion to frame discussion of an event that resulted in deaths in America. The CBC’s Peter Mansbridge asked Trudeau for his response to the April 15th Boston Marathon attacks that killed three people and left 265 injured. Trudeau said he would offer the Americans material support
“and…we have to look at the root causes.…there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded….At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from? ….But we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don’t emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society.”
In response to Trudeau’s statement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper slammed Trudeau saying “Don’t sit around trying to rationalize it.” [13]
Earlier during the pandemic, it was the tolerant, understanding, Trudeau on display. On May 9, 2021, on the Brandon Gonez Show, the prime minister addressed the matter of mRNA vaccine hesitancy saying,
“What do you do with someone with an allergy? What do you do with someone who’s immunocompromised, or someone who for religious reasons…or deep convictions, decided that no, they’re not going to get a vaccine? We’re not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.” [14]
Canadians needed to be compassionate, to empathize with those who were hesitant in stepping forward and put an experimental vaccine in their body that hadn’t gone through standard trials. There was no plan to require mandatory vaccination.
There was a solid basis for questioning the rationale behind any plans for mass vaccination of the mRNA vaccines. On August 6, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that the Covid-19 vaccines did not stop or reduce transmission, or prevent infection. [15] Why vaccinate a whole population with a non-sterilizing vaccine that didn’t prevent transmission or prevent infection against a disease? (As I write this the triple-vaxxed prime minister has gone into isolation after testing positive for Covid-19 a second time). [16] Especially, when the infection fatality rate was in the zone of the seasonal flu – where at least 99.75% survived infection. And those most at risk were obese or had multiple co-morbidities. [17]
But during the federal election campaign in late summer 2021, the prime minister did a 180-degree reversal. Trudeau’s Liberals had been polling behind the Conservatives. Between August 24 and September 9th, the Conservatives were ahead of the Liberals in 54 polls – with as much as a 7.9% lead on August 30 – and Trudeau’s party ahead in just 10 polls. [18] So, on August 30, 2021, at a campaign stop in Sudbury, Ontario, Justin Trudeau told a crowd “The folks out there, the anti-vaxxers, they’re wrong…. They are putting at risk their own kids, and they’re putting at risk our kids.” He spoke about the need for only “the vaccinated” to be able to travel by plane or train, “so they don’t have to worry that somebody (unvaccinated) is going to put them in danger seated next to them, or across the aisle.” [19] The underlying assumption was that when vaccinated passengers on a plane were together, they would pose less of a risk to each other compared to an unvaccinated passenger. Yet, CDC Director Rachel Walensky conceded getting vaccinated didn’t prevent transmission or infection.
Ten months later, on June 15, 2022, the head epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada would admit, under cross-examination by freedom convoy lawyer Keith Wilson Q.C., that they “never recommended vaccination of air travelers” to the Trudeau government. This was supported by a sworn affidavit.
Wilson comments that
“the written advice…provided did not identify vaccination as a mitigation strategy. They identified masking. They identified spacing at arrivals, departures and on the planes…. The top epidemiologist for the government of Canada volunteered that the reason they didn’t recommend vaccination for travelers was that the scientific evidence doesn’t support that it would be effective.” [20]
But in the final week of the election campaign, on September 16, 2021, in a TV interview with Julie Synder on La semaine des 4 Julie, Justin Trudeau referred to those who weren’t getting the mRNA vaccine as “racists, misogynists, white supremacists.” He mused “Do we tolerate these people?” [21] The prime minister used vaccine status as a wedge issue to build support for his re-election campaign before the September 21 election. Most Canadians would agree that hatred of other people based on their skin colour, or gender, crossed a line. But what evidence did Trudeau have to suggest the unvaccinated were racists and misogynists? He asserted this was true. A majority of citizens accepted the claim without any scrutiny. Those who didn’t get the mRNA vaccine were labelled as “anti-vaxxers.” The Liberals closed the gap. On election day, they were just 1% behind the Conservatives. Though Trudeau got 191,000 votes less than the Conservatives, he got another minority government.
In a press conference for the UN on September 29, 2021, Trudeau expressed the view that the world needed to achieve “zero COVID.” [22] Nothing less than eradicating COVID-19 would be acceptable for the nations of the world. And the only solution, given Trudeau’s insistence that “we’ve got the science,” was 100 percent vaccination of every Canadian. For those who didn’t buckle, the consequences were severe. Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough announced on October 21, 2021 that those who failed to get vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine would in many workplaces lose their jobs. “It’s a condition of employment that hasn’t been met,” Qualtrough said in an interview with CBC’s Power & Politics. “And the employer choosing to terminate someone for that reason would make that person ineligible for EI.” [23]
Over the fall, the unvaccinated were warned they would no longer be able to board a train or a plane within Canada, or leave the country. A November 30 headline in Toronto’s City News announced “Unvaccinated travelers barred from trains and planes as of today.”[24] In step with these developments, New Brunswick’s Minister of Health, Dorothy Shephard, announced a “winter action plan” that tasked all businesses that provide essentials such as food to require proof of vaccination from clients. Critics objected that the “winter action plan” was a violation of human rights, since accessing food is a basic need. [25]
In Quebec, Premier François Legault announced on January 12, 2022, that his province would start routinely taxing the unvaccinated. CTV cited the example in Austria as instructive. “In Austria, for example, people 14 and older will face fines of about $5,150 CAD (3,600 Euros) every three months, starting in February, if they’re not vaccinated, according to Reuters.” [26] There was no suggestion in the article that CTV thought the anticipated tax on the unvaccinated in Austria was problematic. CTV reported that comments from politicians and provincial health officers over the fall and winter had agitated the vaccinated toward the unvaccinated. CTV cited an EKOS poll showing 66% of Canadians were losing patience with the unvaccinated. And 60% wanted more penalties and restrictions for those who didn’t comply with vaccine mandates.
Justin Trudeau announced that unvaccinated truckers would no longer be allowed to cross the Canada-U.S. border, effective January 15, 2022. The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had all asked the federal government to either eliminate or postpone the mandate. [27]
It was estimated that as many as 32,000, or 20%, of the 160,000 Canadian and American cross-border truck drivers would have their livelihood impacted by being taken off the highways by the government’s new measure. The new mandate crossed a line for many Canadians. Based on transmission of the virus by the vaccinated, and truckers never being super-spreaders, there was no defensible medical reason to require them to be vaccinated. By January 22 a Trucker Freedom Convoy formed in Prince George and Vancouver, British Columbia. Their destination was Ottawa.
On January 26, Prime Minister Trudeau boasted once again that he was “following the science,” ridiculing convoy supporters as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.” [28] In contrast with his eagerness to understand the Boston Marathon bombers, Justin Trudeau wasn’t interested in trying to understand convoy protesters. Trudeau didn’t want to learn where tensions around the vaccine mandates for cross-border trucking came from. He refused to meet with convoy leaders. Instead of being cautious not to emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust, Trudeau made it clear those supporting the freedom convoy were a danger to society.
3) Any medium of communication is also a medium for propaganda
Another tool of propaganda Edward Bernays highlighted in his classic manual, as essential for those seeking to manipulate an unsuspecting citizenry, is communication. Today, this includes radio, print, TV, social media, podcasts, audio book services, sports and foreign news channel streaming, and employing Facebook fact-checkers, Big Tech censorship and YouTube banner.
When it came to vaccine hesitant Canadians and the trucker freedom convoy, the Trudeau Liberals already had a cozy relationship with the media. In 2018, the Trudeau Liberals gave $595 million in a “bailout” to over 1,500 Canadian media outlets. [29] Next, they paid the legacy media over $61 million before the September 2021 election to keep them in their corner with coverage friendly to the government. Reporting in the Lake Superior News,Spencer Fernando warned that these payments to the media had potential to subvert democracy. A media happy to receive these hundreds of millions of dollars could be disinclined to report stories troubling to the Liberals. [30]
Media coverage of the freedom convoy framed Trudeau as a noble leader beset by a throng of hoodlums, criminals, “terrorists, mercenaries…” In an effort to variously demean, defame and demonize the truckers, Canadian legacy media employed an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink strategy to agitate their audiences to feel repugnance toward convoy protesters.
At first, the media just ignored news about formation of the convoy. Next on January 22, there were reports of tie-ups on BC-Highway 99, from the US border to Vancouver. These were allegedly due to truckers protesting the conditions of highways in British Columbia. This despite truck drivers in the province who knew damage from November rainstorms had washed out parts of highways, bridges in seven major provincial routes. The Department of Highways had opened highways before the year was through. Purportedly, a truck convoy from Surrey to Vancouver was protesting “ineffective” use of “de-icing equipment.” [31] Suddenly, the convoy protest about provincial highways morphed into one heading to Ottawa.
In the following weeks the bribed, bailed out, media described convoy protesters as angry, “Russian actors,” “fascists,” unimportant, [32] pyromaniacs, Confederates, white supremacists, Nazis, an embarrassment to the trucking industry, and more.
As the convoy headed east, on Jan 25, CTV ran this headline: “’So many angry people’: Experts say online conversation around trucker convoy veering into dangerous territory.” The network interviewed Kurt Phillips, founder of Anti-Racist Canada, who warned that he’d “seen people online calling the trucker convoy Canada’s version of the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan 6, 2021, for the truckers to ram their trucks into Parliament, and people encouraging the hanging of politicians.” Peter Smith with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network warned that “the largest groups…have been organized and managed by people who have connections to…the Yellow Vests, the separatist Western movements. So right from the start, this began as part of fringe politics.” [32]
Turning from alleged racist motives, the Convoy was next framed as inspired by Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Russian actors” had instigated the convoy. CBC reporter Nil Koksal mused, “Given Canada’s support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia…there is a concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, perhaps even instigating it from the outside.” The CBC retracted the statement on February 4th. [33]
Washington Post cartoonist Michael de Adder published a cartoon illustrating a convoy of trucks, each with the word “FASCISM” written on its side. The phrase “Supply Chain” was written on the bottom of the frame. The truckers weren’t to be understood as asking the government to back up their claims that cross-border trucking would not have any impact on spread of COVID-19. After two years of shouting “we’ve got the science” in order to close down debate, the convoy protest was to be understood as a sudden eruption of fascism.
On January 29, CTV journalist Mackenzie Gray posted a photo of an individual carrying a confederate flag. Gray tweeted above the photo, “We’ve got our first confederate flag of the day here on Parliament Hill.” Florida governor Ron Desantis’ press secretary Christina Pushaw responded on Twitter to Gray’s tweet observing “You claim to be a journalist, so why don’t you interview him? You can ask him who he is – and why he is flying a Confederate flag. If you just post a picture like this with no context, it looks like you’re implying the entire convoy are racists. How do you know he isn’t a plant?” [35]
Why would Canadian truckers, pissed off at having their ability to make a living due to imposition of cross-border vaccine mandates, want to bring a Confederate flag, a symbol of pre-American Civil War defense of slavery? It was convenient for media to use the photo of a Confederate flag to switch discussion from the merits of cross-border vaccination mandates. Instead, reporters could conjure the ghost of Robert E. Lee, inferring convoy protesters wanted to establish slavery in Canada.
On January 29, the Globe & Mail ran this headline:
Reporter Uday Rana claimed Sikh truck drivers hadn’t been invited to take part in the convoy. [36] Yet, it was clear from video taken by those attending the convoy protests that there were many South Asian and Sikh truck drivers present. [37] Numerous tweets and posts online underscored the ethnic diversity of the convoy protesters. Indigenous drummers were leading the crowd by Parliament Hill in singing O Canada. [38]
On January 28, CTV ran a story with the headline ‘Embarrassment for the industry’: Not all truckers support the ‘freedom convoy’” The story began, “A so-called ‘freedom convoy’ of truckers and supporters is on its way to Ottawa…” A trucker from London, Ontario was interviewed who thought the convoy was “an embarrassment for the industry.” Mike Millian, president of the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada told CTV
“Our organization’s become very concerned about…racist remarks comparing (the mandate) to Nazis and communism – things that are not compatible to what’s going on right now.”
Video playing in the background on CTV showed truck after truck with Canadian flags, and a sea of supporters with Canadian flags everywhere. [39] The previous week Millian had decried the “state of chaos” and “mass confusion” the Trudeau Liberals had thrown the trucking industry into by enforcing a vaccine mandate on drivers to cross the US-Canada border. [40]
4) Reiterating the same idea over and over creates habits and convictions
Edward Bernays details in Propaganda how repeating ideas over and over again helps ordinary citizens to adopt new convictions and habits that aid agendas of the those in charge. Repeating the same idea again and again is a form of neuro-linguistic programming. Repetition can plant certain concepts or emotions in the subconscious mind. There are many examples of repetition being used effectively during the pandemic. One is the WEF phrase “build back better,” used as a campaign slogan by U.S. President Joe Biden. Justin Trudeau has repeatedly shut down scrutiny about the basis for his pandemic measures by telling people to “trust the science.” We are to assume this is medical science and not political science. Throughout the freedom convoy protest, the 24/7-in-your-face death statistics and case numbers, continued apace, promoting the pervasiveness of a pandemic.
Nobody ever asked what happened to seasonal flu and pneumonia. Or mentioned that the hospitals are always full with these afflictions in the winter months, in any case. Building on the legacy media’s everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to discrediting, demeaning and demonizing the truckers, politicians continued to step forward with new allegations which they repeated over and over and over.
a) Vandals
Trucker Freedom Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson Q.C., reports that during the first week after the trucks arrived they were vandalized. “Groups of Antifa were coming through at night in their black hoodies and backpacks and black jeans. And they would come when the truckers were sleeping and knife their tires and cut their air lines and spray paint the trucks. They would vandalize the trucks. So, each block had a block captain for that area of trucks. And they had a watch system so that when an Antifa person would show up, the trucker would grab them, call 9-1-1 and the police would come, arrest that guy and take him away. That would happen three instances in the night. Guess what the police chief would do the next day? He’d say ‘we had three arrests for property damage in the downtown core last night’ The arrests were Antifa, the 9-1-1 calls were from truckers.” But Ottawa police left it to the media to infer the vandals, those responsible for “property damage,” were convoy protesters. [41]
b) Arsonists
On the morning of February 6, Matias Munoz alleged two arsonists came to an apartment building at Metcalfe and Lisgar at 5 AM. They had on them fire starter bricks in the lobby. Munoz tweeted: “One of them taped the door handles so no one could get in or out” (including the arsonists). According to the story, a tenant saw the arsonists lighting a fire in the lobby, asked if they were truckers. And then decided to go to bed without calling 911. Which is what you’d do if you knew you were in a building that was on fire. Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson held an emergency meeting of city council condemning the “malicious intent” of the convoy protesters. *“*Yesterday we learned of a horrific story that clearly demonstrates the malicious intent of the protesters occupying our city.” [42]
But the Ottawa Deputy Chief told the press on February 8, “We don’t have any direct linkage between the occupation — the demonstrators — and that act.” [43] On March 21, Ottawa police confirmed the person charged with the February 6th arson had nothing to do with the convoy protest. [44]
On April 8th, Rex Murphy reported in the National Post:
“This week, we found out that the attempt to burn down an apartment building in Ottawa, which was so widely and wildly heralded during the Freedom Convoy protest, had nothing to do with the truckers. Please let this sink in. At the time, such was the volume of assumption, innuendo and outright allegation that everyone from Nanaimo, B.C., to Nain, N.L., formed the impression that this despicable action, an outrage by any standard, was the work of the truckers. Not true. False. Nothing to do at all with the protesters. It was allegedly the work of two Ottawa miscreants who were working alone.” [45]
c) Criminals with weapons
In addition to the specter of lawlessness and arson, politicians began to paint the truckers as violent in other ways. During a press conference on February 17, a Francophone reporter pointed out that Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino had been “insinuating for days” that weapons were being brought to Ottawa, or were in Ottawa with the convoy. Mendicino replied, *“*I am not saying that there is an intelligence saying there are weapons in Ottawa.” [46]
At a March 24 House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety, Conservative MP Dane Lloyd pressed Ottawa Police Service (OPS) Interim Chief Steve Bell to confirm *“*Were loaded firearms (at the Freedom Convoy) found? Yes or no?” Bell replied, “In relation to—no, not relating to any charges to this point…at no point did we lay any firearms-related charges. ” [47]
Yet, as Rex Murphy observed “The protest has been actually not mainly but overwhelmingly peaceful, and the political and major press response, wildly alarmist and ominous. Ottawa shops remain with their windows intact, no assaults on police stations or police being bombarded with sticks and stones, no armed patrols by the truckers telling people where they could go or not go, and a splendid number of rather endearing incidents that have failed to make it to national or local press.” [48]
Even Public Safety Minister Marco Mendocino’s own staff were telling him the protests were peaceful. Director General of the Government Operations Centre, Deryck Trehearne, confirmed that “the majority of the event was peaceful…disruption of government activities is minor.” Ottawa senior Public Safety officials advised Mendocino that convoy organizers were encouraging participants to keep lanes of obstruction-free, clear vehicles out of residential areas, and be respectful of the police. [49]
Speaking on the Emergencies Act vote before the Canadian Senate on February 22nd, Senator Denise Batters cited her firsthand experience of the protest. “My office faces right onto Wellington Street, and I had a front row seat to this convoy for the past weeks. What I witnessed of protesters was peaceful, organized and non-threatening. I do not tolerate harassment, intimidation or destruction, ever. But I did not see any of that behaviour exhibited by the protesters. I have been here in Ottawa during all three weeks of the protest. I can say, that in the last two years, I never felt safer walking home from my office at night. The protesters I met…reminded me of the people I know in Saskatchewan: friendly, hard-working, patriotic Canadians…. These truckers are our constituents and it is our job as parliamentarians to hear them out…. They drove all the way to Ottawa from those Saskatchewan towns. Birch Hills is almost 3,000 kilometers, a 32-hour drive away. To simply have a conversation….What is the national emergency this time? Dance parties and loud horns? Horns that, by the way, had long stopped honking by the time this act was invoked, due to a court injunction that the truckers complied with.” [50]
An Ottawa resident named David, who saw the convoy below his bedroom window, echoed Batters assessment after speaking with the protesters.
“As I finally made my way back home, after talking to dozens of truckers into the night, I realized I met someone from every province except PEI. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians. These are the people that Canada relies on to build its infrastructure, deliver its goods, and fill the ranks of its military in times of war. The overwhelming concern they have is that the vaccine mandates are creating an untouchable class of Canadians. They…see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; And they said enough.” [51]
Batters observed that “Prime Minister Trudeau brought in the Emergencies Act as a first, and not a last, resort.” As well she noted, “Both houses of Parliament were able to meet for weeks, mere steps away from the protesters. Prime Minister Trudeau and his senior cabinet ministers attended several question periods in House of Commons sittings in person. If there were a true public order emergency, surely none of that would have been allowed to have occurred.” She reminded the Senate that the Emergency Act wasn’t invoked even “during the October 2014 Parliament Hill shooting. And I remember that well, because I was locked in a caucus room for ten hours with my colleagues throughout.” [52]
d) Unfit parents
In addition to allegations of threatening use of weapons, the truckers were viewed as reckless parents who rightfully should have their children apprehended. “I can only say that there have been ongoing reports regarding child welfare concerns, and that we consider all information received to determine the best response,” said a spokesperson for the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society. Under the Emergencies Act invoked by Prime Minister Trudeau on Valentine’s Day, February 14, bringing children to the demonstrations was now prohibited. If a child was in the cab of a truck, it would result in a potential fine of $5,000 or up to five years in prison. Ottawa police said roughly 25 per cent of the vehicles in the blockades had children in them. Convoy protesters’ children had been playing in bouncy castles, dancing to music and playing outdoor hockey over the previous weeks. [53]
e) Insurrectionists, terrorists
Convoy protestors were also accused of being terrorists. Ottawa City Councillor Diane Deans referred to the protest as part of a “nationwide insurrection,” and the protesters themselves were “terrorists” and “mercenaries.” [54] When crowdfunding efforts raised over $14 million combined in regular and cryptocurrency donations, media commentators alleged it was the work of domestic and foreign terrorism, and supporters of Donald Trump. However, Barry MacKillop, deputy-director of FINTRAC, the federal organization that goes after terrorism funds and criminal money-laundering, told the Commons finance committee that there was not a shred of illegal activity associated with the trucker convoy. [55] The protests had nothing to do with domestic terrorism or money-laundering. [56]
f) Illegal protest
Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and other Liberal cabinet ministers, repeatedly referred to the convoy protest as “illegal.” But on February 7, Ontario Chief Justice McLean ruled the protest was legal. He wrote, “the defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.” However, the repeated mantra of the protest being labelled illegal, gave many Canadians the impression the protests were against the law. [57] Freeland made the claim again on June 15, 2022, before the Parliamentary Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of the Emergency. [58]
5) One can manipulate individual actions by creating circumstances that modify group customs
In his book Propaganda, Edward Bernays discusses how clever propaganda will seek to shift citizen behaviour to change customs.
a) right to peaceful assembly
A long established custom enshrined in the democratic traditions in Canada has been the right of peaceful assembly, of the right to protest. This is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [59] Many protesters were familiar with key sections of the Charter, including
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (including) c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the righta) to move to and take up residence in any province; andb) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived…
Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford was among the First Ministers who drafted and signed the Charter in 1982. On February 12, Peckford told Freedom Convoy protesters in Ottawa that the vaccine mandates for truckers and travel mandates were in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without informed consent, and not allow the mRNA vaccine to be optional, the government was in violation rights protecting “security of the person.” [60]
Justin Trudeau’s many verbal attacks on convoy protesters sent a message that where citizens formerly had the right to peaceful assembly, this was now the case only as long as it didn’t upset the government.
Convoy leaders, including Brian Peckford, were asking to meet with Trudeau and key public health officials to hold them accountable.
They wanted to discuss Trudeau’s claims that the vaccine mandates were in fact based on science.
They wanted to discuss the vaccine mandates in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Trudeau, Dr. Theresa Tam and Dr. Howard Njoo (Public Health Agency of Canada), and Dr. Shelley Deeks (chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization) refused to meet with convoy leaders. [61] Instead, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time since its creation in 1988. [62] (His father had invoked its predecessor, the War Measures Act, in 1970 to deal with the FLQ Crisis).
A Wall Street Journal headline asked “Will Canadian Democracy Survive Justin Trudeau?: His father invoked emergency powers in 1970—but that was against terrorists, not peaceful protesters.” WSJ wondered “will Canada return to its peaceful, democratic roots? Or will this episode transform into something more sinister and undemocratic. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has certainly acted like a tinpot dictator. Mr. Trudeau refused to meet with Freedom Convoy organizers or protesters in Ottawa….the PM was nowhere to be seen. Instead of finding ways to diffuse this tense situation, Mr. Trudeau’s approach was to throw more gasoline on the fire. The absentee Prime Minister would infrequently grace the nation with his presence to mock and smear his opponents.” In another editorial, the paper concluded “Government’s job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties. Canada has failed on both scores.” [63]
On February 17 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, decreed bank accounts and assets of all convoy protesters, and those who donated to their cause, would be frozen. [64] The message was clear: if Canadians wanted to protest government policies, they might not be able to have access to their bank accounts, to pay mortgages, the rent. This caused a run on the banks, according to Martha Durdin, CEO of the Canadian Credit Unions Association, who testified before a Parliamentary committee in early March. [65] There was also a run on precious metals, which largely were unavailable as an alternative place to store wealth.
Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson, told Viva Frei, “I have it from a very high source, that a) the banks realized what had happened when they saw how their customers reacted. Having people who don’t trust your institution…is bad for your business model. There were some people withdrawing millions of dollars from their accounts. As well, big financial players in the investment community in the USA weighed in. They were asking if investing in Canada was now like investing in Venezuela or Cuba. “What just happened to Canada? I thought it had the rule of law. I thought it had checks and balances.” There was a phone call to the PMO from Wall Street which cautioned, ‘We are going to publicly distance ourselves from your actions. We are going to criticize your actions. You have 24 hours to reverse them.’ So, Justin Trudeau held a press conference and said ‘circumstances have changed and now it’s time for Canada…’” [66]
The freezing of bank accounts sent a chill across the nation. Citizens were second guessing whether making a donation to this or that organization would be frowned upon by the government. Freezing bank accounts and sending police to violently break up a peaceful protest on Parliament Hill eroded trust in democracy. This created charitable donation hesitancy. Going forward, would more people worry more about ‘not saying the wrong thing’ and ‘not getting into trouble,’ rather than challenging the status quo?
Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation observed that even when the Emergencies Act was withdrawn on February 23, the chill remained. On the plain text of the regulations to freeze bank accounts, “even a $20 donation could result in accounts being frozen. At the House finance committee, Isabelle Jacques, an assistant deputy minister in the Department of Finance, was asked why the federal government felt the need to declare an emergency when existing laws could also be used to freeze illegal donations, as they were in Ontario under Sec. 490.8 of the Criminal Code. Her answer: to ‘make an impression upon those considering offering financial support.’” [67] All because Trudeau lacked the courage to talk to the truckers.
b) Freedom’s just another word
Before the trucker freedom convoy, freedom was a common Canadian value. It is foundational to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Truckers protested vaccine mandates as part of the Trudeau government’s attack on Charter rights and freedoms. This included restrictions on citizen rights of mobility: “to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” As well, truckers were protesting infringements on their right “to pursue the gaining of a livelihood.” Many trucks in the convoy had Canadian flags and the word “freedom.” Many placards on Wellington Street in Ottawa read “freedom.”
Tens of thousands of truck drivers were sidelined by the government’s measure. They drove from the west and east coast to Ottawa in minus thirty degree temperatures. They wanted to talk to their politicians. They wanted the validity of these pandemic measures put under scrutiny.
But, many in establishment circles didn’t want pandemic measures debated. There could be no scrutinizing the basis was for the oft repeated “trust the science” mantra. Instead, the protesters claims their Charter rights had been violated was characterized as exaggerated.
In an opinion piece to the Globe and Mail, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin wrote “The Ottawa truck convoy has revealed the ugly side of freedom.” McLachlin wondered “what does this vaunted ‘freedom’ mean? The answer is, everything and nothing. Everything: the right not to wear masks in public places; the right not to be vaccinated; the right to hold Ottawa’s downtown residents and businesses hostage; the right to malign public officials and call for the Prime Minister’s death; the right to shout epithets at people of colour. And nothing. Because freedom is an empty word unless you ask further questions: Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? And beyond that, ‘Where do my freedoms end and the freedoms of others begin?’….The bottom line is that you can’t use your freedoms in a way that unreasonably conflicts with or affects the freedoms of other people. The freedoms guaranteed by the Charter stop where they harm others. With freedom comes responsibility.” [68]
McLachlin continued, “The heady notion of freedom, defined as the unconstrained right to do what you want free of government limits, serves as a cloak for actions that harm women, men and children…. people who don’t look like you or talk like you. Sadly, the Ottawa truckers’ convoy has revealed this ugly side of freedom.” [69]
McLachlin is no doubt a victim of slanted government propaganda. She’d been treated to a mono-message repeated by media that has piled claim after claim, and allegation upon allegation, with reckless abandon. McLachlin, and most members of the Canadian establishment trust the news they follow to provide fairness and accuracy in reporting.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms signatory Brian Peckford commented on his own inclination to initially trust what those in charge were saying. On June 8, 2022, in an interview Peckford said “The first inclination as a former first minister, first inclination – especially as a Canadian – is to trust what people are saying to you. The Public Health Agency of Canada, the various departments of health in all the provinces, and the Provincial Health Officers – and so your first inclination as Canadians – how nice we all are – you say to the government ‘they’re doing the right thing.’” [70] But, in time, Peckford began to question the vaccine mandates. Especially once it was clear the vaccines didn’t prevent infection or transmission.
Like Brian Peckford, one can safely assume that Beverly McLachlin is inclined to trust what people in charge are saying, and trust mainstream media reports. She likely hadn’t read reports by Indo-Canadian reporter Rupa Subramanya. Nearly two weeks into the protest, Subramanya had interviewed over 100 protesters. From Day 1 she went into the convoy crowd multiple times daily to ask people why they’d come to Ottawa. She noted “not one of them sounded like an insurrectionist, white supremacist, racist or misogynist.” Subramanya spoke to “Kamal Pannu, 33, is a Sikh immigrant and trucker from Montreal” who believed natural immunity is better than the vaccines as a strategy to move the nation forward. She spoke to “Matt Sim, 43, who immigrated to Canada from South Korea…and came to Ottawa with his wife to join the protests. He’d had Covid, and then he’d recovered, and he was skeptical of all the hysteria surrounding the vaccines.” [71]
The multi-ethnic convoy protesters were respectful of the evident diversity on Wellington Street – of people who didn’t look like or talk like them. The crowd was receptive when Asian-Canadian Doctor Daniel Nagase spoke from the stage and received nothing but applause. The same was the case for longtime Global TV news writer Indo-Canadian journalist Anita Krishna. [72] Dr. Julie Ponesse was another woman providing leadership, and speaking to a receptive crowd. [73]
On the weekend of February 18-20, when police aggressively moved in on peaceful convoy protesters, numbers of incidents were reported online. A muslim protester complained that police took his prayer mat, stomped on it and laughed at him. [74] On February 18, an elderly Mohawk woman, Candy Sero, was trampled by mounted police as she stood with her wheeled walker. She fell to the ground. A horse stepped on her shoulder. A man in the crowd started yelling with growing desperation, “Oh my gosh. Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Look what you did. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. You trampled on the lady… Shame on you. Shame on everyone of you. Shame on you…” [75] Sero lived, but suffered a broken clavicle.
Other scenes from February 18 included police beating a protester with the butt of a rifle. [76] Trucker Csaba Vizi was violently beaten and repeatedly kneed in the belly by at least three police on top of him. [77] These were not scenes of an ugly side of freedom. These were scenes of an ugly side of government overreach and police violence.
In an interview, the former host for 21 years of CBC’s Cross Country Check-up, Rex Murphy, spoke after police mobilized against convoy protesters. He wondered where were others in the Liberal cabinet who would say to the Prime Minister “You have overreached vastly. You have insulted the nature of this country, which is always the middle course, always the willingness to at least try to compromise and talk. And you’ve introduced false drama…the melodramatic idea of a great national emergency…” [78]
Former chief justice McLachlin contended persons involved with the convoy were calling “for the Prime Minister’s death.” Yet, late June 2022, searches on both Google and Qwant.comfound no news stories of anyone charged or arrested for issuing death threats against Justin Trudeau related to the convoy. Instead, searches produced news stories of people charged with issuing death threats against Trudeau in August 2021 [79], 2018, [80] 2017, [81] and by actor Alum Ryan Grantham. [82] Both Brian Peckford, and a convoy leader named Daniel Bulford, have confirmed in separate emails to me that they haven’t heard of any convoy protester who’s been charged or arrested for uttering death threats against Trudeau. [83]
An inquiry is now investigating the convoy protests in Ottawa and at several crossings along the Canada-U.S. border. The mandate is to focus not on government actions or whether there was just cause to invoke the Emergencies Act. [84] The inquiry is to look into disinformation, misinformation, crowdsourcing, foreign funding, and goals of the convoy. A fully accountable and transparent inquiry into the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act is required and nothing less. [85] Yet, it has so far devolved into a circus. [86] The Prime Minister’s Office will wait until February 13, 2023, to decide whether to release records related to the convoy. This is a week prior to the date the inquiry is set to release its report to Parliament. [87]
Canadians lined the Trans-Canada Highway and its overpasses all across Canada, in the frigid January weather, to cheer the truckers on. [88] This was not reported by the media Trudeau bought. At this moment, they are still infuriated [89] every day on Twitter. [90] Canadian Liberalism has collapsed. [91] Meanwhile, the legacy media will continue to spin and spin, so that those who trust their reports view 2022 as the Year of the Insurrection.
The travel mandates have been suspended for the moment, with one exception. Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson revealed the one exception to lifting vaccine mandates. Truckers are still not allowed to cross the Canada-U.S. border without being vaccinated. [92]
Two years of pandemic restrictions, social isolation from lockdowns, and suppression of dissenting viewpoints have deformed freedom of speech and its potential to flourish. In this context, propaganda is ever more dangerous. Politicians and the media had a bullhorn to use that went unchallenged until the freedom convoy went to Ottawa. For the first time in Canadian history, a protest in front of the Parliament Buildings was met with a Prime Minister refusing to meet with protesters. Even in the 1935 On-to-Ottawa Trek by farmers, Prime Minister R.B. Bennett listened to their grievances. Instead, convoy protesters were called Nazis, a smear Jewish protesters – like Benjamin Dichter who has family members buried in mass graves in Europe during WWII – rejected. [93]
Time-tested propaganda strategies for framing a discussion, and weaponizing it against a group, are alive and well in Canada in 2022. Democratic responsibility to uphold freedom of speech comes with inconveniences at times. There needs to be a sober reassessment of the Trudeau government’s conduct, and recognition of the battery of false allegations against convoy protesters for what they were: propaganda. The government needs to be held accountable. Its failure to safeguard democratic cornerstones in the face of the overwhelmingly peaceful convoy protest must be referred to the National Apology Advisory Committee. [94]
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ray McGinnis is author of Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored (2021). Previously, he authored Writing the Sacred: A Psalm-inspired Path to Appreciating and Writing Sacred Poetry (2005). Since 1999, Ray has taught journal writing workshops for people dealing with grief and loss, to first responders and in health care facilities. He has also taught poetry writing and memoir workshops across North America. Ray is interested in the stories we tell, the narratives we trust, and how this shapes our world. This includes not just personal stories, but news headline like the Narrative about September 11, and other headlines that saturate citizens with slanted media messages. Earlier in his career, Ray was a program staff in education for the United Church of Canada, serving in several congregations, as well as at the denominations national office (1986-95). He lives in Vancouver, Canada.
Levant, Ezra, “Top epidemiologist for Public Health Agency of Canada NEVER recommended vaccination for air travel,” Rebel News, June 15, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFW0F8GFheE
“Remarks by Chrystia Freeland, Marco Mendocino: Freeland says Emergencies Act begins cracking down on convoy funds,” Press Conference, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, February 17, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvMZvazmT0Q
Batters, Senator Denise, “Senator Denise Batters Gives Riveting Speech on Public Emergency Vote,” Senate of Canada Building, February 22, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mEwghtSEVo
Batters, Senator Denise, “Senator Denise Batters Gives Riveting Speech on Public Emergency Vote,” Senate of Canada Building, February 22, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mEwghtSEVo
“Freeland gets grilled for relying on false CBC story for invoking the Emergencies Act,” Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, June 15, 2022.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbohnuZUl4&t=1s
Email from Brian Peckford on June 22, 2022, and email on June 25th from RCMP officer Daniel Bulford who was part of Justin Trudeau’s security detail before he declined to be vaccinated.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Pfizer is already swimming in record profits, but that hasn’t stopped the drug company from gouging the American taxpayer for every last dollar.
On Wednesday, the Biden Administration signed off on a new vaccine supply deal with Pfizer for $3.2 billion for 105 million COVID injections, but that’s only for the first batch of mRNA shots. The contract will generate well over $9 billion for Pfizer, as this latest purchase agreement tops off at 300 million doses. Compared to previous settlements with Pfizer, this public-private no-bid arrangement will come at a much higher cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
The Biden Administration has justified the deal by claiming that it needs to restock supply to prepare for seasonal spikes. The data does not support such a claim. According to the CDC, almost 100 million taxpayer-funded Pfizer shots (and 169 million total shots) have gone unused, resulting in billions of dollars in waste.
According to CDC data there are currently over 168 million unused doses of the vaccines. – 59M unused Moderna shots – 98M unused Pfizer shots – 12M unused Janssen shots
762 million shots distributed and 594 shots administered. That 50,751 unused shots for every 100K US citizens pic.twitter.com/LFdN2RimoH
The new arrangement allows for the Biden Administration to buy Pfizer’s authorization-pending COVID injections, which the company claims is reformulated for newer variants.
However, even the new formulation is already outdated. It was designed and trialed for an Omicron subvariant (BA.1) that was popular last Winter, but no longer exists in circulation, potentially rendering it just as useless as the Wuhan strain shot. The deal includes the infant and toddler formulations, which are based on the non-existent Wuhan strain.
None of the shots for this deal will be supplied under an FDA approved label. Instead, they will be distributed under emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer has never deployed its FDA-approved vaccine in the United States. The company recently acknowledged that it never intends on producing its original FDA approved vaccines.
The original deal with Pfizer was negotiated by the Trump Administration during the days of Operation Warpspeed. It paid the pharma giant $19.50 a dose. The new pact gives Pfizer $30.48 per dose, resulting in an astronomical 56% hike from the deal negotiated by the last administration.
The price hike conflicts with the probability that Pfizer’s costs are likely much lower than they were with the original purchase order. The infant and child shots have a fraction of the active agreement as the adult supply, and each vial stores more doses . Moreover, Pfizer has added an ingredient to the formula that allows for a significant shelf life extension, making the logistics much more cost effective.
Pfizer’s margins were already through the roof prior to the Wednesday announcement.
Pfizer’s May earnings report showed that the company logged a record breaking $26 billion in Q1 sales, marking a quarterly profit of $7.86 billion. Revenue was up 77% from 2021, while profit was up 61%. Now absorb these 2022 numbers in the context of Pfizer’s 2021 revenue outperforming its 2020 revenue by 95%.
Before the new vaccine purchase order, Pfizer was already on track to bring in over $100 billion in revenue and $32 billion in net income this year. In financial statements, the company has acknowledged that it has transformed itself into a COVID-19-driven business. All of its new income is coming from the American taxpayer and other government “customers” via their taxpayers, who have virtually no say in the matter.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In Austria the massive harm done to human life and health done by the Covid “vaccines” has resulted in the Austrian Minister of Health shifting responsibility to doctors who betrayed their medical responsibility to inform patients of the risks of the vaccine.
Of course, had doctors done so, they would have been punished for “spreading misinformation.” It was the Austrian government that tried to mandate coercive vaccination of every Austrian.
In truth, the “Covid pandemic” was an exercise in massive disinformation by “health authorities,” aka marketing agents for Big Pharma, incompetent, mindless politicians, and a whore media that lied through its teeth and continues to do so.
Now that the Austrian Health Minister has shifted responsibility to medical doctors, how much longer can the utterly corrupt US “public health system” deny that there are massive “vaccine” injuries?
The US death rate in the Covid year of 2020 was the same as in 2019. The death rate shot up after the vaccination campaign. US insurance companies have reported stunning rises following Covid vaccination. The CEO of health insurer OneAmerica said, “We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”
Big Pharma and its agents at NIH, CDC, and FDA, and the responsible politicians and presstitutes will try to control the narrative and conclude that the deaths are Covid deaths due to the waning effectiveness of the “vaccine.” Independent and honest scientists will point out that the deaths were vaccine-induced deaths. Every effort will be made to cover up the mass murder by accusing honest doctors of “spreading misinformation” and taking away their medical licensers for telling the truth.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Statistician Mathew Crawford has shared important information related to the potential massive DoD medical data fraud
He looked at MSMR, an obscure industry publication by the DoD, and found that in 2021, they retroactively updated historical data to make the 2021 data look comparable
Mathew believes that the historical data was intentionally corrupted to hide the elevated signal of illness in the military in 2021
Additionally, at a later point in 2021, a server migration took place that might have compromised the medical data even more
The whistleblowers whose information was presented by attorney Tom Renz in January 2022 are undoubtedly heroes; but it is likely that by that time, the data had been already doubly corrupted
Getting to the bottom of this issue might be a good way to expose the true rates of vaccine injury
*
This story is about what could turn out to be one of the biggest cases of medical data fraud. It is based on my conversation with Mathew Crawford, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing for my podcast.
Mathew’s background is in statistics, actuarial sciences and math. In the past, he has worked on Wall Street, then focused on the field of education, writing textbooks and helping build educational companies.
Mathew started looking out for a large-scale dramatic event before the pandemic was announced. He became alarmed when right on the tail of the repo market crisis that happened in the fall of 2019, the Federal Reserve loaned $4.5 trillion to just three banks. (The Fed “quietly released the names of the three banks” who received the loans on December 31, 2021.)
Therefore, as soon as the unusually irrational and economically peculiar “COVID response” was thrown at us, Mathew became suspicious of the “pandemic clownery.”
The Convoluted DoD Data Saga
This particular DoD data saga started unveiling in January 2022, when attorney Thomas Renzpresented his whistleblower data at the five-hour hearing held by Senator Ron Johnson.
In his Substack post from February 2022, Mathew described being “shocked listening to Renz in real time” and learning about “the DoD whistleblowers (Drs. Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long) or the startling findings from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED):
After Tom Renz made his earth-shaking announcement, the DoD came out and said that they had experienced a server glitch, and therefore, the whistleblower data was no good.
And as the DoD was hiding behind the unsigned statement about a “server glitch,” Mathew Crawford went ahead and analyzed a set of publicly available but obscure industry reports sourced from that same DoD database (DMED).
Having looked at the reports, he found that by the time the brave whistle blowers queried the DMED data, the data might have been already corrupted twice, using two different methods — potentially covering up vaccine injury in a very tricky way. (We’d need to look at the original data in order to know for sure what happened.)
Mathew believes that most likely, somebody at the DoD noticed elevated levels of illness in the 2021 data — after all, that’s what the whistleblower doctors have been seeing on the ground — and decided cover it up.
He thinks that the main coverup was done by retroactively changing the data in DMED for the previous years (2016 through 2020, which was done mid-2021, somewhere between May and July 2021, before Tom Renz’s announcement), thus making earlier years look worse than they were, in a number of categories.
But then in addition to that, the already altered database was migrated to a new server, possibly to make it more difficult to investigate. Per Mathew, it is theoretically possible that the in the process of migration, there was a genuine glitch — or maybe there was an intentional glitch to create more confusion and discredit any future whistle blowers.
Mather’s main point is that even if there was a glitch, that glitch likely came on top of the already faked data — and that is what he is trying to scream from the rooftops about.
And amazingly, if there really was a glitch during the sever migration (around August 2021), it went unnoticed for five months — in the military — despite the fact that the data was used by the DoD for troop preparedness evaluation, and also internally used by the CDC. No big deal, I guess.
No one looked, and no one noticed for at least five months that the data for previous years had undergone dramatic changes! I say, believe the DoD. They are trustworthy and would never lie to us. Here is the early timeline, as a direct quote from Mathew:
Below is the general timeline, according to what Mathew told me in the interview (I have published a version of this timeline here):
The Timeline and the General Plot
What Now?
Mathew hopes that a number of attorneys file FOIA requests and try to get a hold of the original data. This is not an easy task by any stretch of imagination. The data could be classified — and per Mathew, opening it up to the public could even require an Act of Congress.
But on the other hand, if the DoD bureaucrats are honest — which of course they are because they would never lie to us — and if they are already publishing their data in an industry journal, and if the injections are safe and effective, what do they have to hide?
Importantly, Mathew is encouraging interested parties to independently look at the MSMR data and draw their own conclusions. The data is publicly available.
On my end, I feel like we should try every avenue to establish the truth. At this point, our legal system is a little bit shaky but it’s still functioning — and I hope that more and more people start thinking from the inside and asking questions. I also hope that qualified attorneys file those FOIA requests, and we start getting somewhere. And yes, we might need a miracle but miracles follow love and courage. Time for love and courage is now.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Previously, a major coalition of civil liberties organizations, including Freedom of the Press Foundation, implored U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the case against Assange in the name of protecting the rights of journalists everywhere. So, too, have the editors of major news outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post.
Reports suggest Assange may have at least one more avenue of appeal, so he may not be on a flight to the United States just yet. But this is one more troubling development in a case that could upend journalists’ rights in the 21st century.
You don’t have to like Assange or his political opinions at all to grasp the dangerous nature of this case for journalists everywhere, either. Even if you don’t consider him a “journalist,” much of the activity described in the charges against him is common newsgathering practices. A successful conviction would potentially make receiving classified information, asking for sources for more information, and publishing certain types of classified information a crime. Journalists, of course, engage in all these activities regularly.
There is some historical irony in the fact that this extradition announcement falls during the anniversary of the Pentagon Papers trial, which began with the Times publication of stories based on the legendary leak on June 13, 1971, and continued through the seminal Supreme Court opinion rejecting prior restraint on June 30, 1971.
Thankfully, that prosecution failed. And until this one does too, we continue to urge the Biden administration to drop this prosecution. Every day it continues to further undermine the First Amendment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Guest: Christine Anderson, member of the European Parliament (AfD) and member of the:
Committee on Culture and Education
Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the digital age
Substitute on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
This session is:
On the renegotiation of WHO contracts: Can Democracy and the Rule of Law Survive at All, if a supranational and democratically non-legitimated organization like the WHO can be given de facto governmental power in the future?
On the extension of the Digital COVID Certificate: The “basic rights reference certificate” – a designation it considers much more appropriate has been extended for another year until June 2023.
“Repeal of the previous Corona coercive measures appears to have been nothing more than a tactical retreat by the Establishment to have been.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Comments Off on Video: On the Extension of the Digital COVID Certificate. Christine Anderson, Member of the European Parliament. Corona Investigative Committee
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel voted 19 to 2 on Tuesday to add an Omicron component to COVID-19 boosters this fall, over objections by panel members and despite a lack of data.
If Reverend King was told he could talk about only civil rights or Vietnam, we are told today that we can talk only about the climate crisis or about the COVID-19 fraud. To speak about both is to invite the retributions of the devils within the shell that was once a government.
Russia’s Ukraine miscalculation dates to 2014 when the Kremlin refused the request of the Donbass Russians in Eastern Ukraine to be reunited with Russia.Historically part of Russia, the Donbass region was attached to the Ukrainian province of the Soviet Union by Soviet leaders as was Crimea.
In what NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the “biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defense since the Cold War,” the US-led NATO alliance has announced plans to build a massive standing land army in Europe, numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Russia’s crude and condensate production rose in June by 5% to 10.7 million bpd, according to Kommersant sources—a figure that includes between 800,000 and 900,000 bpd of condensate, which is not included in the OPEC+ agreement. But Russia’s oil exports have slipped 3.3% in June with the rise of domestic refining demand.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend, neighbor and colleague, James Madison, his view that the basis of government must be to preserve liberty rather than order, the War of Revolution against Great Britain had been won, the Articles of Confederation were in place and Madison was beginning to prepare for his pivotal role in the drafting of the Constitution.
Tolstoy was not an advocate of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he had other ideas. That is probably why the October Revolution of 1917, which took place after his death, was not to his liking. He believed that the established czarist functionaries should not be replaced by socialist ones, otherwise everything would remain the same.
Exactly 80 years ago in the high summer of 1942, Nazi Germany still seemed to be in a dominant position in the Second World War. The Wehrmacht’s divisions controlled most of continental Europe and European Russia, while the Axis’ fortunes in North Africa looked to be improving.
In an interview with journalist Paul D. Thacker, former U.S. Air Force investigator and safety officer Alex Rich explains why he developed a software program that links pharmaceutical companies’ payments to doctors and researchers. Alex Rich believes no one in the U.S. has a clear idea of the scope and scale of drug company payments flowing to the authors — usually physicians — of articles published in medical journals.
The Times reported Saturday that Canadian special forces personnel were in Ukraine as part of a NATO network to provide weapons and training as well as gather intelligence about the Russians.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan shakes hands with NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg during the NATO Conference in Madrid on 28 June 2022. A handshake of betrayal, as Turkey accepted Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership.
One wonders, what forces have influenced Erdogan to distance himself from Russia in particular and the East in general when accepting NATO membership of the two Nordic countries against the interests of Russia.
Why would Turkey want to dance on two fiestas, the western lying, deceiving and collapsing NATO / G7+ wannabe empire, and the progressive, growing and peace seeking fast developing East, or better the Greater Global South?
Erdogan is a bit like India’s PM Narendra Modi, who wants to be part of the new expanded eastern alliance, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, +++), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the ASEAN ten-countries’ block, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as well as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the association of 11 former USSR Republics.
At the same time Modi, like Erdogan would not want to “lose out”, in case the west may not collapse or not as quickly as it should. Do they not realize that their “misbehavior”, a benign term to camouflage betrayal, is only tolerated in the case of Turkey because of its geostrategic and geographic location, and in the case of India, because of its sheer size – 1.4 billion people, about the same as the most populous country China?
But, under their current leadership, neither country can be trusted as a reliable ally. Not by the east, and not even in the tarnished west.
Whether the Kremlin had hoped Turkey would stick to her objection against Finland and Sweden’s NATO access is immaterial. What counts is that Turkey is no reliable partner and ally for Russia which had already been proven earlier, when Turkey aggressed Syria for her own petty interests, while Russia fought and won Syria’s war against unfounded US aggressions.
“The concrete steps for our accession to NATO will be agreed among NATO allies over the next two days, but that decision is now imminent,” said Finland’s President Sauli Niinisto. “I am pleased that this stage on Finland’s journey towards NATO membership has been completed.”
According to RT (28 June 2022), Turkey will support inviting Finland and Sweden into NATO at the bloc’s summit in Spain, Finnish President Sauli Niinisto announced on Tuesday after a meeting with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson.
A note on Sweden and NATO: For over 300 years, Sweden and Russia have lived conflict-free side by side. Entering the aggressive NATO clan means a Swedish aggression against Russia.
The three countries, Sweden, Finland and Turkey, signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) at the NATO meeting on 28 June, organized with the support of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
The MOU stated, for example, that Finland and Sweden pledged to “condemn terrorism in all its forms” and end their support for organizations Ankara has designated as terrorist – including the Kurdish groups PKK and YPG, as well as the movement led by the exiled cleric Fetullah Gulen, Erdogan’s archenemy.
“Turkey got what it wanted,” Erdogan said after the deal was announced.
This was another lie because terrorism from Sweden and Finland were never serious threats to Turkey. They were just used by Erdogan to pressure the NATO / G7 “alliance” into some vital concessions.
Could it be lifting of the killing economic sanctions initiated by Washington and supported by the EU?
Or, could it be, like in the case of Ukraine – a step towards acceding the corrupt and faltering European Union? A Turkish quest that is already at least two decades old.
Maybe the luminary Mme. Ursula von der Leyen, unelected Fuehrer of the European Commission, has the answer.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
There are times when it is better to quote those wiser than oneself, those more inspired than oneself, rather than trying to articulate something imperfectly in one’s own words.
That is why, on this important day, when the systems, the habits and the values that redeemed America in the past are collapsing into dust, into nothingness, I want to quote the speech delivered by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., on April third, 1968 before the striking sanitation workers of Memphis, Tennessee—not far from Nashville, Tennessee, where I was born.
That speech of Reverend King came at a critical moment in American history. He was shot dead within 24 hours of his closing remarks.
The next day, when he was shot in front of his hotel room, April 4, 1968, happened to be the first anniversary of Reverend King’s speech “Beyond Vietnam,” a speech in which he spoke out against the pursuit of profit, and the growing class warfare, that drove that brutal and pointless war thousands of miles away from home.
He violated the unspoken, but explicit, agreement with the FBI, and with the American establishment hanging out at ritzy clubs and shoo fraternities, that civil rights advocacy could be pursued in America as long as it was kept separate from condemnation of the war in Vietnam.
The FBI had made it clear to Reverend Martin Luther King that if he played by these rules, he could live to a grand old age as the king of the civil rights movement. He could be an eminence grise who spoke at Carnegie Foundation seminars and who shook the greasy hands of presidents. He could have taken the sordid deal with the establishment, one embraced by public intellectuals like Yo Yo Ma (whom I knew personally in a previous lifetime), the deal offered to some “whistle blowers” (whom I also knew) men who have cashed in their chips for specious currency of the system.
If Reverend King was told he could talk about only civil rights or Vietnam, we are told today that we can talk only about the climate crisis or about the COVID 19 fraud. To speak about both is to invite the retributions of the devils within the shell that was once a government.
Let me quote Reverend King, a better writer, and a far better speaker, than I, so as to express the urgency, the danger, and the hope of the current moment in the United States, and around the world.
I do not pretend to be as inspired, as brave, or as challenged as was Reverend King, but I am certain that you, even just listening to my imperfect reading of his words, can find true inspiration:
“Now, it doesn’t matter, now. It really doesn’t matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us.
The pilot said over the public address system, “We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with on the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we’ve had the plane protected and guarded all night.
And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?
Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will.
And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on US Provisional Government.
Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Russia’s Ukraine miscalculation dates to 2014 when the Kremlin refused the request of the Donbass Russians in Eastern Ukraine to be reunited with Russia.Historically part of Russia, the Donbass region was attached to the Ukrainian province of the Soviet Union by Soviet leaders as was Crimea.These Russian populated territories, historically part of Russia, rejected the anti-Russian rule installed in Kiev when Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed a puppet regime in 2014.Had the Kremlin accepted the request of the Donbass Russians, there would have been no necessity for a Russian intervention in Donbass.
Ukraine sent forces to subdue the two declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.The Ukrainian military and Nazi militias were unequal to the task of subduing the hastily raised militias of the two republics, but did succeed in occupying some of the Donbass territory from which they shelled the civilian populations of the Donbass for 8 years.
The Kremlin attempted to stop the conflict with the Minsk agreement. Ukraine and the republics signed it, and Europe was supposed to enforce it, but Ukraine did not keep the agreement, and Europe did not enforce it. Indeed, Washington encouraged Ukraine to ignore it as Washington saw the opportunity to initiate a conflict that could be used to demonize and isolate Russia.
Minsk 2 Meeting
Internally in Russia, Russians objected to the killing of Russians by Ukrainians. Pressure mounted on the Kremlin to cease appeasing the West by accepting Russian civilian casualties. In February of this year, the Kremlin finally gave up on the 8-year old death of the Minsk Agreement and recognized the two republics.
If the West had not intended a conflict, Russian recognition would have stopped the shelling, and ended the conflict.Instead a 150,000 Ukrainian army and Nazi militias, trained and equipped by Washington and the UK, were sent to invade and reconquer the Donbass Russians.For the Kremlin, this would have been a political disaster. Washington, of course, knew this and was banking on yet another Russian toleration of an enormous provocation, that having been the Kremlin’s record of response to Washington’s provocations:accept, forgive, and put faith in negotiations.
However, the Kremlin realized that it could not politically survive the slaughter of the Donbass Russians.
The Kremlin designated its military intervention in Ukraine as a limited operation to prevent Ukraine from invading Donbass and to drive out the Ukrainian forces that occupied part of Donbass and were shelling civilian populations.Donbass, not Ukraine was the target.
Western politicians and the mainstream media pretend that Russia invaded Ukraine, not merely intervened in Donbass, and attacked Kiev but was defeated. This is an obvious lie.The Russians left Kiev alone.They put troops around the city to prevent reinforcements from being sent to Donbass. Once they had Ukraine’s forces in Donbass surrounded, such that reinforcements could not reach them in any meaningful numbers, they withdrew from the Kiev area.
The Western politicians and the whore Western media have lied when they say Russia invaded Ukraine.Russia did not invade Ukraine, and this was their blunder. The Russians intervened in Eastern Ukraine, in Donbass, to prevent a Ukrainian invasion for the reconquest of the two Donbass republics.
What the facts reveal is not Russian aggression, but Western aggression. The Minsk Agreement that Russia sponsored would have ended the conflict by keeping the Donbass as part of Ukraine, but giving Donbass some autonomy, such as its own police force, to minimize Donbass’ oppression under the anti-Russian regime installed by Washington. The agreement was unenforceable because Washington wanted conflict.
The war that is coming upon us is a consequence of Washington’s insistence on hegemony and the Kremlin’s inability to comprehend the situation and to understand how the Kremlin’s endless toleration of insults and provocations encourages the West to push harder and ever harder until Russia is cornered and finally has to fight.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Ever since the unfortunate geopolitical events of the late 1980s/early 1990s, especially the dismantling of the Soviet Union, geopolitical experts, journalists, historians and authors have been debating when exactly the Cold War ended (or whether it did at all). Some claim it ended when Mikhail Gorbachev took power, with others saying it never stopped, but was put on a decades-long pause. Whatever anyone’s point of view may be, the Cold War has officially restarted, or perhaps a new one has been initiated, depending on one’s standpoint regarding this matter.
While the old Cold War was “black and white” (or should we say “red and blue”) with a very clear distinction in ideology, politics, economic systems, etc., the new one is quite ambiguous. The USSR, with a formal goal of spreading the socialist revolution, was known as the “Red Menace” since the heydays of McCarthyism. Despite mindboggling losses resulting from the Nazi German (and pan-European) invasion, the superpower managed to not just recover after having nearly 30 million of its people brutally murdered and much of the country itself destroyed, but also establish a robust military and (geo)political bloc – the Warsaw Pact.
Opposing it was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known by its infamous acronym – NATO. A supposedly “defensive alliance” aimed against the USSR, it was formed in 1949, over half a decade before the Warsaw Pact (1955), its now-defunct competitor in Europe. The (old) Cold War saw an ever-mounting rivalry between the blocs, mainly in Europe, but spilling over elsewhere through numerous proxy wars, which threatened to push the world into a conflict of such a massive scale it would’ve made the Second World War look like a bloodless skirmish in comparison. By the late 1980s, the conflict subsided, coming to an abrupt, but definite (or so we thought at the time) end in 1991.
While Russia went through what can only be described as a sort of contemporary “Time of Troubles”, by the time the country reconsolidated itself, its leadership truly believed the Cold War was history. And yet, the other side thought otherwise. Despite numerous Western officials stating NATO wouldn’t expand eastwards, including the then US State Secretary James BakertellingMikhail Gorbachev it “won’t move an inch to the east”, the alliance did exactly that, expanding nearly 41 million inches (over 1000 km) to the east, including to former Soviet Baltic republics, reaching Saint Petersburg without firing a single shot. That is unless we count the dismantling and the illegal aggression on Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s.
Despite all of that, Russia still attempted to build a good relationship, even though NATO tried its hand against the Eurasian giant by probing its reaction in Georgia in 2008. Naturally, this was a red line, albeit somewhat delayed and NATO’s proxy in Tbilisi was soundly defeated. With this war, NATO returned to the era of proxy wars against Russia. In the 2000s, numerous color revolutions were launched across the former USSR, starting from Georgia (2003), sweeping through Ukraine (2004/2005) and Kyrgyzstan (2005), culminating in the last 8 years with the disastrous Maidan in Ukraine (2013/2014), resulting in the war in Donbass, and more recently in Belarus (2020) and Kazakhstan (January 2022). All of this was NATO’s response to Russia’s attempts to create a good long-term relationship. Even the slightest notion of good intentions was (and still is) seen as a sign of weakness.
Russia was left with a choice – surrender or push back. And this is precisely what NATO wanted. The Ukrainian conflict was yet another project to create perpetual instability in post-Soviet countries, cementing hatred and divisions, even between peoples whose histories are quite literally inseparable. After nearly 15,000 deaths due to the Kiev regime’s war in Donbass and almost a decade of Russia’s futile attempts to find a peaceful solution, the coup regime was just buying time to escalate, forcing Russia to react on February 24. Thus, NATO’s plan to reinvent itself worked and the “purely defensive alliance” finally got its much-wanted reinvigoration in the form of more expansionism and escalating militarism.
With the latest summit naming Russia its No. 1 rival, NATO officially (re)started the Cold War, although in their minds, the old one never really stopped. As its first Secretary-General Ismay stated, NATO’s purpose is “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. And this is precisely what NATO tried to do by launching its proxy war in Ukraine. As the alliance became obsolete, it needed to reinvent itself. And this conflict provided just that. US troops are back (in), the EU’s economy is ruined (down) and any prospect of EU-Russia cooperation is destroyed (out). With a recent announcement that it will increase its battle-ready troops to over 300,000 (nearly 10 times the current number), NATO is effectively cementing the (Second) Cold War, possibly for decades to come. Worse yet, the alliance is now targeting China and other countries as it tries to reconstitute itself on a global scale. However, the political West, increasingly isolated due to its aggressive (neo)liberal ideology, is now effectively waging this (new) Cold War against the entire world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Featured image is from EPA-EFE/FRANCISCO SECO / POOL
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In what NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the “biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defense since the Cold War,” the US-led NATO alliance has announced plans to build a massive standing land army in Europe, numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Stoltenberg said NATO would increase its “high readiness forces” sevenfold, from 40,000 to 300,000, deploying tens of thousands of additional troops, as well as countless tanks and aircraft, directly to Russia’s border.
The move will entail a massive diversion of social resources to NATO’s ongoing war with Russia and planned war with China, draining treasuries throughout Europe and North America and fueling demands for the elimination of social services, the slashing of wages, and the gutting of workers’ pensions.
Stoltenberg said the creation of this massive fighting force was a response to the “new era of strategic competition” with Russia and China.
He called the plan “a fundamental shift in NATO’s deterrence and defense,” embracing not only the war with Russia, but “the challenges that Beijing poses to our security, interests and values.”
As a part of this massive expansion of its fighting force, NATO will increase the numbers of troops stationed in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to the “brigade” level, meaning approximately 3,000 to 5,000 troops.
The Financial Times reported, based on an interview with Stoltenberg, that the plan will “include new structures in which Western NATO allies, such as the US, UK and France, would pledge their ships, warplanes and a total of more than 300,000 troops to be ready to deploy to specific territories on the alliance’s eastern flank, with graded response times starting from the opening hours of any attack.”
Instead of troops deployed to the Baltics serving as a “tripwire,” the new plan would envision NATO fighting a war against Russia directly on the borders of these countries on NATO’s eastern battlefront.
Stoltenberg boasted that “2022 will be the eighth consecutive year of increases across European Allies and Canada,” adding that NATO’s target of two percent of economic output going to military spending will be “considered a floor, not a ceiling.”
That same day, US officials previewed yet another massive weapons shipment to Ukraine, including the NASAMS medium-to-long-range surface-to-air missile defense system created by Raytheon.
In addition to “advanced medium- and long-range air defense capabilities for the Ukrainians,” the US would also provide “ammunition for artillery and counter battery radar systems,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said.
Members of the NATO alliance, meanwhile, are openly using the language of war. In his first public speech as the chief of the general staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders will, according to the Telegraph, declare that the UK army must be ready to “fight and win” against Russia.
Simultaneously, the US and its allies are intensifying the economic embargo against Russia. Over the weekend, participants in the G7 summit announced plans to ban imports of gold from Russia and are finalizing plans to try to put price caps on oil and gas sold by Russia.
On Monday, Russia officially defaulted on its foreign debt payments, after European payments clearinghouses refused to process payments from the country. Russian officials insist that they have the funds available to make the payments, but that it has been effectively cut out from the European financial system and hence forced to carry out an artificial default.
Regardless, this would be the first time Russia has defaulted on its debts since 1918, when the Bolshevik government, in the wake of the 1917 revolution, repudiated the foreign debts of the Tsarist regime.
NATO’s massive military escalation comes as the official position of the United States and NATO—that they are not at war with Russia—becomes increasingly untenable.
This weekend, the New York Times reported that US forces are secretly operating on the ground in Ukraine, as well as forces from several other NATO countries, despite the denials of Biden and other NATO leaders.
“But even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country… directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces,” the Times wrote.
The newspaper reported that dozens of special forces from the UK, Canada, France and Lithuania have been operating inside the country.
The revelation, the report continued, “hints at the scale of the secretive effort to assist Ukraine that is underway and the risks that Washington and its allies are taking.”
The Times report is only the latest piece of evidence documenting the extent of US involvement in the war. Earlier this year, NBC and other media outlets reported that the United States was directly involved in Ukrainian targeted killings of Russian generals, as well as the sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.
Ukrainian commanders, according to these reports, are provided intelligence extracted from satellites “which they can call up on tablet computers provided by the allies. The tablets run a battlefield mapping app that the Ukrainians use to target and attack Russian troops.”
Despite the massive degree of US involvement in the war, Ukrainian losses are surging, rivaling the number of US combat deaths at the deadliest point of the Vietnam war. On some days, Ukrainian forces have suffered between 500 and 1,000 casualties.
Russia now controls more than 90 percent of the Donbass in East Ukraine and a total of one fifth of the entire territory of Ukraine. But despite the disastrous series of battlefield setbacks, the United States and its NATO allies are massively intensifying their involvement in the war, no matter the cost in Ukrainian lives or the trillions of dollars diverted from vital social programs.
Russian officials are drawing the conclusion that open war between NATO and Russia is all but inevitable. In remarks last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said:
“Hitler rallied a significant part, if not most, of the European nations under his banner for a war against the Soviet Union… now, the EU together with NATO are forming another—modern—coalition for a standoff and, ultimately, war with the Russian Federation.”
The deadly logic of the spiraling conflict raises the prospect that the proxy war in Ukraine will rapidly metastasize across the European continent, triggering the deadliest global military conflict since the Second World War. This reality makes clear the urgent necessity for the working class to intervene in the crisis, aiming to unite the struggles against the surging cost of living and attacks on democratic rights with the struggle against war.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Oil prices are likely to soar past $200 per barrel if G7 manages to cap the price of Russian crude oil, according to chief commodities analyst at Swedish bank SEB Group.
Bjarne Schieldrop, SEB analyst, said on Wednesday in no uncertain terms that the G7’s price capping proposal was a “recipe for disaster” given the current stress that the oil market is under.
The G7 leaders agreed on Tuesday to study ways to cap the price of Russian oil sold internationally and are seeking support among “like-minded” nations. It was one of the critical items to be discussed at this week’s G7 meeting as the group tries to find creative ways to lower energy prices for themselves and maintain adequate crude supplies from Russia—while simultaneously punishing Russia in what many see as an impossible task.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen continued to put pressure on European countries to support a price cap.
According to Schieldrop, the plan seems “neat on paper, but it sounds like a recipe for disaster right now,” given the strong demand for crude oil and low supplies that so far given Russia the upper hand in the market. Russia could, the analyst argued, choose not to sell the oil at a capped price—a decision that could lead to Russia’s production falling by as much as 2 million barrels per day.
Russia’s crude and condensate production rose in June by 5% to 10.7 million bpd, according to Kommersant sources—a figure that includes between 800,000 and 900,000 bpd of condensate, which is not included in the OPEC+ agreement. But Russia’s oil exports have slipped 3.3% in June with the rise of domestic refining demand.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said that Russia would raise its production again in July.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Julianne Geiger is a veteran editor, writer and researcher for Oilprice.com, and a member of the Creative Professionals Networking Group.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
I wasn’t always this way.
Pre-pandemic, I lived a quiet, comfortable, relatively apolitical existence. My days were filled with activities and certainty — a life of carefully established routines ingrained into my being over the years. I wasn’t an activist. I wasn’t a researcher. I wasn’t anything of consequence, really.
But, of course, in 2020, that all changed.
My Mother passed away during lockdowns. A brief remote goodbye was granted to me over a video call to a body already devoid of life, followed by a quick cremation in the absence of a proper funeral. That was my goodbye.
I realized then we were wrong for agreeing to lockdown rules, but I had yet to realize just how wrong we could be.
The more I reflected on the panicked insanity building to a frenzy around us, the more I felt it. Nonsensical mandates, regulations, restrictions. Firings, school closures, and snitch lines to tell on your neighbours, all while fear-mongering media delivered a never-ending news stream of anxiety-ridden stories, browbeating us into reclusive submission for “the greater good”.
Days became weeks which became months which became years.
Precious little changed for us under lockdowns circumstantially — we were in a never-ending loop, it seemed, frozen in time. It was always the next wave, the next variant, the next something. We never seemed to quite reach the carrot the government dangled in front of our noses.
We never had our freedom restored, not entirely. No matter what we did, the promised return to the land of normalcy remained a pie-in-the-sky dream, close enough to almost taste but just out of grasp. And I don’t think they ever intended to give it back, really. We were fearful, meek, complacent, and utterly reliant on government handouts for our very existence. It was a winning recipe for a government with a penchant for control and overreach that holds disdain for oversight.
‘Trust us,’ they said, ‘things are much worse in other places around the world. We are relatively free and unrestricted here in Canada. So be grateful for what you’ve got.’
This habitual claiming of consolation prizes has left us sadly apathetic towards higher achievements. There is no “relatively” free in freedom, and we ought to be the freest nation on the planet.
Liberty is an absolute, not something to be placed on a sliding scale dished out in designated dabs by our government as we jump through the appropriate hoops, and other countries have picked up on this democratic backslide and have sounded the alarm as our civil rights circle the drain.
The feeling of wrongness, the knowledge deep inside of me that something was desperately amiss in our country, grew and festered until I could handle bystander status no longer. I wouldn’t be here, writing to you, had our government relinquished their iron-fisted control over our population.
In a way, they made me.
And it begs the question: who else have they made?
They made Tamara Lich.
We didn’t speak for very long, but we didn’t have to. It was the early days of the convoy back then, and she, like me, knew something was going wrong.
I don’t think either of us fully comprehended what would transpire next or that she would go on to lead one of the most powerful, successful protests ever seen against discriminatory government measures, one that captured the hearts and minds of shell-shocked people all over the world. But, for the first time in a long time, a sense of rightness was restored within me. It was a spark, and I had hope.
Now, she’s back in jail, mere days before the celebration of our national holiday, but she sent a message from her cell out to all ahead of the weekend — a gentle plea to remain peaceful. Indeed, it was the inherent innocence and peacefulness of her protest that made it such a wild success, and we will do everything in our power to honour that and keep them so.
They made James Topp.
As law enforcement cracked down on demonstrators in the streets of our capital, smashing glass and dragging determined Canadians from car windows to be cuffed and tried for fighting for what they believed in, quietly, without much ado at all, a man named James Topp departed from Vancouver in the dead of a harsh Canadian winter.
A war veteran who served twenty-eight years in the Canadian Armed Forces, dishonourably discharged for speaking out against mandates while in uniform, the soldier marched across our vast country with almost no attention given to this incredible feat by our media.
Like Tamara and I, he knew something was wrong.
The more I learned about James and his team, the more I admired them. Composed and calm, he is a steady, likeable character, gathering a following as his march across the country proceeds.
Arguably as successful as the truckers were, he recently hosted a series of meetings in Ottawa attended by Members of Parliament in the hopes of opening a respectful line of dialogue, one where the fringe group of unacceptables (a group actually encompassing millions of Canadians) finally had a seat at the table.
As he closes in on Ottawa, the old crowds are coming back. People are once again lining the streets, waving their Canadian flags with pride. So I’ll be out meeting him on the road to document the last legs of his incredible journey and to see if, once again, we can rekindle that spark, that feeling that we all sorely miss and ignite a flame once again.
They know we are coming.
We told them as much, and the lengths the City has gone to prevent any of that old fire from returning has been nothing short of extraordinary.
New troops and recruits, fences, concrete blockades, signs, notices, warnings, and news releases stating there will be “zero-tolerance” — the bombardment has been nonstop.
They respond to our messages on social media almost immediately, leaving no doubt in my mind that the surveillance state is already here. The nervousness of officials is palpable, and the harder they frantically push back to subdue demonstrations, the smaller and more pathetically desperate they appear.
What are they afraid of, exactly?
The former claims ring hollow of economic damage caused by the convoy protest, as there were to be open borders, no blockades, and no impediment of traffic, businesses, or people over the Canada Day weekend — not at our hands, in any event. It seems that they are terrified of the very concept of liberty itself. This isn’t about economic damage. I doubt it ever was.
It’s about quelling dissent.
They say hard times create strong men, and weak men create hard times.
As Justin Trudeau’s popularity plummets and he loses the people’s confidence to govern, while the cost of living skyrockets to levels not seen since his father was in office, I would unarguably agree that weak men create hard times.
And, if the government continues to hold fast to the god-like powers bestowed upon them by the pandemic and continues to descend deeper into the provocative pit of authoritarianism, those hard times will inevitably create more of us.
Join us.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” — Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 30, 1787
When Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend, neighbor and colleague, James Madison, his view that the basis of government must be to preserve liberty rather than order, the War of Revolution against Great Britain had been won, the Articles of Confederation were in place and Madison was beginning to prepare for his pivotal role in the drafting of the Constitution.
Jefferson was in Paris, as the U.S. ambassador, and he wrote to express to Madison his view that whatever amendments to the Articles of Confederation he was planning to draft, they should embrace the value of personal liberty as the default position. Madison and others were sent to Philadelphia to craft amendments to the Articles. But Madison had no amendments in mind.
He arrived in the then-capital of the new nation with a draft of a new constitution in his mind and in his notes. The draft would undergo many changes throughout the summer of negotiations in 1787, and the document would eventually receive the support of all delegates and be ratified by the 13 states, without Jefferson’s preferences of liberty over order.
Yet, five of the ratifying states made it clear that they might change their minds if a Bill of Rights embracing Jefferson’s sentiments was not added to the Constitution. Jefferson, 3,000 miles away, shared the same fear as ratifiers in the hesitant states that the new government that Madison and his colleagues offered needed to be chained down when it came to personal liberty.
Again, it fell to Madison to use his linguistic skills to craft 10 amendments to assure that the new federal government would not assault personal liberty. The Bill of Rights was ratified in just a few months’ time and with little resistance. Even many anti-federalists, who had opposed ratification of the Constitution, supported ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Among the amendments ratified was the Fifth, which guarantees that “No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Due process means that all defendants in criminal cases and all persons detained by the government are entitled to know the charges against them, are entitled to a fair jury trial with a neutral judge, and enjoy the right to appeal an adverse verdict. Due process also means that the government cannot imprison a person without filing charges at the time of imprisonment nor keep him confined after he has served his prison term.
I offer this sterile background in basic American constitutional history in order to address a lamentable constitutional mess now going on at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The age-old clash between order and freedom, about which Jefferson wrote, often comes down to uneasy cases. Cases are uneasy when the litigants whose rights are being violated are unpopular, unsympathetic or unknown.
Two such cases are making their way through the courts — and in both cases, the Trump administration and the Biden administration argued that somehow, under the Constitution, the government can lawfully confine convicted felons even after they have served their full prison terms and can even confine dangerous persons without filing charges. These arguments are chilling.
The arguments are also immoral, un-American and unconstitutional, and their effects are exquisitely unlawful. Yet the feds — under both political parties — continue to get away with trashing the Constitution that, to a person, they have all sworn to uphold.
Majid Khan, who was tortured by the CIA for two years before being shipped to Gitmo, pleaded guilty to diverting $50,000 from a Pakistani organization to an al-Qaida affiliate that used the funds in the bombing of a Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia in 2003. At his sentencing, he was permitted to describe the torture visited upon him by the CIA.
His unchallenged testimony was so vivid and gripping that his military jury recommended clemency, and the judge agreed. His prison term ended three months ago on March 1, 2022. He is still confined, unable to communicate with anyone but his lawyers.
Even worse is the case of Abdul-salam al-Hela, who has been confined at Gitmo for nearly 20 years and has not yet been charged with a crime. The government’s dilemma is its fixation on torture. The evidence it has against al-Hela was obtained by the torture of al-Hela himself and others. The government knows that it cannot be used in any criminal prosecution in any American court. Yet, under the administration of President George W. Bush, torture was encouraged, rewarded and never punished.
The CIA in the Bush years behaved as if the Constitution to which its officers took an oath of support was just a piece of paper, without the force of law, without a moral underpinning and without the guarantees of due process. And in both of these cases, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which has jurisdiction over the Constitution trashers at Gitmo, has permitted this to occur; in Khan’s case because he is not an American, and in al-Hela’s case because he is too dangerous — even after 20 years of unjust imprisonment — to be set free.
Neither of these excuses holds up under even rudimentary scrutiny. The plain language of the Fifth Amendment protects all persons, not just Americans, and it protects them from the very deprivation of liberty that the feds are presently causing. If the government can decide on its own to confine prisoners after they have served their terms or to confine them without filing charges, then no one’s liberty is safe and the guarantees of the Constitution are toothless and meaningless.
As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, when the government assaults the very liberties it was hired to protect, it is time to alter or abolish it.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published on April 13, 2022.
In recent developments, Leo N. Tolstoy among numerous 19th century Russian authors and composers was casually put on the blacklist of the Kyiv regime.
Leo Tolstoy, actually Lev Nikolayevich Count Tolstoy (1828-1910), is still undisputedly considered one of the most important literary figures and intellectuals in the history of literature. His main works are the realistic novels “Anna Karenina” and “War and Peace”. With them he became known all over the world. Tolstoy also wrote books that criticised czarist Russia as well as reading books for schoolchildren.
As he was committed to reform pedagogy, his concern was to impart values to Russian farmer children. They should know how to behave in a socially and morally correct way. With these ideas, he was a pioneer in Russia, but received much recognition for his efforts, especially abroad.
Tolstoy was not an advocate of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he had other ideas. That is probably why the October Revolution of 1917, which took place after his death, was not to his liking. He believed that the established czarist functionaries should not be replaced by socialist ones, otherwise everything would remain the same.
Many of Tolstoy’s sayings are legendary. Among his best are certainly his statements about man, God, life, reason and love. He is reported to have said:
“The most important goal is the now, the most important person is the neighbour I am talking to now; the most important deed is to do good to the neighbour.” (1)
This is also followed by his “Speech against War” of 1909, in which he wrote:
“Beloved brothers! We have gathered here to fight against war. (…) Therefore, I would like to propose to our assembly that we write and publish an appeal to the people of all nations and especially of the Christian nations, in which we say clearly and straightforwardly what everyone knows, but what no one or almost no one says: Namely, that war is not, as men now pretend, some particularly valiant and praiseworthy thing, but that it is, like all murder, a detestable and sacrilegious act, not only for those who choose the military career of their own free will, but also for all those who devote themselves to it for fear of punishment or for the sake of selfish interests.” (2)
A little later he continues with the following words:
“We must say what everyone knows and just does not dare to say, we must say that no matter how much people change the name they give to murder, murder always remains justmurder – a sacrilegious, disgraceful act. And one need only say this clearly, firmly and loudly, as we are able to do here, and people will stop seeing what they thought they saw and will see what they see in reality. They will stop seeing in war the service to the fatherland, theheroism, the glory of war, the patriotism, and will see what is there: the naked, sacrilegious act of murder. And as men see this, the same thing will happen that happened in the fairy tale: those who practise sacrilege will be ashamed, but those who have persuaded themselves that they see no sacrilege in murder will now become aware of it, and will cease to be murderers. (…)” (3)
Tolstoy concludes his speech by explaining why he has spoken in this way:
“That is all I wanted to say. I would be very sorry if I had offended anyone, offended anyone or aroused bad feelings in them. But it would be a disgrace for me, an old man of 80, who is liable to die at any moment, not to speak quite openly the truth as I understand it, the truth which, I am firmly convinced, alone is capable of saving men from the unhappy tribulations which war produces and from which they suffer.” (4)
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a teacher (retired headmaster), doctor of education (Dr. paed.) and graduate psychologist (specialising in clinical, educational and media psychology). As a retiree, he worked for many years as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education in values and an education for public spirit and peace.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
(1) https://www.leotolstoi.de/
(2) Tolstoy, Leo N. (1983). Speech against war. Political pamphlets. Edited by Peter Urban. Insel Verlag. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 163 and 167
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Exactly 80 years ago in the high summer of 1942, Nazi Germany still seemed to be in a dominant position in the Second World War. The Wehrmacht’s divisions controlled most of continental Europe and European Russia, while the Axis’ fortunes in North Africa looked to be improving.
On 21 June 1942, German and Italian troops completed a crushing victory against British and American-led divisions in north-eastern Libya, during what is called the Battle of Gazala. Supported by Italian units, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps inflicted 50,000 casualties on the enemy (1). German casualties came to a mere 3,360, despite the fact in the Battle of Gazala the Western Allies possessed slightly greater numbers of men, tanks and aircraft than the Axis forces.
The question is seldom asked: how was it possible in two world wars for a medium-sized nation like Germany, lacking in natural resources and flanked on either side by potential enemies, to fight prolonged, large-scale and often successful battles against the world’s strongest countries (America, Russia, Britain and France)?
Soviet children during a German air raid in the first days of the war, June 1941, by RIA Novosti archive (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
First of all Germany possessed a brilliant railway system, with 4 large rail lines running from east to west across the country, each of which was capable of taking 2 army corps from East Prussia to the Rhine, in western Germany, in 18 hours. It meant that the Germans could mobilise and transfer their forces much more quickly than other European states.
Moreover, the military historian Donald J. Goodspeed wrote,
“Germany and Austria possessed the two large armament firms of Krupp and Skoda, which were technically in advance of armament firms in other countries. More important than any of this was the excellence of the German Army, which was a very serious and professional organization. It was not by any means the largest army on the continent, but it was by all odds the best. Since 1864, the Prussian General Staff had been recruited on the basis of ability; it was highly trained and dedicated, but was open to the influence of new military ideas. German regimental training and discipline were also superior to those of other continental armies”. (2)
After 4 years of grinding war (1914-18), having finally been thrown back by the greater firepower of the Franco-American-British forces, within the German Army the above virtues remained embedded in its military core through the 1920s; and into the Nazi period from 1933, including after when Adolf Hitler’s influence became absolute.
By the second half of June 1942, much of North Africa was in German and Italian hands. The previous month, in eastern Europe, the Red Army had suffered another serious defeat in late May 1942. This occurred in the Kharkov region (oblast) and is known as the Second Battle of Kharkov.
Located in eastern Ukraine, Kharkov was the USSR’s 4th largest city, a noted industrial centre, and it sits less than 25 miles from the Russian border. Kharkov had been captured by the German 6th Army on 24 October 1941. Six and a half months later on 12 May 1942, three Soviet infantry armies advanced on Kharkov from the east 25 miles away, in the hope of liberating the city from Nazi rule and turning the tide of war in Russia’s favour. (3)
Simultaneously, the Soviet 6th Army, with a concentration of tanks, approached Kharkov from the south 35 miles away. Their prospects looked promising. The Russians outnumbered the German-Axis forces by more than 2 to 1, but progress was slower than Joseph Stalin and his entourage hoped for.
More seriously, the Germans had been expecting a Soviet offensive near Kharkov, and they laid a trap for the communist divisions. From 17 May 1942, the Wehrmacht implemented an encircling movement from the north and south in the Kharkov region, which closed like a ring around the Russian troops. They tried at first to meet the surprise German threat head on and, when this failed, the Soviets attempted to extricate themselves from the encirclement by moving in an eastwardly direction (4). It was too late – on 23 May the German pincers had snapped shut.
British historian Evan Mawdsley wrote,
“By 29 May, two and a half weeks after it began, the Battle of Kharkov had ended in overwhelming Russian defeat. It was a catastrophe on the same scale as 1941. Some 18 to 20 Russian divisions were destroyed. The recorded Russian losses were 171,000 personnel, but the Germans claimed to have captured 214,000 prisoners, 1,200 armoured vehicles, and 2,600 guns”. (5)
The large number of Soviet troops, who had surrendered to the Germans here, indicates that morale and discipline problems remained within the Red Army. This was not helped by the fact that the Luftwaffe continued to enjoy aerial superiority, and German bombing raids around Kharkov were a central factor in allowing the Wehrmacht to outmanoeuvre the Soviet forces.
Furthermore, Mawdsley highlighted that Hitler’s influence over the success at Kharkov was crucial; because the Nazi leader had “fully supported” the setting of a trap against the advancing Soviet armies, which Mawdsley wrote was “an act of daring” that Hitler sanctioned (6). Credit should be given where it is due. Hitler has justifiably received widespread criticism for the later defeat at Stalingrad, but his decisive role in victories such as at Kharkov usually receives no mention and is little known.
German infantry and a supporting StuG III assault gun during the advance towards Stalingrad, September 1942 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
Mawdsley discerned “at Kharkov the Wehrmacht again demonstrated the operational and tactical skills that had led to the victories of the summer and autumn of 1941” (7). The Soviet defeat at Kharkov saw a huge hole punctured in their defences. It was now possible for the German 6th Army to pour through this gap, allowing it a few weeks later to approach Stalingrad, located 385 miles further east of Kharkov as the crow flies.
The Second Battle of Kharkov revealed endemic problems in the Red Army’s command structure, and weaknesses at the operational level. These issues, which had hindered the Red Army from the start of the war and contributed significantly to their early losses, were mainly due to the debilitating effects of Stalin’s purges of the military high command from 1937-41; this had resulted in about 22,000 Soviet officers being dismissed from the armed forces, the majority of them killed. (8)
Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, the pre-war commander of the Red Army, bemoaned in early October 1941 how the situation at the front is “awful” and “our organization is weaker than theirs. Our commanding officers are less well trained. The Germans succeed usually because of their better organization and clever tricks”. (9)
At the time of the Winter War with Finland in early 1940 Voroshilov, who had a considerable role in carrying out Stalin’s orders during the Red Army purges, directly accused the Soviet ruler to his face of devastating the military. In a meeting at his country dacha, Stalin started shouting at Voroshilov, blaming him for the sluggish Soviet performance against the Finns. In a surreal scene, Voroshilov roared back at Stalin, “You have yourself to blame for all this! You’re the one who annihilated the old guard of the army; you had our best generals killed!” (10)
While Stalin deserves criticism for severely harming the Red Army, and needlessly so, he should be commended for overseeing the Soviet Union’s industrial power. Credit should again be given where it is due, and Stalin’s belief in modernisation and mechanised warfare were important factors in later turning the conflict around, which will be mentioned further on here.
In mid-1942 the Red Army was, in addition, still suffering from the crippling damage it had endured in the opening phase of Hitler’s attack, with Operation Barbarossa having begun on 22 June 1941. Two and a half weeks later, by 9 July 1941 the Wehrmacht had inflicted on the Red Army a total of 589,537 irrecoverable losses. (11)
During the first weeks of Nazi Germany’s invasion, the Soviet Army was losing on average more than 44,000 men per day, unequalled in military history. In Barbarossa’s early stages, the German advance also “averaged 45 km a day”, Irish geographer and climate scientist John Sweeney wrote. (12)
The Germans, 3 weeks into the war, had by 13 July 1941 suffered 92,120 casualties (13). It can be mentioned that casualties do not by any means, in each case, constitute irrecoverable losses. Casualties translates to those killed, taken prisoner, wounded and missing. In the latter two instances, quite a number of soldiers do recover from injuries, and a minority of those missing can find their way back and return to their units.
The German casualty list rose to 213,301 by 31 July 1941, almost 6 weeks into the invasion; however, out of the 213,301 figure, only 25,000 of those were deaths suffered by the Germans at the end of July 1941, with military scholar Chris Bellamy providing the latter statistics (14). By late July the Wehrmacht had also received 47,000 fresh troops, who joined the fighting in the east. (15)
By the middle of August 1941, now 8 weeks into the Nazi-Soviet War, the Wehrmacht had captured around 1.5 million Soviet troops (16). By 30 September 1941, after just over 3 months of fighting, the Red Army according to Mawdsley had suffered irrecoverable losses of “at least 2,050,000”. (17)
Bellamy estimates that, at the end of September 1941, the Red Army had suffered irretrievable losses of 2,129,677 (18). In comparison, by 30 September 1941 the Wehrmacht had 185,000 irrecoverable losses (19). This equates to less than 10% of Soviet losses. Unfortunately the figures do not make pleasant reading, but it is a testimony to the resilience of the Soviet state, and specifically the Russians, that they were able to absorb these blows and avoid ultimate defeat in the war.
From October to December 1941, the Red Army suffered irrecoverable losses of 950,000, compared to permanent German losses of 117,000 during the same 3 month period (20). Bellamy wrote that, from Barbarossa’s first weeks, in favour of the Germans a “one-to-ten balance” was “emerging between the respective ground forces”. (21)
In 1941, something close to 80% of Soviet irrecoverable losses were those who surrendered, once more indicating worrying morale issues in the military. At the end of 1941 the Germans had captured 3.8 million Soviet troops (22), and virtually wiped out the Red Army’s original 5.3 million strong military force of June 1941. The Russians were able to replenish their losses somewhat during 1941, by dispatching fresh reserves to the front from further east.
By 31 January 1942, the Wehrmacht had suffered a total of 918,000 casualties (23). Three weeks later, on 20 February 1942 the figure had risen to 1,064,768 casualties, obviously quite a high number. Yet this does not mean, after 8 months of fighting, that the Wehrmacht had permanently lost nearly a third of its original attacking force, of 3.1 million men. Again regarding the invaders these are not all irrecoverable losses.
Out of the 1,064,768 German casualties by 20 February, there were 199,448 deaths, 708,351 wounded, 44,342 missing and 112,627 frostbite cases (24). The statistics here were sent to Hitler at the time. American historian John Toland wrote that Hitler initially “despaired upon reading the report of casualties in Russia up to February 20” but that “he soon rebounded”. This was because the winter was coming to an end, and Hitler was well-informed of the much greater Soviet losses.
Among the slightly more than 820,000 wounded and frostbitten German soldiers by 20 February 1942, some of these, maybe at least a couple of hundred thousand of them, could have recuperated from their injuries and returned to the battlefield. Even some severe wounds can heal. The 44,342 missing Wehrmacht troops are presumably those taken prisoner by the Russians, or soldiers blown to pieces by shells and who could never be identified, etc.
In 1941 the Soviet Air Force lost 17,900 warplanes; by comparison the Luftwaffe lost 2,510 warplanes in 1941 in the Soviet Union (25). The Red Army lost 20,000 tanks in 1941 during the fighting (26); the Wehrmacht lost more than 3,200 armoured vehicles including tanks up to the end of January 1942.
It is conventionally accepted, in military circles, that an attacking force should outnumber the defenders by 3 to 1, in order to have a chance at accomplishing complete victory (27). German sources state that 3.1 million Wehrmacht troops attacked the USSR on 22 June 1941, supported by 667,000 soldiers from its Axis allies, primarily Romanians and Finns at first; the invading forces were almost immediately in opposition to 3 million Soviet soldiers, but there were 5,373,000 Soviet troops in the entire USSR. (28)
In June 1941, the Russians had almost 3 times more tanks in the western USSR than the German-Axis divisions, 11,000 versus 4,000 (29). That month in the entire Soviet Union the Russians had 23,100 tanks, almost 6 times greater than the German-Axis powers. In June 1941, the Kremlin had 9,100 aircraft in the western USSR as opposed to 4,400 German-Axis aircraft (30); but throughout the Soviet Union the Russians had 20,000 warplanes in mid-1941, nearly 5 times more than the enemy. (31)
Soviet soldiers pushing a 45 mm (1.8 in) anti-tank gun on the road, 1 August 1943 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
Looking at the figures in the cold light of day, the fascist forces should have been at a disadvantage in the war from early on. Considering they were outnumbered in each department, the Germans should not have been able to conquer the amount of territory which they did, capture Kiev, Kharkov, encircle Leningrad and threaten Moscow, all of which unfolded in 1941. Further major gains were made by the Germans in the summer and autumn of 1942.
Regardless of the Soviet military losses of 1941, on 1 January 1942 the Red Army still had 7,700 tanks to call upon and 12,000 warplanes (32) – in both cases, appreciably more than the German-Axis forces had at their disposal.
These latter figures reveal the Soviet Union’s continued production strength. Shortly after the German invasion started, the Kremlin successfully relocated most of its industry further east of Moscow, to regions such as Central Asia, western Siberia and Kazakhstan. They shifted over 1,500 industrial enterprises, between July and November 1941 alone, to the Soviet interior (33). Stalin merits praise for this policy, and for having implemented the massive growth in Soviet industrial output building up to the early 1940s.
Regarding the Russian winter of 1941-42, according to climatologists Hermann Flohn and Jehuda Neumann it “turned out to be one of the worst winters on record” (34). Flohn and Neumann outlined that the extreme weather “gravely hit the German armies that were not appropriately clothed, and which were not equipped with armaments, tanks and motorized vehicles that could properly function even in a ‘normal’ winter in the northern parts of the USSR, let alone a winter as rigorous as that of 1941-42”. (35)
The average temperature in Moscow for December 1941, taking into account both day and night time recordings, was minus 12.8 degrees Celsius. In January 1942, the average temperature in Moscow dropped to minus 20.2 degrees Celsius (36). The cold intensified further when darkness fell. On the night of 5 December 1941, just hours after the Red Army’s counteroffensive had begun, the thermometer in Moscow showed a recording of minus 36 degrees Celsius (37), the sort of conditions one would expect to find in the Arctic Circle.
Night time temperatures in western Russia dropped lower still in January 1942, the coldest month of all, perhaps to as low as minus 50 degrees Celsius. Taking into account these factors, it is remarkable the Germans not only survived the winter of 1941-42, and prevented large Soviet advances, but that they continued also to inflict greater losses on the enemy. Napoleon Bonaparte, considered as one of the greatest military commanders, had failed to lead his army through the Russian winter of 1812-13 following his invasion of June 1812. In spite of the Soviet counteroffensive and Arctic weather, the Germans experienced modest irrecoverable losses in the winter of 1941-42.
As 1942 dawned, the reality is that the German Army continued to be very powerful, still the world’s most formidable military machine. From January to March 1942 the Wehrmacht suffered 136,000 irrecoverable losses (38) [broken up as: 48,000 in January, 44,000 in February and 44,000 in March]. The Red Army suffered 620,000 irretrievable losses from January to March 1942, more than 4 times as much as the Germans in the same period. (39)
During the next 3 months from April to June 1942, the Soviet military forces suffered 780,000 irrecoverable losses (40). From April to June 1942, the Germans had just 52,000 irrecoverable losses (41) [broken up as: 23,000 in April, 16,000 in May and 13,000 in June]. Exact monthly figures are not at hand for irrecoverable Soviet losses.
Altogether for the first 6 months of 1942, the Red Army suffered 1.4 million irretrievable losses. Mawdsley wrote that during the first half of 1942, “Total German losses came to 188,000, on the face of it one-seventh of Soviet ones”. (42)
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
1 David T. Zabecki, Germany at War: 400 years of military history (ABC-CLIO, 28 Oct. 2014) p. 471
2 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 36
3 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 143
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., p. 144
6 Ibid., p. 146
7 Ibid., pp. 145-46
8 Ibid., pp. 20-21
9 Ibid., p. 19
10 John Simkin, “Kliment Voroshilov”, Spartacus Educational, September 1997 (Updated January 2020)
11 Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) p. 206
12 John Sweeney, Regional Patterns of Urban Growth in the USSR, Geographical Association, April 1984, Jstor, p. 3 of 8
13 Bellamy, Absolute War, p. 206
14 Ibid., pp. 206 & 245
15 Ibid., p. 245
16 Ibid., p. 23
17 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 86
18 Bellamy, Absolute War, p. 245
19 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 85
20 Ibid., pp. 86 & 117
21 Bellamy, Absolute War, p. 206
22 Ibid., p. 23
23 Jacques R. Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (Formac/Lorimer; 2nd Edition, 1 Sept. 2015) p. 73
24 John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group; Illustrated edition, 1 Dec. 1991) p. 708
25 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 59
26 Ibid., p. 46
27 Ibid., p. 19
28 Ibid., p. 30
29 Ibid., p. 19
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., p. 42
32 Ibid., p. 47
33 Sweeney, Regional Patterns of Urban Growth in the USSR, Jstor, p. 3 of 8
34 J. Neumann and H. Flohn, Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 8, Germany’s War on the Soviet Union, 1941–45. Long-range Weather Forecasts for 1941–42 and Climatological Studies, American Meteorological Society, June 1987, Jstor, p. 1 of 11
35 Ibid., p. 3 of 11
36 Ibid., p. 4 of 11
37 Goodspeed, The Germans Wars, p. 401
38 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 147
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
Featured image: German infantry in Russia, June 1943 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Repeat broadcast from July 2, 2021.
On June 14, 2022. Friends and family met up to celebrate Kari Polyani Levitt’s 99th birthday.
While Kari’s health is fragile, she constitutes a powerful voice in the understanding and analysis of the global political economy. here first book, entitled with tremendous for
Below is the transcript of her interview with Michael Welch in July of last year
“Many “corrections” are still needed to rid Canada of the structural violence and systemic racism that has evolved here over the past five centuries. One step in this process is to revise our understanding of history and to do away with national creation myths that portray Cartier and Cabot as heroic founders of Canada. We should instead acknowledge them as the official founding criminals of this fictive nation which has been built on a captivating web of myths that continue to deceive.” – Richard Sanders, quoted in Press for Conversion #69
The 154th anniversary of the birth of Canada as a country was marked not by festive celebrations, but by rallies crewed by community members dressed in orange shirts to mourn the far too many victims of the nation’s residential schools.
It seems unusual to abandon, in some cases, the usual fireworks in favor of sentiments regretting the mistreatment of an entire people. Although it is well deserved. The historical persecution of those people from whom this land was gifted to us must once and for all register on those people who are rewarded for the mortal sins of our fathers.[2]
And what kind of a future can we look forward to? As the nation’s elite seemed to find wealth in more and more continental integration with the United States, a string of initiatives from growing dependence on US foreign direct investment to ‘free trade’ deals and the like saw this country seeming to lose its sovereignty to Uncle Sam.
The prime minister said days in advance that Canada Day should be a day of reflection rather than a day of merriment:
“Many, many Canadians will be reflecting on reconciliation, on our relationship with Indigenous Peoples and how it has evolved and how it needs to continue to evolve rapidly. We have so many thing we need to work on together and I think this Canada Day, it will be a time of reflection on what we’ve achieved as a country but on what more we have to do.”[3]
Looking at ourselves through the mirror of an honest ethical inventory is the theme of this week’s special audio portait on the Global Research News Hour.
In the first half of the show we have the great pleasure of having Kari Polanyi Levitt join us. She focuses her attention on how Canada is losing its sovereignty and its independence on the world stage and on how we might be able to claim the soul of a proud nation once again.
In the second half of the program, we are joined once again by Richard Sanders. He outlines more about the way we have continued to elevate our country’s history on narratives which like those that animated the Church-run residential schools, are fictitious.
Transcript- Interview with Professor Polanyi Levitt, June 30, 2021
Global Research: Since you wrote that article 50 years ago to the present, there seems to have been more integration between our two countries, right?
Kari Polanyi Levitt: There has been, yes.
GR: I mean is it something that you may have foreseen way back when? Or is this more of a, I mean, from the time you wrote that book to today, is this pretty much the kind of result you would have expected?
KPL: Well, yes, I think those of us who were concerned about the way in which Canadian business was selling themselves out to American multinationals, we were concerned that it would lead to a loss of sovereignty. And I think it has. It has happened. We have less sovereignty than we had some time ago.
GR: The growth since that time, I mean, we’ve had their Free Trade Agreements, right? In the 1980s the Canada US Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA, and we had military…our militaries became more and more tightly connected. Which strengthened continentalism even further. Where all of these separate decisions just added onto US investments to increase US control of Canada or was it part of the same pattern. First you increase investment then you try more and more integration—
KPL: I would think, yes,part of the same pattern.
GR: Yeah, so are you saying that, what I’m asking is, how far back had the various stages of integration been planned? Is it kind of like a timeline where you say, now this, and then, and then we’re going to throw in a Free Trade Agreement when the time is right? Or did this idea of free trade and then other aspects of integration just sort of come along when the time was right?
KPL: Well, the Free Trade Agreement of the kind we’re talking about were a global phenomenon they were not unique to Canada. But we had what they like to call globalization which really meant they… the power of international capital, particularly the financial capital. What I would like us to talk about is that as we are approaching Canada Day and many people are questioning whether they should celebrate or rather concern themselves about the phenomenon of the residential schools and the young people in the unmarked graves. I like to talk about the present and what happened since I wrote that book. It is an important book. And it remains important.
GR: Well for certain, I mean, in 2021 we are recognizing now that the residential schools have definitely had a, have been a horrific part of our past. But have we really come to the point where…is something special happening now, or are we just seeing our whole, are we just seeing our whole… just finding a way of shifting our dependence on the residential schools to something else. Because it seems as if, for all the acco–… everything that the prime minister is saying, Indigenous peoples are still being subjected to brutal things like the higher-than-average representation in the jails for example. What is your take on that?
KPL: The fact is that the way that this country was built, it was built by, by people who saw the Indigenous people in a very negative way. And the residential schools would never have happened if it were not part of the culture of this country. And I think many people are seeing that this is regrettable and bad. And that something should be done to improve the relationship between the settler communities that constitute the Canadian population and the Indigenous people.
GR: Yeah, do you…do the signs show that we are going to be going in that direction?
KPL: I’m not sure. There are obviously an increasing number of Canadians who are only now learning about this, and they are concerned. But to tell you the truth, when you called me about discussing foreign policy, I thought that’s what we were going to do. And what I think is that Canada, in many ways, has a good name in the world but we are notacting on our own initiative. We are following in the wake of the United States in foreign policy. And I think that this is a very dangerous situation because no matter how much I consider the existence of challenges facing humanity, one of them is how to prevent ourselves from engaging in mutual destruction by the use of atomic weapons. And because we are a party to NATO, Canada is not following an independent foreign policy but his only going along with whatever is the current concern of the United States. I would like us to exert our independence, and that is one of the advantages of having nations.
GR: The military is…there’s no clear division between the militaries, but can you see the nation in any way…I mean are we so united that we can’t break loose even if we wanted to? I mean, when it comes to votes at the UN on nuclear missiles or anything like that, I mean do we even have the power any more to stand up against the United States?
KPL: We have as much or as littleas we ever had before. We don’t have less. Although the scandal of the residential schools is a negative. It reduces the legitimacy with which Canada can play a role on the international stage. It’s a blot on our record. And for all kinds of good reasons, something has to be done. But I am thinking about is more, what could Canada do as a medium power in the world with a good reputation, and its sort of commitment to the United Nations. And I think that we should examine what has been our foreign policy.
GR: Is there a particular foreign policy where we could start expressing our independent way of thinking that we could distance ourselves from the United States?
KPL: Well, the obvious one is the field of diplomacy, I mean, we had developed a lot of independent economic and political relations with China, which is the up-and-coming power in the next century.
GR: What about in terms of military policy, getting out of any relationship with the United States on shooting down missiles, well basically what NORAD does, you know, is that something we could even break out of?
KPL: Well, maybe so, but I think more to the point, we should develop our independent relations with other countries. What is clear, is that in theworld, that we have to have a… what do they call it again…a world order that is multinational. In other words, there are a number of legitimate political entities in this world who have to be included in a multi-polarworld. And that multi-polar world would include China and the United States and Canada. But we should be included, not as a satellite of the United States, but on our own independence. And I think we have, we, the government of Canada made a big mistake in acceding to this demand by the Americans to arrest the lady representing the very important IT company. That was a…because what she was accused of was a violation of US sanctions again Iran, and this is not a criminal act in Canadian law, because Canada did not agree to sanctions against Iran. So that was a big mistake, and it was done entirely because our government said, under some compulsion to act in the way that it did. There was a compulsion to play a subsidiary roleregarding relation with the US. And we have done huge damage to Canada’s relationship with China and there are individuals now, Canadian individuals in China who are paying the price.
GR: I know that…there’s an election coming up possibly this fall, I’m wondering if your views on Canada’s need to distinguish itself could possibly play any role in this election and who would you need more inclined to vote towards?
KPL: I don’t know…I couldn’t announce it. I know I would not vote for the Conservatives. I do not trust them. So, I don’t know yet who I’m going to vote for. But what I would like to see the Government of Canada do is to take some initiative in the matter of banning new nuclear weapons. And there was a motion introduced in the General Assembly of the UN some months ago to that effect. And Canada shamefully did not express an opinion in favour of what is clearly the popular view of the majority of member states of the UN.
GR: Kari Polanyi Levitt, I really appreciate everything you’ve had to say today, and I know that we’re kind of getting to the end of her time, but I just wanted to offer you the opportunity to close with any thoughts that you may have that you, that we as Canadians can be more alert to as we move forward toward and beyond the next election.
KPL: Well, I think that Canada should certainly consider its membership of NATO because, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it is a military alliance and in recent years it has been involved in military conflicts in the regions of the Middle East which are having really nothing to do with the North Atlantic. And I don’t think that…. I think we have to, we should reconsider, and the reasons why it might be difficult for the Canadian government to take a position against nuclear weapons is precisely because North America is so closely integrated with the US, and the US would never never agree to that request. I think I will just leave it there.
GR: Professor Polanyi Levitt I think we’ve come to the end, and I wanted to know how, I feel extremely privileged to have this conversation with you, and I wish you all the best in your coming years.
KPL: That is very kind of you, thank you. And I really like the work that Global Research is doing. I disagree with them about some things, about global warming, but that’s it, a minor disagreement, in my opinion. And one other thing. In order as a Canadian I canagain feel proud of, to be a national of this country, our government has to take some action, whether it’s in the area of international diplomacy or some other area, because I do not see it as accountable to be only ashamed of the Government of Canada for what they have done relationship with the Indigenous people. I would like to feel good about the country, which has a lot of good things going for it.
GR: Yeah, that’s a good way to close going into Canada Day. So that’s…Well, you take care and again thank you so much for this interview.
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
Honouring for the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015); ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel voted 19 to 2 on Tuesday to add an Omicron component to COVID-19 boosters this fall, over objections by panel members and despite a lack of data.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine advisory panel on Tuesday voted 19 to 2 to recommend new COVID-19 booster shots that include the Omicron variant this fall.
It is the first time VRBPAC has suggested vaccine makers modify their vaccines to target a different variant, according to CNBC, which also reported the FDA will likely accept the committee’s recommendation.
If so, the FDA would be authorizing a vaccine change without requiring additional data showing a bivalent vaccine — containing both the original 2019 Wuhan variant and one of the Omicron variants — is safe and effective for those age groups that are already authorized to receive a booster dose.
The FDA plans to decide by early July whether vaccines will target the now-dominant BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants or the BA.1 Omicron variant that led to a surge in infections last winter, Reuters reported.
At the beginning of the meeting, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, suggested a newly designed shot could begin in October, adding that it takes manufacturers around three months to choose a vaccine design and begin producing doses.
Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and Dr. Hank Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Zucker School of Medicine, were the only two members who broke from the panel to vote against the initiative.
Offit acknowledged there’s a benefit to providing a booster in the fall to some age groups, but questioned whether Omicron was the right strain. He said the move to new-variant vaccines was happening too fast, with too little data.
“I think as a new product it should be handled as a new product,” Offit said. “I think we need a higher standard than what we’ve been given. …“I’m not comfortable enough to support the risk of a new product.”
Bernstein expressed concern over the lack of data used to justify changing the strain, and the potential that by the time a subsequent booster is approved, it will contain outdated strains.
“So, in sum, I think including an Omicron strain in the vaccine seems to have some potential, but data especially for BA.4 and BA.5 are limited at this time, and that’s why I’m struggling to even make a strain change at this time,” Bernstein said.
Bernstein also said he didn’t see a need to change the strain as the current vaccine being used is shown to be effective against severe disease — a claim made just two weeks earlier at a prior VRBPAC meeting.
Bernstein said the strain change would need to be supported by data showing improved vaccine effectiveness and he “didn’t think we really have the data to be able to say that” even though the panel looked at the immune response.
Dr. Ofer Levy, VRBPAC member and an infectious disease physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, voted “yes” to change the computation of COVID-19 boosters, despite Pfizer’s admission there is “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.
“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.
“So yes, the antibodies are important but so are the T cells. We heard from Dr. Weir, yes, T-cell assays are trickier and they’re more diverse, but it’s not going to happen without federal leadership to have 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.”
Marks acknowledged the importance of Levy’s question, but said T-cell-mediated immunity was “difficult to study” initially.
“We have been having conversations with our colleagues at the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and throughout government about how we might move forward here,” Marks said. “It is something that we 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.“
Dr. Meryl Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, told The Defender that in her opinion, Tuesday’s meeting was a “vote to essentially approve a future framework — the future framework being a dearth of evidence required to change the booster, without clinical evidence and without a correlation of protection.”
Nass added:
“They voted on using an Omicron variant in the next booster iteration — which could contain any Omicron variant and could be either mono- or bi-valent.
“But most likely they will keep the current version and add another — which might double the amount of mRNA, or not.”
The new formulation might be for adults alone or adults and children, or only older adults and the immunocompromised, Nass said.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, told The Defender:
“The proposed move by VRBPAC will increase the harm to the U.S. public to unprecedented levels, as this action will further circumvent necessary clinical trials even beyond the slapdash testing of COVID-19 vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization.
“This adds to a foundation of lies used to authorize the original COVID-19 vaccines without anywhere near proper testing.”
Dr. Cody Meissner, VRBPAC panel member and professor of pediatrics at Tufts University, expressed concern about the financial risk pharmaceutical companies “are taking by making these vaccines.”
“If there’s a low likelihood the vaccines will be recommended, then they could incur significant loss,” he said.
Marks responded:
“I guess I would say that I would make recommendations here knowing the vaccine manufacturers will be kept whole by the United States government at least for some vaccines. I could be wrong but I think that’s a reasonable assumption.”
During the meeting, Moderna told the panel it would be ready with a “couple of hundred million” bivalent, or double-targeted, vaccines designed to combat BA.1 by September, but it would be late October or early November if the company needs to design a new vaccine targeting subvariants.
Pfizer said it and partner BioNTech have a significant amount of vaccine doses designed for the BA.1 variant ready and are already preparing to produce a large number of doses targeting BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants.
Pfizer said either could be ready for an early October rollout.
Multiple concerns raised during the public comment session
During the public comment session of the meeting, experts raised concerns that were largely ignored by the advisory panel.
Dr. Dustin Bryce, with Interest of Justice, said the FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization are “usurping Congress’ definition of a vaccine — which is any substance designed for the prevention of one or more disease.”
“FDA actually classifies mRNA as gene therapy, which they say is to treat or cure an existing disease by modifying your genes,” Bryce said. “Gene therapies are still being studied and are experimental at this time.”
Citing FDA documents, Bryce said gene therapy, unlike a vaccine, is so inherently unsafe the FDA says it requires 15 years of research to follow up on safety due to known risks of antibody-dependent enhancement, alteration of DNA and delayed adverse effects, such as cancer.
Bryce said:
“FDA says that gene therapy use in the mass population represents an unreasonable risk and they should limit the number of subjects who might be exposed to risk. We require due process and forbid the FDA from authorizing the proposed changes.
“We are demanding that EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] is promptly revoked because unreasonable risks are inherent in gene therapy products, as evidenced by large numbers of reports of adverse serious events linked to or suspected of being caused by an EUA product, product failure and product ineffectiveness.”
Bryce said COVID-19 vaccines fail to meet the requirements of EUA because not a single mRNA vaccine has been found to be effective for the prevention or treatment of an existing disease.
Michael Briskin pointed out in his public comment that the FDA receives approximately 75% of its budget from pharmaceutical companies, which he believes represents a conflict of interest.
Briskin challenged the use of the phrase “safe and effective” to describe COVID-19 vaccines, given the FDA has done no long-term testing to determine whether these products are safe.
Briskin presented data showing a significant rise in reported deaths among working-age Americans following COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
He said:
“In the short-term, 2021 was a very interesting year. We saw a stark increase [in death] among working-age adults from 18 to 64 and specifically in Q3 and into Q4, so something new for the working-age demographic partly through 2021 would be the clear correlation.
“With comparable trends in BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] data, children’s health insurance data, Israeli ambulance data, and of course we have the [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)] data — which the CDC tried to minimize but a recent FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request forced them to reveal that they never once did the PRR calcification that was supposed to be their tool for spotting safety signals, according to their posted documents.”
“And what do we do when people get injured from these vaccines?” Briskin asked the panel. “We leave them in the mud.”
Briskin chastised the panel for authorizing boosters for infants two weeks earlier when data showed two doses weren’t effective and only 10 cases were used to assess efficacy.
“Three-quarters of the severe COVID in the trial was in the vaccine arm, as was the only hospitalization case which was accompanied by a seizure,” Briskin said. “And Moderna is so dangerous in young people Nordic countries won’t allow it to be used in anyone under the age of 30.”
Briskin said:
“In fact, the director of health of Denmark just admitted that vaccinating children was a mistake, whereas our officials only ever doubled down. And now we’re about to double down so hard we are about to lose the pretense of holding these pharmaceutical companies to any statistically meaningful regulatory standards for formula modification.
“For people following at home, what this agency is proposing is not just modifying the genetic code in the vaccine and the structure of the proteins produced to chase variants, but even things like doubling the microgram count for Pfizer — all without doing any statistically powered safety studies.”
“And to be clear,” Briskin added, “the companies we’re giving carte blanche to include Pfizer, the world’s largest criminal organization having paid the world’s largest criminal fine, and Moderna, which never made a safe product before we did away with long-term safety testing.”
Dr. Eric Feintuch, a chiropractor, asked the FDA if the agency knows how long mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines and the spike protein stay in the body, whether they know what the rate of protein production is and whether the FDA is aware of the consequences of the methylpseudouridine substitutions at the codon optimization step.
“For anyone on this panel who says it doesn’t go anywhere, tell me what proof you have of that,” Feintuch said, referring to the spike protein.
Feintuch said COVID-19 vaccines are associated with prion disease, noting 26 people have reported experiencing sudden onset of a severe and fatal brain disorder within one month of the second mRNA vaccine dose.
“This information needs to be researched and seen,” Feintuch said.
“A thousand peer-reviewed studies question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Doesn’t anyone see the safety signals? Is there anyone here who will stand up?” he asked. “Some of you know this, you need to stand up and you need to help us.”
Dr. David Wiseman, a research scientist with a background in pharmacy, pharmacology and experimental pathology, said VRBPAC is once again being asked to opine on inadequate information.
Wiseman said the FDA recently waived efficacy requirements for COVID-19 vaccines and has ignored its experts, notably Levy, who “has called for federal efforts to validate and standardize a correlate of protection.”
“Recent vaccine decisions were based on irrelevant Wuhan immunobridging,” Wiseman said. “Omicron assays are unvalidated and unverified by FDA.”
Wiseman said safety questions surrounding COVID-19 vaccines remain unanswered:
“We have shown correlations between vaccination and all-cause mortality. FDA says VAERS is under- and misreported. A FOIA disclosure reveals that CDC has not conducted safety signal analyses, which we have provided to FDA. Neurologic adverse events are finally being acknowledged [but there are] still no cancer studies.”
Wiseman further pointed out that FOIA requests show vital studies involving the spike protein have not been done:
“A Stanford study in [the journal] Cell showed vaccine message and antigen persisting for at least eight weeks. Does spike accumulate? Is this why myocarditis rates after boosting match or best primary series rates for some ages?
“Does spike persistence contribute to immune suppression, imprinting and negative efficacy? What is the toxicity of multiple doses? How will sameness of the manufacturing process be defined? Are the guidelines talking about monovalents or bivalents?”
Pfizer has dismissed concerns about the spike protein as “academic,” Wiseman said, “but it is certainly not.”
Booster formulation should be changed to combat waning efficacy, committee said
During the meeting, which occurred two weeks after the panel signed off on the primary COVID-19 vaccine series for the nation’s youngest children, a change in booster composition was deemed necessary due to waning effectiveness.
Dr. Mahesh Shenai, neurosurgeon and data analyst, said in a tweet:
“After many months of extolling benefits of vax and booster, now they are criticizing its efficacy and durability. . . to set the stage for a new updated booster!?”
Talk about a PIVOT #vrbpac After many months extolling benefits of vax and booster, now they are criticizing it's efficacy and durability . . .
In a briefing document published ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, FDA officials predicted a major COVID-19 outbreak will occur in the fall “due to the combination of waning immunity, further evolution of variants and increased indoor activity.”
A similar committee that advises the WHO recently suggested COVID-19 vaccines be reformulated to include both the original SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan variant and the first version of Omicron, BA.1 — although this variant has since been replaced by other strains of BA.4 and BA.5.
Moderna and Pfizer studied Omicron-specific vaccines in preparation for fall boosters, but efforts have been complicated by new subvariants.
If the government decides it wants a booster shot that targets BA.4 and BA.5 — two strains derived from the Omicron variant that are becoming dominant — vaccine manufacturers will have to race to produce the doses by fall, The New York Times reported.
Vaccines produced by Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax and Johnson & Johnson were developed against the original Wuhan COVID strain that emerged in 2019, but as the virus has rapidly evolved, these vaccines have become less effective.
COVID-19 vaccines target the spike protein the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to invade human cells, but as the virus mutates away from the original strain, it has trouble “recognizing and attacking the spike,” CNBC reported. The Omicron variant has more than 30 mutations.
Marks said during the meeting he hopes changing the booster will “convince people to go get that booster,” adding the FDA plans to begin a booster campaign in October.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.
The goal of the Global Research website is to shed light on complex and controversial issues often neglected by the mainstream media. It is through our readers’ support and our authors’ endeavors that allows us to sustain this objective. By sharing the information we publish and engaging in research and dialogue, you help us maintain our online presence while retaining our independence.
Please continue to support us in our day-to-day operations and help us expand our scope and content by clicking below to contribute financially via a donation or a membership subscription.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In an interview with journalist Paul D. Thacker, former U.S. Air Force investigator and safety officer Alex Rich explains why he developed a software program that links pharmaceutical companies’ payments to doctors and researchers.
Alex Rich believes no one in the U.S. has a clear idea of the scope and scale of drug company payments flowing to the authors — usually physicians — of articles published in medical journals.
But the former U.S. Air Force investigator and safety officer thinks it’s important to have that information in order to determine if an author is biased — so he developed software that mines the medical literature to uncover Big Pharma payments to doctors.
In an interview with journalist Paul D. Thacker, Rich said his software program examines the gap between payment data and conflicts of interest — disclosed and undisclosed — that may lead to undue influence by pharmaceutical companies.
“I want to make it easier to explore the financial relationships between authors of articles in medical journals and industry, mostly drug and device companies,” Rich told Thacker.
Thacker also spent years investigating GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia — leading to it being pulled from the market. And his investigation into DuPont’s cover-up regarding Teflon led to a scandal and, ultimately, a major lawsuit and the 2019 film “Dark Waters.”
Rich, who is pursuing a Ph.D., told Thacker he developed the software program to “scrape” (i.e., extract data from) PubMed-indexed publications by doctors who are listed in the Open Payments database.
His software then connects doctors’ addresses to pharmaceutical companies’ payments and tracks them on a map of the U.S.
“The Open Payments database has become one of the most robust and interesting federal data sets out there,” Rich said. “But it hasn’t met full utilization because it’s difficult to link to other datasets. It doesn’t have any of the normal things you would use to identify a physician or an author that other data sets use.”
Rich changed that with his software, which has a code to pull conflicts of interest from studies.
Screenshot of the data visualization program of Purdue payments to American physicians.
Rich first set out to follow the money trail between authors and industry by diving into the details. For example, he said, if Purdue Pharma was attempting to influence physicians to prescribe OxyContin, how did that influence work?
“Where did they meet? Who did the speaking? Where is the information flowing?” he asked.
Rich initially looked at a lot of geographic signals, such as venues where one physician is paid to give a talk and other physicians receive food and beverage payments.
“Ultimately, I ended up looking at peer-reviewed publications,” Rich said. “When I found physicians publishing in major medical journals and not disclosing their financial conflict-of-interest disclosures, I really started to feel uncomfortable.”
Rich told Thacker that while most doctors don’t set out to be influenced by pharmaceutical companies, financial incentives can have insidious effects on doctors’ opinions and prescriptions.
“It’s a subtle process whereby [doctors] are getting more and more comfortable with a set of corporate actors who have very strong financial incentives to see that all the decisions in the gray spaces of medicine fall in their favor,” he said.
“Most of these people believe they’re doing the right thing. It just so happens that the majority of the things that they say tend to benefit a multi-billion-dollar corporation.”
Rich used his software to expose the actions of Dr. Edward Michna of the Pain Trials Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who testified in court on behalf of the opioid industry.
Rich found that, out of more than 47,800 U.S. physicians who received payments from Purdue Pharma (now bankrupt after pleading guilty to fraud charges related to its OxyContin marketing), Michna was in the top 0.2% with $52,512.
Michna also was a paid speaker for Cephalon, which was sued for deceptive opioid marketing.
Using his software program, Rich found Michna repeatedly neglected to declare as competing interests payments from drug companies in published studies.
Rich, who is also the founder of CitizenViz.org, dedicated to “data visualization for informed citizenship,” said he expects to open source the code for his software soon.
“There should be more researchers asking questions about payments,” he said. “Those conversations can enhance the transparency of the whole medical research industry and open up new lines of thinking about the problem of bias in research.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Susan C. Olmstead is the assistant editor of The Defender.
Klaus Schwab’s protégé, Yuval Noah Harari, is an Israeli born intellectual who authored a popular bestseller titled ‘Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind’ and is also a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Harari once asked a disturbing question, “what to do with all these useless people?”
It seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee “natural disasters” and foretell coincidental “acts of God.” They know everything before it happens. Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.
Despite promising a new age of transparency and accountability after the election of May 21, one of the first notable acts of the Albanese government was to attack the very people who gave voice to that movement.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt another blow to Bayer AG’s effort to defend itself against ongoing litigation over allegations that Roundup herbicide causes cancer, denying the company’s request for a review of a California trial loss.
The addition of all the monetary values of an economy’s goods and services measured in GDP, does not determine economic growth. The only proper, scientific measure of economy is not monetary values, but the ability of each particular mode of economic production to provide an increased standard of living to an expanding population.
The German-French Nobel Peace Prize winner, pacifist and “jungle doctor” Albert Schweitzer was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. His philosophical thinking was based on the assumption that when people reflect on themselves and their limits, they mutually recognise each other as brothers who reflect on themselves and their limits.
As “Leader of the Free World”, the United States has waged numerous wars against sovereign countries since the end of World War II resulting in millions of deaths. The atrocities and crimes committed are on record. The corporate media has upheld ALL these military interventions (without exception) starting with the Korean war in 1950 as “peace-making operations” intent upon “spreading democracy” Worldwide.
The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees will remain blocked until at least September after a federal appeals court on Monday agreed to reconsider its previous decision to reinstate the mandate.
No aristocrat is progressive (for majority-rule — “democracy”); all are instead either overtly conservative (for “fascism,” another term for which is “corporationism”), or else noblesse oblige or hypocritically conservative (“liberals”), people who are pretending to care about the public as being something more than merely their markets (consumers they sell to) or else their workers (their employees or other agents, such as lobbyists).
The US-Japan mutual apprehension over the economic and military rise of China and North Korea’s increasingly capable missile and nuclear capabilities could be a motivating factor for both Washington and Tokyo, who no longer regard a split between Russia and China, as happened in the 1970s, to be a plausible near-term prospect. But, fundamentally, there is a shift in Japanese foreign policy.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“Israel” is heading toward its fifth election in less than four years, as the Bennett-Lapid consensus ends in the Knesset.
Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s Yamina Party was weakened by significant defections recently between Bennett’s right-wing allies and Arab members of the coalition, which rendered the to a government a minority position in the Knesset.
Defense Minister Benny Gantz discussed a vote on a bill to dissolve the Knesset on June 22, 2022.
However, the bill to disperse the 24th Knesset has been delayed due to a last-ditch effort by the opposition to form an alternative government rather than call elections.
Gantz, of the Blue and White party, said he would “do everything” in his power to prevent an effort for opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new coalition in the current Knesset, while he voiced his opinion that new elections are the best way forward.
The Labor party is expected to hold primaries on July 18, and is the party most secular Jews support.
Officials estimate the expense for the upcoming expected elections to be approximately $700 million. The tentative date is October 25, or November 8, 2022.
The Bennett-Lapid pact
The Bennett-Lapid pact dissolved on the pretext that a law ascribing special status to Israeli settlers had failed to pass, which is crucial in a government whose several constituents and Prime Minister are religious Zionists.
The coalition’s makeup had been regarded as being too broad, which prevented political consensus from enacting meaningful change and establishing stable rule.
Bennett’s move to dissolve the Knesset and seek is pre-emptive and may be a political ploy. His strategy might be maximizing time for Yair Lapid’s succession as Prime Minister, therefore prolonging the coalition and buying time to develop a new platform.
Under Israeli law, Bennett’s succeeding caretaker government can function for three months before elections, which would benefit Bennett’s proposed successor, Lapid.
Netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu served as the ninth prime minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999 and from 2009 to 2021. Netanyahu currently serves as Leader of the Opposition and as the chairman of the Likud party.
Netanyahu’s opponents proposed using a controversial bill to block politicians under criminal indictment from forming a government while elections were on the horizon.
The bill would change a quasi-constitutional law to forbid a person under indictment for a serious crime from serving as prime minister. Netanyahu is currently on trial for three separate corruption cases. He faced corruption charges in the past as well, in a previous term in office.
A Knesset legal adviser told the Knesset’s Constitutional, Law and Justice Committee that it would be “problematic” to legislate the controversial bill, given the proximity to elections, as it would be seen as obstructing a democratic process.
Netanyahu has branded the Bennett-Lapid government Israel’s “worst,” and accused the government of colluding with “terror supporters” in reference to the Arab component of the coalition.
Netanyahu may see his way clear with a series of strategies, which may include continuing his complaints against the government. Voters may agree with his assessment that Bennett and Lapid have mismanaged the coalition.
Netanyahu could also attract some of the right-wing votes directed toward Bennett, possibly increasing the number of Likud members in the Knesset.
Netanyahu is seeking to move for a vote of no confidence in the Knesset, which would dissolve the current government, but reinstate a new one in the Knesset, with the existing makeup of members. Netanyahu might find support for the motion, while possibly swaying former Likud members that had defected to other right-wing parties.
A new Netanyahu government might be formed, without any election, if Likud and its religious Zionist allies, aided by defectors from Yamina and other right-wing parties, could reach 60 plus members of Knesset.
The fractured Israeli political scene
Secular Jews are largely supporters of the Israeli Labor Party and a Secular Zionist state. Secular Israelis identify as Jewish, but the religion is only one aspect of their identity. Israel, the close ally of the US, is not a secular government, which is the foundation of all democratic values in the United States. Israel is a racist state, with only Jews able to be citizens and claim human rights.
The Israeli political system remains fractured between the religious fanatics and the secularists. Even among the religious parties, there are deep divisions. Having a religious political party in America would be unheard of, and illegal, due to the strict separation of church and state; however, in Israel Zionism is the foundation of their undemocratic governance. Zionism is a political ideology hiding behind a religion.
The Israeli attack on the Syrian airport
On Friday, June 10, the Damascus International Airport was attacked by a volley of Israeli missiles fired from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights at about 4:20 am.
Heavy damage to the airport was confirmed after the Israeli attack, which partially destroyed the airport terminal building, runways, and navigation lights. Landing and departing flights were suspended. Dozens of international flights were affected, and arrivals and departures were diverted to Aleppo International Airport.
Summer time sees not only Syrians living abroad returning for family visits, but also many international tourists visit Damascus in tours which include antiquities as well as ancient Christian sites well visited. Even though Syria has been in a war beginning in 2011, they fighting has stopped since 2017, and Damascus and Aleppo have had tour groups arriving. The loss of the Damascus airport is devastating to the local tourist offices, and supporting businesses such as hotels and restaurants. Despite the war, Damascus was not severely damaged, and the main touristic sites are untouched.
Aviation safety experts have commented on the danger of Israel attacking the airport while there are civilian passenger flights which carry hundreds of passengers and arrive at early morning times, such as was the recent attack. What could have happened if the Israeli attack coincided with the landing or take-off of a 747 passenger jet with 300 persons on board?
Israel has carried out hundreds of air raids against Syria since 2011, and the attacks have become almost routine. In many cases, civilians are killed and injured.
Russia condemned “the provocative Israeli attack against essential civilian infrastructure”. A spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry called such attacks “an absolutely unacceptable violation of international norms”.
Israel acts with impunity
It has been proven that the bullet which killed Shireen Abu Akleh came from an Israeli military rifle, and it was not a random, mistaken shot which killed the veteran Palestinian-American journalist. The tree next to where she stood had several shots in it, proving that the killer targeted her alone, but only one of his bullets hit their mark. Israel has killed the “Voice of Palestine”, but will not be able to silence the voices for Palestine which exist in the multi-millions and are a global voice for freedom for five million persons living under a racist and apartheid regime.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
It did not take long for the new Australian Labor government to flex its muscle foolishly in response to the large crossbench of independents and small party members of Parliament. Despite promising a new age of transparency and accountability after the election of May 21, one of the first notable acts of the Albanese government was to attack the very people who gave voice to that movement. Dangerously, old party rule, however slim, is again found boneheaded and wanting.
The decision, delivered with an arrogant casualness before another international sojourn by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, centred on the staffing arrangements for the newly elected independent members of parliament. Prior to getting on a plane, Albanese sent a letter to independent members promising to cut the staffing allocation for crossbench MPs and Senators from eight to five each. Of the five would also be one advisor, down from four in the previous Morrison government.
On the surface, the government did not see it as problematic, because those in government tend to see the absurd as entirely normal. Albanese himself was found defending a series of spurious positions, citing “fairness and equity” and lack of sustainability. In a classic conceptual misunderstanding, the Prime Minister seemed to think that a government backbencher was somehow equivalent to an independent representative. It was not fair, for instance, that the independent MP Zali Steggall “should have double the representation in terms of staff of electorates in the same region.”
Indeed, Albanese went so far as to toffee coat the new arrangements. Independents, he told Radio National’s Sabra Lane, “will have more staff than major party representatives. And the additional staff will have travel rights that major party backbenchers won’t have. They’ll be on higher salaries.”
Then, as if suggesting something sinister, the PM noted “a circumstance whereby I didn’t know, and I can’t find any great record of any publicity, for the fact that some crossbenchers had double the staff that other backbenchers had.” Had Albanese bothered to consult documents tabled in Parliament, Steggall has pointedly remarked, he could have easily seen what those arrangements actually were.
It seems to have eluded the member for Grayndler that Labor members of parliament, and those of the Liberals and Nationals, do not need as many staff members because the party itself decides the various policy positions and arguments. Independents, precisely because they do not call upon such an apparatus, need to exercise judgment that is more informed and, if necessary, sceptical. Nor can they, not being either members of government or the official opposition, call upon advice from ministerial departments.
What Albanese and his ministers have also suggested is that more resources will be given to the Federal Parliament Library, as if that somehow cures staff shortages. There will also be access to clerks responsible for drafting legislation, “in addition to personal staff.”
Groupthink, or non-think, are not imperatives of the responsible independent MP. They, as the newly elected independent Senator for the ACT, David Pocock has noted, must traverse a number of fields of enormous complexity and detail, requiring research, consulting with experts and people legislation would affect. “This isn’t about parliamentarians or staff,” he insists, “it’s about listening to and respecting our communities.” To do so, one had to be accessible, consult widely and make “politics about people.”
The newly elected senator for the United Australia Party, Ralph Babet, is also of the view that the cuts placed “the brakes on our ability to scrutinise the government and the legislation they may propose.” A spokesperson for One Nation also smelled a rat lurking behind the decision. “If you’re not adequately staffed that means this government expects legislation to be rammed through without proper consideration.”
Leaving aside the needs of such representatives, the staffers themselves, notably for those attached to smaller parties and non-aligned parliamentarians, endure a job described by one as “bloody” and “excruciatingly hard.” Such a staffer faces any number of threats to life and limb in addition to confronting dozens of government amendments to lengthy bills, backed by the opposition, with only a day’s notice.
Having created a needlessly suicidal storm, the government now faces the prospect of “going slow” approaches to the passing of legislation, notably in the Senate. Another view, one expressed by One Nation, is to adopt a default position of rejecting legislation that has not been properly scrutinised. The Albanese government has done wonders to return to the orthodoxy of a broken system by attempting to consolidate the power of the two-party duopoly.
Beyond the immediacy of impending parliamentary business, graver consequences may face Labor, with the freshly victorious giant slayer, Kooyong MP Monique Ryan, promising a second wave of independents to target Labor marginal seats in Melbourne at the 2025 election.
Having kicked them in the proverbial teeth, Finance Minister Katy Gallagheris hopeful that “respectful and constructive engagement” will be possible with the freshly enraged crossbench. Even before the first sitting of Parliament, things promise to be rowdy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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: Anthony Albanese (Source: Republic World)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Times reported Saturday that Canadian special forces personnel were in Ukraine as part of a NATO network to provide weapons and training as well as gather intelligence about the Russians.
Canadian Special Operations Forces Command won’t deny the U.S. report. Canadian defence sources told this newspaper the New York Times report is accurate.
Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Canadian special forces had been in and out of Ukraine for various missions. In September 2020, the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command publicly acknowledged its personnel were in Ukraine conducting training but provided no other details.
The Liberal government is strongly supportive of Ukraine. It is still in discussions with South Korea to purchase 100,000 artillery shells for Ukraine in a deal that could cost Canadian taxpayers several hundred million dollars. Retired chief of the defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier has called on the Canadian military to give up about half its armoured vehicles and all of its remaining artillery to Ukraine as part of Canada’s efforts to arm that nation.
NATO nations have been sending large amounts of weapons to Ukraine since the Feb. 24 invasion. Some NATO officials view the war as an opportunity to either force regime change in Russia or seriously weaken that country militarily.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: A 2019 file photo of the downtown Ottawa headquarters of the Department of National Defence on Colonel By Drive.PHOTO BY ASHLEY FRASER /Postmedia
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt another blow to Bayer AG’s effort to defend itself against ongoing litigation over allegations that Roundup herbicide causes cancer, denying the company’s request for a review of a California trial loss.
In declining to take up the case, the court let stand an $87 million award won by Alva and Alberta Pilliod. The jury originally ordered more than $2 billion in damages for the married couple, but the award was later cut by the court. Each of the Pilliods alleged they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after extensive use of Monsanto’s Roundup products.
“I am very glad that their appeal was turned down,” Alberta Pilliod told The New Lede. While her husband seems to be cancer-free at the moment, she is still being treated and is struggling, Pilliod said.
Bayer inherited the liability for the Pilliod case and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits when it bought Roundup-maker Monsanto in 2018. The lawsuits allege that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto long knew of the cancer risks but failed to warn its customers.
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.
Bayer maintains that the weed killers do not cause cancer and had hoped the Supreme Court would find that federal law supersedes state laws with regard to warning language on product labels.
But last week the Supreme Court also denied a request by Bayer to examine a separate Roundup cancer case in which plaintiff Edwin Hardeman was awarded $25 million.
The Virginia law firm representing the Pilliods issued a statement Monday applauding the Supreme Court decision not to take up the case.
“The Miller Firm is pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end to Monsanto’s effort to evade responsibility for the harm it caused Alva and Alberta Pilliod by its malicious conduct,” the firm said in its statement. “The message from the jury and the courts is now loud and clear: Monsanto must stop profiting off the suffering of the Pilliods and countless others; and finally admit that Roundup can cause cancer.”
Bayer issued its own statement, saying while it was not surprised given the Hardeman case denial, it “respectfully disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision.”
The company said the issue may surface again for Supreme Court consideration.
“There are likely to be future cases, including Roundup cases, that present the U.S. Supreme Court with preemption questions like Pilliod and Hardeman and could also create a Circuit split and potentially change the legal environment.
“Bayer continues to stand fully behind its Roundup products, which are a valuable tool in efficient agricultural production around the world. The company is confident that the extensive body of science and consistently favorable views of leading regulatory bodies worldwide, including most recently by the European Chemicals Agency’s Committee for Risk Assessment, provide a strong foundation on which it can successfully defend Roundup in court when necessary.”
The twin rejections by the Supreme Court came after another blow loss to Bayer by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 17 the 9th Circuit panel of judges said in their ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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 court found that the EPA used “inconsistent reasoning” in finding that the chemical does not pose “any reasonable risk to man or the environment.” 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,” the court found.
Bayer has been attempting to settle outstanding cases, which at one point totaled more than 100,000 plaintiffs, since 2020. Several firms accepted settlements for their clients, but many others did not. Several new trials are scheduled in the next few months.
Bayer said Monday that since it has won the last four trials after losing the first three, it will “only consider resolving outstanding current cases and claims if it is strategically advantageous to do so.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is from Sebastian Rittau via 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.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
According to a recent survey by Ichikowitz Family Foundation, African youth favor China’s involvement on the continent over that of the United States.
“Seventy-seven percent of young Africans said China was the ‘foreign actor’ with the greatest impact on the continent, while giving the U.S. an influence rating of just 67%. In a follow-up question on whether that influence was positive or negative, 76% said China’s was positive, while 72% said the same of the U.S.
“By contrast, U.S. influence has dropped by 12% since 2020, according to the survey of more than 4,500 Africans 18 to 24 years old and living in 15 countries across Africa.”
One of the primary reasons for their choices is: “Beijing’s investments in infrastructure development on the continent and China’s creation of job opportunities in African countries.” (Emphasis added)
Ivor Ichikowitz said:
“Young Africans are telling us that they are seeing tangible, visible and very impactful signs of the role that China has played in the development of Africa.”
“Albeit that there is significant criticism of Chinese investment in Africa, it’s very difficult for African governments not to value China because China is providing capital, providing expertise, providing markets at a time when Europe and the United States are not.”
The abstract of this paper bluntly states exactly what Western geopolitical ideologies still refuse to accept:
“Africa–China trade leads to mixed results, while Chinese investment and infrastructure construction are found to contribute positively to transformation. Chinese firms are also found to support capacity building, spillovers, and innovation in African countries.”
The authors have identified a central concept. African nations need Economic Transformation (ET), which is not equal to simplistic and false notions of economic growth measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
They correctly explain the difference in their introduction:
“The process of economic transformation (ET), indicating the changes affecting the structure of an economy, is at the core of development. While GDP growth is often used as a metric for development, it simply points to an expansion of a country’s economic size, but it does not guarantee that the economy has become more diversified, resilient to shocks or inclusive. Conversely, ET, indicating a transition from an economy based on traditional agriculture to one where modern sectors take the central place, can deliver job creation, diversification, and inclusive development.
“Today, African countries face an ET gap. While many African economies have grown over the last few decades, their structure has not transformed. In contrast with other regions of the world, where the majority of people are employed in the secondary and tertiary sectors, a large share of Africa’s labor force works in agriculture and related activities, where average productivity is lower.
“When Chinese economic engagement with Africa started intensifying at the turn of the century, it raised hopes for ET. China’s extraordinary growth and poverty reduction performance could be a model for African countries; and with China as a trade, investment and development partner, African economies could hope to follow a similar path. African engagement with China was deemed particularly promising for industrialization on the continent. (Emphasis added)
Regrettably, both for the U.S., and Africa, and the rest of the developing sector, the West no longer believes in economic transformation. The U.S. in particular, is no longer devoted to fostering economic development for itself or other nations, contrary to many outstanding periods of its history. Whatever shortcomings exist in China’s relationship to Africa, China is committed to promoting real economic development i.e., economic transformation on the African continent. Yet Western governments continually attack China and its Belt and Road Initiative for assisting African nations in addressing the most critical deficiency in their economies; the lack of infrastructure and a manufacturing sector.
Many people, including so called economic experts fail to understand that money is not the basis of economic growth. The addition of all the monetary values of an economy’s goods and services measured in GDP, does not determine economic growth. The only proper, scientific measure of economy is not monetary values, but the ability of each particular mode of economic production to provide an increased standard of living to an expanding population. A physical economist like myself understands, that it is those physical inputs that lead to an increase in the performance-output of the productive powers of labor that determines real economic growth. Infrastructure and manufacturing capacity are crucial physical inputs required for economic transformation.
That is what the Chinese are providing for Africa, unlike the West. Could that be why young Africans think more approvingly of China’s policies in Africa than the U.S.?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a writer, researcher, and consultant, and the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
Featured image is from African Leadership Magazine
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The whole war in Ukraine could and should have been avoided. Russia had simple demands:
Don’t join NATO
Be Neutral
Recognize Crimea, a part of Russia
But it seems NATO, dominated by the United States wanted this war.
Just like Afghanistan invasion by USSR in 1979, they want to repeat that in Ukraine to weaken Russia. So, they are waging a proxy war using poor people of Ukraine as pawns. Not only provoking Russia by expanding NATO closer and closer to Russia’s eastern border has created this war resulting in global food and oil shortage affecting millions of poor people around the world, but it has brought the world closer to nuclear World War-III.
It is an utterly irresponsible policy by United States and its NATO allies. There was no need for this. Russia’s invasion is a very unfortunate act but NATO’s arrogant policy towards Russia over the past quarter-century bears a major responsibility for this terrible war.
In 1990, the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to let both Germany unify provided America would not expand NATO one inch eastward towards Russia beyond the territory of East Hermany.
James Baker, US Secretary of State promised. So, both east and west Germany were unified while USSR collapsed. But soon after, United States broke that promise by expanding NATO towards Russia. Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. both kept expanding NATO by including former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO. In 1991, Bill Clinton added Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia into NATO. In 2004, George Bush Jr. welcomed seven more countries-Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia–to become NATO members.
In 1990, there were 17 countries in NATO. Today, there are 30. And now, they want to add Ukraine which is right on Russia’s eastern border. Naturally Russia has been provoked.
Ukraine has no strategic value for the United States except to encircle Russia.
It is very unfortunate that Ukraine War is going on. Ukrainians are suffering a horrible situation. Thousands of Ukrainians and Russian soldiers are dying. The Russian invasion is brutal and horrible. Ukraine is being destroyed.
But could this horrible war had been avoided? Of course, yes.
Russia had simple demands: “Don’t join NATO and be a neutral country.” This was a fair demand as Ukraine is right on Russia’s eastern border.
Russia rightly does not want a militarized Ukraine on its border which it will be if it joined NATO. NATO is a military organization created on April 4, 1949, to counter the “Russian threat” as perceived by the Truman administration during the beginning of the cold war. The cold war was the creation of Truman administration.
By the way, unlike what the United States and European Union claim, NATO is not a defensive organization. It is an offensive military pact with a purpose of controlling and dominating the world.
It has been involved in many wars such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Syria, or Libya. It is not a benign, benevolent organization as its members and its leader the USA want the world to believe.
As NATO was created to counter the “USSR Threat”, once USSR collapsed in 1989-90, NATO’s existence became obsolete, and soon it should have been dissolved. The so-called Russian threat was no more. But not only NATO remained but it started expanding eastward encircling Russia.
If Ukraine joined NATO, soon NATO will install offensive missiles and other offensive weapons there directed against Russia. No major country would allow that. This was a “red line” drawn by Russia…rightly so. We have had the example of Cuba allowing Russian nuclear weapons installed in its territory in 1962. What happened? America threatened Russia with military strike if it didn’t remove those weapons. Kennedy Administration risked a nuclear third world war if Russia did not remove these weapons. Russia wisely complied.
The same way, would America allow Russia to have a military pact with Mexico? Would it allow Russia to put offensive weapons in Mexico near American border? Of course not.
America even has the so-called Monroe Doctrine of 1823 which held that “Any intervention in the political affairs in the Americas (North and South America) by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.” That meant “No interfering in the internal affairs of these countries. If that happens, then United States will fight back. These countries are in the sphere of influence of the Unties States.”
Would China allow Pakistan or Mongolia to have a military pact with USA resulting in offensive weapons directed against China in these countries? Absolutely not.
Would India allow China to have a military pact with Nepal or Bhutan? No; That will be a red line for India. United States, China or India will act militarily if put into such situations. But this is what United States, and its NATO member allies are trying to do against Russia.
Militarizing Ukraine was a red line for Russia. But America and the NATO countries poked the Russian bear in the eyes by constantly expanding the NATO towards Russia’s border. They have been doing that for many years.
On June 26, 1997, some 50 prominent foreign policy experts that included former Senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and academicians, sent an open letter to President Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO…is a policy error of historic proportions”. But to no avail. Bill Clinton went on to expanding NATO.
Many foreign policy experts warned against NATO expansion. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in Wall Street journal in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea pointing out that Ukraine cannot act as an outpost for either party but rather should act as a bridge between the West and Russia. He said that Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russia’s history and identity—similar but in varying degrees to what Russian president Vladimir Putin claimed in his speech before the so-called ‘military operation’ in Ukraine.
“To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West—especially Russia and Europe—into a cooperative international system,” Kissinger opined in Wall Street Journal.
The highly knowledgeable Political Scientist and professor John Mearsheimer has rightly said:
“The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the Ukraine crisis. The taproot of trouble is NATO expansion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president—which he rightly labelled a ‘coup’—was the final straw.”
NATO, led by the United States with its European surrogates have shown utter neglect and disregard for Russia’s strategic interests and security by NATO’s eastward expansion for two decades.
More than two decades ago, Western policy makers and Russian leaders were warning that NATO expansion was a bad idea, ending in a new cold war at best and a hot one at worst. George Kennan, the architect of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was tragic mistake.
The Obama administration shockingly meddled in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected, pro-Russia president. That was a brazen provocation and it caused tension to pike. Moscow immediately responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war once again created by the United States had begun with a vengeance.
Ukraine even violated the 2014 Minsk agreement with Russia.
Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in his 2014 memoires conceded that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.” That expansion of NATO, he concluded, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.”
The famous linguistic scholar -turned-social/political commentator Noam Chomsky has called this Ukraine war America’s proxy war to the last Ukrainian, though he criticizes Russia’s brutal invasion. But he maintains that Russia was provoked into this invasion like John Mearsheimer. Biden’s overtures to Ukraine, according to Chomsky, inviting Zelenskyy and company to join NATO, were intended to provoke Russia to invade Ukraine.
By 2021, Kremlin’s patience and restraint had run dry. Moscow issued demands for security guarantees that included a draw-down of military forces already deployed in NATO’s eastern members. But with respect to Ukraine, the demand was absolutely clear and uncompromising: Ukraine should never receive membership invitation and NATO weapons and troops would never be deployed on Ukrainian soil. But West, led by the United States failed to provide those guarantees. So, Putin launched his devastating full-scale war.
Yes, Moscow’s cruel reaction is unfortunate. But did Putin have any other choice? He was provoked time and time again by the West. Except America and its European allies, no other country of the world in Asia (except Japan and Australia), Africa, Middle East (except Israel) or Latin America have joined the West and condemned Russia. China and India did not join the West. China even sided with Russia and India rightly stayed neutral.
The United States conveniently forgets how it reacted during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Russia deployed nuclear weapons in Cuba? The world at that time came very close to the nuclear third world war. Thanks to Khrushchev that he rightly backed out.
President Biden’s CIA director William J. Burns has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. When President Bill Clinton’s administration started accepting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, burns warned that the decision was “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.” He continued further, “As Russians stewed in their grievance and sense of disadvantage, a gathering storm of ‘stab in the back’ theories slowly swirled, leaving a mark on Russia’s relations with the West that would linger for decades.”
In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from Knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
United States is addicted to wars everywhere. How many countries has Russia invaded and how many were invaded by the United States since World War-II? To keep its arms manufacturing industry going and to maintain its global hegemony, these wars are necessary. The so-called defense industry doles out millions of dollars for the reelection of America’s politicians. By creating wars, they payback their paymasters as in every direct or proxy war America engages in, these defense contractors make billions of dollars’ profit.
It is interesting to note that when Putin came to power, in 2000 he wanted to join the European Union and NATO. What a wonderful opportunity it would have been to unify the world! But NATO led by America and the European Union rejected the idea. Why? Is it because the United States needed an enemy to keep its arms manufacturing and selling to continue for enormous profits? If Russia became a friend, America would lose a huge block of European NATO member customers for its arms.
To justify these wars, America needs a boogeyman. Remember Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, Assad in Syria, Gadhafi in Libya and now Putin in Russia. All American media always join in demonizing these “monsters”, toeing the government line. You will never find dissenting opinion in all our mainstream news media–TV, newspaper, or radio network.
History will note that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the decades following the demise of U.S.S.R. was a policy blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that NATO expansion towards Russia would ultimately lead to a tragic, dangerous, and perhaps violent breach of relations with Moscow. Many Russia experts warned of the likely consequences. But those warnings went unheeded by the Biden administration. The American people, the world and especially the Ukrainians are now paying the horrible cost of the United States’ myopic and arrogant foreign policy.
Chaitanya Davé is a Chemical Engineer based in Southern California, founder and president of “Pragati Foundation”, a non-profit charity helping the poor villagers of India, Nepal, Haiti, USA-homeless. Author of three books: Crimes against Humanity, A Shocking Record of US Crimes since 1776-2007, Collapse: Civilization on the Brink-2010, and Capitalism’s March of Destruction (2016-20)
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
We’re told looming food shortages are primarily the result of climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Yet in July 2020, The Rockefeller Foundation had already predicted it, and was calling for a revamp of the food system as a whole to address it
“Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,” published by The Rockefeller Foundation July 28, 2020, describes how the COVID pandemic caused “a hunger and nutrition crisis” in the U.S. “unlike any this country has seen in generations”
According to The Rockefeller Foundation, the pandemic revealed deep problems in the U.S. food system that need to be “reset.” “Reset the Table” was published just one month after the World Economic Forum (WEF) officially announced its plans for a “Great Reset,” and many of the contributors to the Foundation’s paper are WEF members
While the report stresses the need for “healthy diets” and “sustainable” food production, the words “natural,” “organic” or “grass fed” are absent, so that’s not what they’re referring to
The WEF has, for years, promoted the idea that insects should be recognized as a healthy, sustainable protein alternative that can save the environment and solve world hunger
*
It seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee “natural disasters” and foretell coincidental “acts of God.” They know everything before it happens. Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.
Right now, we’re told looming food shortages are primarily the result of climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Yet, back in July 2020, The Rockefeller Foundation had already predicted it, and was calling for a revamp of the food system as a whole to address it.
‘Reset the Table’ Is Part of The Great Reset
The document in question, titled “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,”1 published by The Rockefeller Foundation July 28, 2020, 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 report also notes that it grew out of “video-conference discussions in May and June 2020,” so we’re to believe that two months into the pandemic, these prophetic minds already had the future all figured out. According to the Foundation, the pandemic revealed deep problems in the U.S. food system that need to be “reset.”
As noted by ThreadsIrish on Substack,2 “Reset the Table” was published just one month after the World Economic Forum (WEF) officially announced its plans for a “Great Reset,” and many of the contributors to the Foundation’s paper are WEF members.
In the foreword,3 Rockefeller Foundation president Dr. Rajiv Shah also stresses that “a comprehensive playbook” to address the food system would 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.”
Problem, Reaction, Solution
There are interesting tidbits in this document. For example, on page 3, it states that “94% of deaths from COVID-19 among individuals with an underlying condition, the majority of which are diet-related.” This is surprising, considering diet and nutrition were essentially absent from public discussions and reporting about the infection.
Equally surprising is that, on page 4, the Foundation actually admits its role in creating the problems currently plaguing our food system:
“The Green Revolution — which The Rockefeller Foundation played a role in seeding and scaling — was effective and successful in addressing calorie-based hunger and averting mass starvation. But it left a legacy that we see clearly today, including overemphasis of staple grains at the expense of more nutrient-rich foods, reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete the soil, and overuse of water.”
On page 10, the Foundation goes so far as to declare that “food is medicine,” and that by “Investing in healthy and protective diets,” Americans will be able to “thrive and bring down our nation’s suffocating health care costs.”
The report even calls for the expansion of produce prescription programs, as “dietary health and COVID-19 outcomes are clearly linked.” That’s basically been my sermon for the past few decades, and even more so during the pandemic, which finally earned me the honor of being labeled one of the top disinformation spreaders in the U.S.
While it’s tempting to view this document as a sign of sanity, if you’ve looked into the WEF’s Great Reset plan, you’ll notice that “Reset the Table” is just another cog in a wheel that is intended to run us over. As noted by ThreadsIrish:4
“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.”
How They Intend to Seize Control of the Supply Chain
“Reset the Table” basically describes how they intend to seize control of the food supply and the supply chain under the guise of “equity,” “fairness” and “environmental protection.” One key to this enterprise is data collection. They want to collect data on everyone’s spending and eating habits. Expanding broadband access is part of that.
“Forty-two million Americans lack broadband access that is essential to shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food, direct farm-to-consumer purchasing, telemedicine, teleconsultations, as well as education, finance, and employment,” the paper5 notes, adding, “This is a fundamental resiliency and equity gap, and we need to close it, urgently.”
As you can see from these paragraphs alone, they want everything to shift into an online environment, including education, medicine and the buying of food. This, of course, makes everything you do far easier to monitor and track. Another key is to make sure global WEF partners in multiple sectors work in tandem to form a “collaborative advocacy movement.”
A third key to success is “changes to policies, practices and norms,” and those changes are “numerous.” The end 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.”
What’s Their Definition of ‘Healthy Diet’?
As for the “healthy and protective diets” the Foundation is calling for, we’ve already been told what that is. For the past several years, the WEF has been promoting the idea that we should get used to eating weeds and bugs and drinking reclaimed sewage.
As noted in a July 2021 WEF article titled, “Why We Need to Give Insects the Role They Deserve in Our Food Systems”:6
“By 2050, the world’s food supply will need to feed another 2 billion people. Insect farming for food and animal feed could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis …
Thanks to new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT), we are at a turning point and finally able to industrialize the breeding of insects in a contained environment. Insect breeding is a data centric agro-industry with a lot of commonalities with precision agriculture.
Several indoor agriculture start-ups have emerged … Ÿnsect, for example, with more than 300 technology patents and completely unique AI-driven agricultural processes, is building the first fully automated vertical insect farm in the world, able to produce 100,000 tonnes of insect products a year.”
According to this article, 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 is also far less expensive, requiring few natural resources such as water and could reduce agricultural pollution by nearly 99%.
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.” For years, the WEF has also promoted the idea that lab-grown animal foods and genetically engineered crops are the only way to feed the world and save the planet.
Not surprisingly, the word “organic” does not appear a single time in the Foundation’s report, and the word “natural” is only used in reference to “natural disasters.” This despite the word “healthy” being used 33 times and the word “sustainable” 17 times.
The term “alternative proteins” appears once, and there’s no mention of “grass fed.” In other words, their versions of “healthy diet” and “sustainable agriculture” do not include any of the basic criteria for a truly healthy, nutritious, sustainable and regenerative food supply.
Considering its close networking with the WEF, it seems reasonable to conclude that the “healthy diet” the Rockefeller Foundation keeps referring to is one of weeds and insects, and that the kinds of changes to legislation and norms they intend to push through are ones relating to what constitutes “food.” As noted by ThreadsIrish:7
“This report is dressed up as being in the public interest yet it is anything but. For 2 years COVID was the focus of attention. It was Stage 1 of Agenda 2030.
The total and utter destruction of the food supply seems to now be well under way. This is all too evident especially when Fact Checkers are having to debunk the number of fires at food processing plants within the last year.
Added to this is the culling of herds of cattle in Kansas (as many as 10,000) which is being put down to high temperatures and drought. Farmers refute this and it looks far more sinister.”
It’s Inevitable Because It’s an Intentional Plan
Time and again, the WEF and its global collaborators have “predicted” the future with stunning accuracy, sometimes years in advance, and then when the predictions come true they pretend as though they had nothing to do with it.
But let’s not forget that WEF founder Klaus Schwab, during the May 2022 meeting in Davos, clearly stated that the future doesn’t just happen, it is “BUILT, by us. By a powerful community … in this room.” Make no mistake, they truly believe they have the right to decide the fate of the world, and that you and I have no say in the matter.
Our opinions and preferences are theirs to shape, and they will do so — or at least attempt to — using the most powerful social engineering technologies that ever existed.
And, if we do not wake up to their plans and resist, we’ve made the choice to accept their version of the future — a future in which we’ll all be living in smart multiplexes where there’s no private spaces, no private ownership, and everything you do is recorded, tracked and punished or rewarded according to some social credit algorithm that determines what it means to be a “good citizen.”
At present, all data point to severe food shortages, and while the looming shortages are blamed on everything from climate change and COVID to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fact is that WEF allies, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, have published documents and held fictional exercises, in advance, detailing everything we’re currently facing.
So, while they pretend to be modern-day prophets, with answers spilling out as fast as problems appear, it’s rather easy to make predictions when you’re working an intentional plan, and quite simple to fashion solutions at record speed when you created the problems as a means to an end in the first place.
All that is to say, do not doubt that food shortages and famine are coming. It’s inevitable because it’s intentional. The same goes for energy shortages. They’re intent on bringing us into the “green new deal” (as it’s part of The Great Reset) even though large-scale alternatives to oil, gas and nuclear power are nonexistent.
Prepare for the Inevitable
If something is inevitable, it would behoove you to prepare for it. Eventually, I believe mass resistance will stop many of these diabolical plans, but that resistance probably won’t manifest until a majority are really feeling the squeeze.
Remember, The Great Reset includes a reimagined food system that doesn’t rely on livestock or require a large land footprint. That’s why we can be so sure that none of the current problems will be effectively addressed or counteracted.
They intend for the current food system to fall apart, so they can then “solve” the problem by introducing a new system based on patented lab-grown synthetic and genetically engineered foods and massive insect farms.
The only way out of this intentional chaos is to a) become more self-sufficient in the short-term, and b) create alternative parallel food systems locally, outside of the globalists’ control, for more long-term independence. Right now, you’d be wise to address your own short-term food security and safety. Here are some basic suggestions:
Secure a potable water source and the means to purify less-than-ideal water sources —Examples include stocking up on water purification tablets or drops, and/or independent water filtration systems such as Berkey that can filter out pathogens and other impurities (meaning a filtration system that is not tied to the tap in your home, in case pumps go down and you have no tap water).
Even a small survival water filtration system is better than nothing, as drinking contaminated water can result in serious illness and/or death. Having a rain barrel connected to your gutter downspout is a good idea. You can use it to water your garden, and in a worst-case scenario, you have a source of fresh water to drink, cook and take sponge baths in.
Buy shelf-stable and nonperishable foods in bulk — Freeze-dried foods, for example, have a shelf life of 25 years or more. Canned foods and dry staples such as rice and beans can also stay viable long past their expiration date under the right conditions.
Other good options include canned salmon, canned cod livers, sardines in water (avoid ones preserved in vegetable oil), nuts, powdered milk and whey and other nutritional powders you can mix with water.
Ideally, you’ll want to store food in a cool, dark place with low humidity. Bulk packs of rice and beans are best stored in a sealed food-grade bucket with some oxygen absorbers. Vacuum sealing food can also extend shelf life.
Buy energy backups — To prepare for eventual energy shortages, brownouts, rolling blackouts or a complete shutdown of the power grid, consider one or more power backups, such as gas-powered generators and/or solar generator kits such as Jackery or Inergy. Having backup power can prevent the loss of hundreds of dollars worth of food if your home loses electricity for more than a couple of days.
Scale up and diversify according to what you can afford. Ideally, you’d want more than one system. If all you have is a gas-powered generator, what will you do if there’s a gas shortage and/or if the price skyrockets into double digits? On the other hand, what will you do if the weather is too overcast to recharge your solar battery?
Get cooking backups — You also need some way to cook water and food during a blackout. Here, options include (but are not limited to) solar cookers, which require neither electricity nor fire, small rocket stoves, propane-powered camping stoves and 12-volt pots and pans that you can plug into a backup battery.
Start a garden and learn some basic skills — The more food you can produce at home, the better off you’ll be. At bare minimum, stock up on sprouting seeds and grow some sprouts. They’re little powerhouses when it comes to nutrition, they’re easy to grow and are ready to eat in days rather than months.
If you have the space, consider starting a garden, and if local regulations allow, you can add chickens for a steady supply of eggs. (Just remember that they too may need additional feed.)
Also, start learning some basic food storage skills such as canning and pickling. While it can feel intimidating at first, it’s really not that difficult. For example, raw, unwashed, homegrown eggs can be preserved in lime water — 1 ounce of lime (calcium hydroxide, aka, “pickling lime”) to 1 quart of water — thereby extending their shelf life to about two years without refrigeration.8
The lime water basically seals the eggs to prevent them from spoiling. Before using the eggs, be sure to wash the lime off. This does not work with commercial eggs, however, as the protective coating, called “bloom,” is stripped off during washing.
Fermented vegetables are also easy to make and will allow you to store the proceeds from your garden for long periods of time. For inspiration, check out my fermented veggie recipe. In the video below, I explain the benefits of using starter culture and kinetic culture jar lids. They’re not a necessity, but will cut the odor released as the veggies ferment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All 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.
The European (EEA and non-EEA countries) database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, verified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and they are now reporting 38,983 fatalities, and 3,530,362 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,672,872 ) are serious injuries.
“Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.
Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*
Here is the summary data through January 29, 2022.
Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 17,578 deaths and 1,704,757 injuries to 29/01/2022
48,240 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 242 deaths
57,541 Cardiac disorders incl. 2,554 deaths
522 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 51 deaths
22,590 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 11 deaths
304,993 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,855 deaths
1,039 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 69 deaths
5,409 Immune system disorders incl. 40 deaths
42,266 Infections and infestations incl. 620 deaths
13,630 Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 198 deaths
25,681 Investigations incl. 205 deaths
13,023 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 126 deaths
168,174 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 165 deaths
743 Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 40 deaths
234,117 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,178 deaths
635 Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 20 deaths
199 Product issues incl. 1 death
21,051 Psychiatric disorders incl. 69 deaths
4,338 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 78 deaths
16,849 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
41,401 Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,082 deaths
52,064 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 65 deaths
1,617 Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
1,973 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 30 deaths
28,787 Vascular disorders incl. 529 deaths
Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 2,420 deaths and 127,305 injuries to 29/01/2022
1,229 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 51 deaths
2,552 Cardiac disorders incl. 204 deaths
40 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 1 death
1,319 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
105 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
1,656 Eye disorders incl. 10 deaths
9,588 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 88 deaths
34,487 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 685 deaths
153 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 13 deaths
544 Immune system disorders incl. 10 deaths
8,521 Infections and infestations incl. 207 deaths
1,147 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 25 deaths
6,086 Investigations incl. 131 deaths
756 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 60 deaths
17,116 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 55 deaths
86 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 8 deaths
23,413 Nervous system disorders incl. 245 deaths
55 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
30 Product issues
1,766 Psychiatric disorders incl. 22 deaths
535 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 31 deaths
2,941 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 6 deaths
4,468 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 304 deaths
3,760 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 10 deaths
409 Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
867 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 74 deaths
3,676 Vascular disorders incl. 171 deaths
*These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.
On January 29, 2021 a mass funeral protest for children who have died after receiving a Pfizer vaccine was held in Geneva, Switzerland.
In Canada today, it was reported that a judge ruled that a mother could give COVID-19 vaccines to her children over the objections of the children’s father, and suspended the father’s right to spend time with his children.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on 38,983 Deaths and 3,530,362 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database as Mass Funeral for Children Who Died After Pfizer Vaccine Held in Switzerland
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been ratified by 65 governments, known in diplomatic circles as States Parties. The treaty’s first Meeting of States Parties (1MSP) concluded here June 23, after painstakingly working out — in the words of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons — “a blueprint for the end of nuclear weapons.” The New Treaty is the extraordinary, crowning achievement of ICAN, which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts.
At 1MSP, The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany — all three of whom use U.S. nuclear weapons on their air force bases — participated as Observer States. The three have not ratified the TPNW, having acquiesced with a string of U.S. administrations — Obama’s, Trump’s, and Biden’s — that conspired at every opportunity to derail, prevent, delay, weaken, and boycott the new ban — in spite of Broad Public Support For Nuclear Disarmament. Mr. Trump demanded that States Parties withdraw their ratifications. None did. Biden’s White House reportedly urged Japan not to attend the 1MSP as an Observer, and they stayed away.
German and Dutch representatives took their turn and spoke to the MSP on June 22, but both NATO members used exactly the same words to note their government’s explicit disapproval of the TPNW, and to voice their supposed support for the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Both representatives said their governments “will not accede to” the nuclear ban treaty “because the TPNW is inconsistent with NATO doctrine.”
The hypocrisy in German and Dutch opposition is that their “sharing” of U.S. nuclear weapons, while consistent with “NATO doctrine” is totally inconsistent with their hallowed Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In fact, their 50-year-long dismissal of the NPT’s binding (Art. VI) obligation to begin negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament “at an early date” is also completely inconsistent with their feigned support for the NPT.
As German Representative Rüdiger Bohn said June 22, NATO “doctrine” includes the doleful edict, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance.” This embrace of genocidal atomic violence is not an Article of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty Or NATO Charter. It was manufactured entirely by its nuclear-armed members, and there is no legal obligation for NATO to remain a nuclear-armed terrorist organization.
NATO “doctrine” is fluid, strictly advisory, and accepted voluntarily by its members. Even the NATO Charter’s famous Article 5, regarding collective response to a military attack on a member state, declares only that the NATO membership “will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking … such action as it deems necessary.”
In comparison, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is binding international law and includes explicit, unambiguous prohibitions and clear, binding obligations. NATO’s ongoing planning, preparations and ever-present threat to launch nuclear attacks (known as “deterrence”), is simply a ritualized practice which can be ended at any time — say by complying with the NPT’s Articles I and II which prohibit any transfer or reception of nuclear weapons between states, or its Article VI pledge to negotiate nuclear disarmament. Indeed, it is the 50-year-long postponement, or rejection of Art. VI that has prompted and propelled the overwhelming success of the new TPNW.
What might have been a week-long celebration of the TPNW’s progress in seeking a world free of nuclear threats, was dimmed by Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine. It was the war’s spoken and unspoken reminders of ready nuclear arsenals in Russia and NATO that moved the MSP to say, in its Final Declaration, that it “condemn[s] unequivocally any and all nuclear threats, whether they be explicit or implicit and irrespective of the circumstances.”
The Declaration castigates nuclear weapons and echoes Daniel Ellsberg’s 1959 Essay “The Threat and Practice of Blackmail,” noting that the Bomb is used to coerce, intimidate, plague, curse, and terrify. “This highlights, now more than ever, the fallacy of nuclear deterrence doctrines, which are based and rely on the threat of the actual use of nuclear weapons and, hence, the risks of the destruction of countless lives, of societies, of nations, and of inflicting global catastrophic consequences.”
The Parties agreed to push ahead with resolve to eventually see the nuclear weapons states sign on, saying “In the face of the catastrophic risks posed by nuclear weapons and in the interest of the very survival of humanity, we cannot do otherwise.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
John LaForge, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and is co-editor with Arianne Peterson of Nuclear Heartland, Revised: A Guide to the 450 Land-Based Missiles of the United States.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees will remain blocked until at least September after a federal appeals court on Monday agreed to reconsider its previous decision to reinstate the mandate.
The Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees will remain blocked until at least September after a federal appeals court on Monday agreed to reconsider its previous decision to reinstate the mandate.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans will revisit its April ruling by a three-judge panel that the administration has the legal authority to require federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19, The Associated Press reported.
The new injunction will remain until the case can be argued before the full court’s 17 judges. According to The Epoch Times, the court has tentatively scheduled the en banc oral arguments for the week of Sept. 12.
Back-and-forth rulings on federal worker vaccine mandate since January
Biden introduced Executive Order 14043 in September 2021, requiring more than 3.5 million federal executive branch workers to undergo vaccination unless they secured approved medical or religious exemptions. The order did not allow workers to choose regular testing in place of getting the vaccine.
Other parties to the lawsuit included the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 918, a union representing employees in the Federal Protective Service and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and several other individuals and federal contractors.
The groups sought to block two COVID-19 vaccine mandates: one covering federal employees and the other for federal contractors.
Lawyers representing the Biden administration argued the Constitution gives the president, as the head of the federal workforce, the same authority as the CEO of a private corporation, and that therefore mandating vaccination was under the president’s authority.
The plaintiffs disagreed, countering that such action oversteps a president’s powers.
“The main thrust of the argument [of the plaintiffs],” attorney Bruce Castor Jr. told The Epoch Times in February, “is that the president doesn’t have the authority to issue an order like this, pursuant to the powers granted him in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and that’s the same argument that won the day in the Supreme Court regarding the 100 or more employees; the president doesn’t have that authority.”
“Instead of going through the checks and balances of congressional approval, which includes feedback from the public, the executive order cuts all that out. It just says, ‘My way or the highway.’
“Certainly, the Constitution grants powers like that to the president in foreign affairs and protecting the nation from aggression from foreign powers. But he doesn’t have the authority, with a sweep of the pen, to affect the lives of millions of people, bypassing Congress.”
In January, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown blocked the mandate, stating in his 20-page ruling that the president and his administration did not have the authority to impose such a mandate.
Brown questioned the president’s power to mandate federal employees undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment, writing in his decision:
“This case is not about whether folks should get vaccinated against COVID-19 — the court believes they should. It is not even about the federal government’s power, exercised properly, to mandate vaccination of its employees.
“It is instead about whether the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment.
“That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.”
But after hearing arguments in March, a different panel of judges ruled 2-1 in early April that Brown did not have jurisdiction in the case, overturning the lower court’s Jan. 21 injunction against the mandate and ordering the district court to dismiss the case.
Meanwhile, Biden’s vaccine mandate continues to draw fire from health freedom groups who alleged federal overreach. Four groups — including America’s Frontline Doctors and Airline Employees for Health Freedom — filed amicus briefs in June supporting the Feds for Medical Freedoms in the case, Law 360 said.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Fairfield, Iowa.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published on June 26, 2022
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,307,928 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 29,031 deaths and 240,022 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 17, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,307,928 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 17, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That’s an increase of 6,572 adverse events over the previous week.
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 29,031 reports of deaths — an increase of 172 over the previous week — and 240,022 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,610 compared with the previous week.
Of the 29,031 reported deaths, 18,814 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 7,627 cases to Moderna and 2,525 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 13,388 U.S. deaths reported as of June 17, 16% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 592 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of June 16, including 349 million doses of Pfizer, 223 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
4 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 17, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
11,534 adverse events, including 298 rated as serious and 6 reported deaths.
The most recent reported death (VAERS I.D. 2315376) occurred in a 9-year-old female from Florida who died 172 days after receiving Pfizer’s vaccine. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 on May 28, 2022, and treated with various drugs, including Remdesivir. She was found unresponsive at home on June 3, and was declared brain dead.
The Defender has noticed over previous weeks that reports of myocarditis and pericarditis have been removed by the CDC from the VAERS system in this age group. No explanation was provided.
62 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 97% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
655 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 643 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
166 reports of blood clotting disorders with all cases attributed to Pfizer. VAERS reported 167 cases of blood clotting disorders in the 12- to 17-year-old age group last week.
20 cases of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with all cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to June 17, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
53% of those who died were male, 42% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
CDC advisors recommend Moderna shot for children ages 6 through 17
The CDC’s vaccine advisory panel unanimously voted 15 to 0 to recommend two doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 through 17 years old.
Members of the panel acknowledged there is a risk of heart inflammation associated with both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but they said a follow-up survey suggests most fully recover.
Not everyone agrees, including University of British Columbia professor Dr. Steven Pelech, who last year criticized health agencies’ relaxed attitude about myocarditis as misleading.
“Contrary to what a number of people have said, there is no such thing as ‘mild myocarditis,’” Pelech said.
Pelech explained that once the heart muscle cells are killed, “they can never be replaced by new muscle cells, but only by scar tissue.” This can lead to “a greater chance of heart attack and other problems later in life.”
The FDA last week authorized Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in the child and adolescent age group.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the H1N1 Vaccine Task Force at the CDC, said the risk of myocarditis “may be higher” with the Moderna vaccine compared to Pfizer, but there are limitations to what scientists know about the condition in this age group.
Shimabukuro said most adverse events reported following vaccination are “mild and transient events like injection site or systemic reactions,” and the CDC would continue to monitor the safety of COVID-9 vaccines.
CDC admits it never monitored VAERS for COVID vaccine safety signals
In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the CDC last week admitted it never analyzed VAERS for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC is supposed to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRRs).
This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.
If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.
According to a briefing document, the CDC “will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”
Yet in its response to CHD’s FOIA request, the agency wrote, “no PRRs were conducted by CDC” and data mining is “outside of the agency’s purview.” The agency suggested contacting the FDA, which was supposed to perform a different type of data mining, according to the briefing document.
Reports of chickenpox, shingles following COVID-19 vaccines on the rise
Doctors and scientists are seeing an increase in the reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus, which causes chickenpox, following COVID-19 vaccines, The Epoch Times reported.
After a person gets chickenpox, the virus lies dormant in the nervous system for life and can be reactivated, showing up as shingles, or herpes zoster, later in life.
Federal health officials said there’s no correlation between COVID-19 vaccines and shingles, but numerous studies show a higher incidence of shingles in people who received the vaccine.
The FDA claims it has not detected any safety signals regarding shingles following approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC alleges “there is no current connection” between COVID-19 vaccines and the reactivation of the chickenpox virus.
Scott Pauley, CDC spokesperson, said any adverse reactions experienced after receiving the shot are “temporary and a positive sign that the vaccine is working.”
Pfizer, Moderna COVID vaccines may increase risk of infection
A new peer-reviewed study shows two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine yield negative protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, while previous infection without vaccination offers about 50% immunity.
The findings, published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed information from more than 100,000 Omicron-infected and non-infected residents in Qatar from Dec. 23, 2021, through Feb. 21, 2022.
Researchers found those who had a prior infection but had not been vaccinated had 46.1% and 50% immunity against the BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants more than 300 days after the previous infection.
However, individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but were not previously infected, had negative immunity against the subvariants — indicating an increased risk of infection compared to someone without prior infection and vaccination.
Six months after the second dose of Pfizer, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -3.4% below an average person without infection and vaccination, which as a control, was set at 0.
For two doses of Moderna, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -10.3% about six months after the last dose.
Pfizer COVD-19 vaccine reduces sperm count, study shows
A peer-reviewed study published June 17 in the journal Andrology shows Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine reduced sperm concentration after the second dose.
In a retrospective longitudinal multicenter comparison study, researchers analyzed 220 semen samples of 37 donors from sperm banks in Israel.
The study participants received two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 and did not have COVID-19 symptoms.
The changes in sperm concentration, semen volume, sperm motility and total motility count after the second dose were assessed at various study phases.
The authors concluded the negative effect of the Pfizer vaccine on sperm quality was temporary. Yet, the actual data calculating the average of values showed sperm counts had not returned to normal after five months, the end of the monitoring period.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In America, a woman’s right to an abortion of a pre-conscious (earlier than 20 weeks) fetus is no longer recognized by its federal Government, though, by a 59% to 41% margin (and 67% to 33% among American women, who are the people directly affected), the American people want it to be. That’s one example of America’s dictatorship (minority-rule). (This statement about it isn’t a commentary on the ethics of abortion, but on the polling on abortion, in America.) But there are many other examples of America’s being now a minority-rule nation.
For example: in February of 2008, a U.S. Gallup poll had asked Americans “Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?” and 49% said “More Strict,” 11% said “Less Strict,” and 38% said “Remain as Are.” But, then, the U.S. Supreme Court, in June 2008, reversed that Court’s prior rulings, ever since 1939, and they made America’s gun laws far less strict than the gun-laws ever had been before; and, thus, the 5 ruling judges in this 2008 decision imposed upon the nation what were the policy-preferences of actually a mere 11% of Americans.
Then, in 2014, there was finally the first scientific answer to the question of whether America is a democracy or instead a dictatorship, when the first-ever comprehensive political-science study that was ever published on whether the U.S. Government reflects the policy-preferences of the American public or instead of only the very richest Americans found that, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”; and, so, “Clearly, when one holds constant net interest-group alignments and the preferences of affluent Americans, it makes very little difference what the general public thinks”
In other words: America, which nominally is a (limited) democracy, is actually an aristocracy, NOT a democracy at all. Each one of the ways in which America’s laws and their enforcement reflect what the country’s billionaires want, but NOT what the country’s public want, those proposed pieces of legislation have become laws just as much, as happens when the billionaires and the public have the same policy-references regarding the given policy-matter, as when they don’t. This means that the aristocracy always get policies that are acceptable to them, but the public often do not. The result is conservative government regardless of what the public wants.
No aristocrat is progressive (for majority-rule — “democracy”); all are instead either overtly conservative (for “fascism,” another term for which is “corporationism”), or else noblesse oblige or hypocritically conservative (“liberals”), people who are pretending to care about the public as being something more thanmerely their markets (consumers they sell to) or else their workers (their employees or other agents, such as lobbyists). When the public are conservative or “right wing,” (not progressive or “left wing”), they are elitist, not populist — and, especially, they are not left-wing populist (or progressive). Donald Trump was a right-wing populist (which is another form of aristocratic policy-fakery, besides the liberal type — either type is mere pretense to being non-fascist). But no aristocrat is progressive, and this means that in a corrupt ‘democracy’, all of the policy-proposals that become enacted into laws are elitist even if of the noblesse-oblige or “liberal” form of that. The Government, in such a nation, always serves its billionaires, regardless of what the public wants. That’s what makes the country an aristocracy instead of a democracy.
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.
“Elections at just 46% turnout are a hair’s breadth away from not having democratic credibility, but that must be added with [to] the constant use of the 49-3 executive decree and the certainty of a Brussels’ veto for any legislation they don’t like. It combines to modern autocracy – rule by an oligarchical elite.”
Perhaps low voter-turnout is an indication that the nation will have a revolution. After all, both America and France did that, once, and it could happen again, in order to overthrow the aristocracy that has since emerged after the prior one was overthrown. Someone should therefore tabulate how low the voter-turnout has to go in order for a revolution to result. The post-1945 American Government has perpetrated incredibly many coups against foreign governments, but perhaps the time will soon come when dictatorships such as in America and France become, themselves, democratically overthrown. Both countries have degenerated into minoritarian right-wing governments. At least in France, the public seem to be becoming aware of this fact. Neither Government now has authentic democratic legitimacy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: View of the Capitol building, Washington D.C., U.S. | Photo: Twitter/ @LiveNewsNow6
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Salman Abedi and his closest family were part of Libyan militias benefitting from British covert military support six years before he murdered 22 people at the Manchester Arena in 2017. He is likely to have been radicalised by his experience.
The Manchester bomber and his closest family were part of Islamist militia forces covertly supported by the British military and Nato in the Libyan war of 2011.
The UK facilitated the flow of arms to Libyan rebel militias at the time, and helped train them, in a programme outsourced to its close ally, the Gulf regime of Qatar.
One of Salman Abedi’s close friends, Abdalraouf Abdallah, who was later convicted in the UK for terrorism offences related to Syria, fought in the 2011 Libyan war for the main militia group the UK helped to take over the Libyan capital.
Abdallah told the Manchester Arena inquiry he was trained by Nato at the time – a claim Nato denies.
Salman Abedi and his brothers Ismail and Hashem may have received training from militant groups that British special forces were working with to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime.
Evidence points to the Manchester bomber being radicalised by his experience in the UK-supported war in Libya in 2011. Aged 16 at the time, it was the beginning of the road that led to him murdering 22 innocent people at the Ariana Grande pop concert six years later.
Martyrs and Revolutionaries
Muammar Gaddafi’s regime had been in power since 1969 and when an ‘Arab Spring’ uprising began in February 2011, a variety of militia groups were formed to overthrow him.
Dozens of men from the British-Libyan community in Manchester flocked to the country to join the fight. They were of varying political convictions, from nationalist to jihadist.
Irrespective of their ideologies, Libyan militia forces were backed by Nato, which launched thousands of air strikes beginning in March 2011 against Gaddafi’s forces. The military intervention, which was led by the UK, France and the US, was backed across the British media and parliament.
The Manchester bombing inquiry heard that the Abedi family was associated with the February 17th Martyrs Brigade and the Tripoli Revolutionary Brigade, the latter which focused on seizing the Libyan capital, Tripoli. There was considerable fluidity of personnel between the militias.
The inquiry, which finished hearing testimonies in March and will report later this year, also heard evidence from the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) that Salman Abedi either fought with the Martyrs Brigade during the 2011 war or attended a training camp or both.
A police raid on a house a few months before the bombing found 65 photographs taken during the Libyan war apparently showing Salman and and his younger brother Hashem in camouflage uniforms, holding weapons, and with an insignia on the wall behind of the Martyrs Brigade.
Hashem was convicted in 2020 of helping his brother plan the bombing and sentenced to 55 years in jail.
The Facebook account of Salman’s older brother Ismail also contained an image of him holding a rifle with the Martyrs Brigade flags behind him and other images with him in camouflage clothing holding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and a machine gun.
The father
The inquiry was also told that Salman’s father Ramadan Abedi, who had a long history of opposition to the Gaddafi regime and of association with Islamist extremists in the UK, was part of the Martyrs Brigade and the Tripoli Brigade.
Ramadan took Salman and Hashem to the Libyan capital in August 2011 to aid the rebels. This was just as the militia forces were descending on Tripoli.
Police told the inquiry that Ramadan’s sister Rabaa informed them he had returned to fight the regime and that he received a shrapnel wound in his back which stopped him fighting on the front line.
A fellow fighter in Libya, Akram Ramadan, said he fought with Ramadan as part of the ‘Manchester Fighters’ and that he saw Ramadan “in the mountains and later in Tripoli”.
It remains unclear if Salman fought in Libya. His friend Abdalraouf Abdallah told the inquiry he didn’t see him fighting on the front line but “probably he did fight”.
A cousin of the Abedi brothers said that, following the downfall of the Gaddafi regime, Salman obtained a job locating Gaddafi supporters.
Covert support
UK military forces on the ground, working with Nato, covertly supported the Libyan militias and directly aided the Tripoli Brigade’s takeover of the capital.
In answer to a parliamentary question, the UK government said in March 2018 it “likely” had contacts with the Martyrs Brigade in the 2011 war. But Whitehall has, unsurprisingly, never publicised its support for the Islamist forces.
Britain had dozens of special forces in Libya calling in air strikes and helping rebel units assault cities still in the hands of pro-Gaddafi forces.
But Whitehall went further, secretly training rebel groups in advance of the attack on Tripoli. SAS operatives advised rebels on tactics as they prepared to storm the capital.
The Tripoli Brigade was the main rebel force that eventually took over the capital in late August 2011. In its ranks fought both Abdalraouf Abdallah and his brother Mohammed, who was also later convicted of terrorism in the UK for joining Islamic State in Syria.
The Telegraphreported at the time that British and French intelligence officers played a key role in planning the final rebel assault on Tripoli.
UK special forces reportedly “infiltrated Tripoli and planted radio equipment to help target air strikes” and “carried out some of the most important on-the-ground missions by allied forces before the fall of Tripoli”, US and allied officials told Reuters.
This was part of a broader plan involving Nato and Qatari forces which took months of planning, and involved secretly arming rebel units inside the capital.
Those units helped Nato destroy strategic targets in the city, such as military barracks and police stations, as they attacked the capital from all sides.
The Ministry of Defence refused Declassified’s freedom of information request asking for records it holds on the Tripoli Brigade. It said it could “neither confirm nor deny” it held such information.
‘Rebel air force’
A rebel planning committee, which included the Tripoli Brigade, drew up a list of dozens of sites for Nato to target in the days leading up to their attack on the capital.
The Tripoli Brigade-led military advance came amid an increased number of sorties and bombings by Nato aircraft. British Tornado fighter planes destroyed targets such as an intelligence communications facility concealed in a building in southwest Tripoli and government-controlled tanks and artillery.
Husam Najjair, a sub-commander in the Tripoli Brigade, wrote in his memoir after the war of Nato “backing us up from the air” as his forces attacked Gaddafi’s powerful Khamis Brigade, named after his youngest son.
Nato jets also struck targets around the Gaddafi leadership compound at Bab al-Aziziya, which was taken by the Tripoli Brigade, as Najjair documents in his book. The base was “bombed repeatedly by Nato”, he wrote.
A report by the global intelligence firm Stratfor, revealed by WikiLeaks, noted that Nato “served as the de facto rebel air force…during this push into Tripoli”.
It highlighted the seminal role played by Nato in the rebels’ success, stating that a “compelling rationale for the apparent breakthrough by rebel forces is an aggressive clandestine campaign by Nato member states’ special operations forces”.
This was “accompanied by deliberate information operations – efforts to shape perceptions of the conflict.”
Arming the militias
The UK may have directly armed the militias with which the Abedis were associated, and certainly helped to ensure they were armed.
A France24 film that followed the Tripoli Brigade’s seizure of the capital noted that Britain and France had given weapons to the unit. This was later denied by Husam Najjair, who appeared in the film.
As early as March 2011 the adviser to then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, informed her that French and British special forces were working out of bases in Egypt, along the Libyan border, and that “these troops are overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels”.
The SAS was operating closely with Qatari special forces which were delivering large quantities of arms to the militias such as Milan anti-tank missiles. A video posted on Youtube in May 2011 appeared to show the Martyrs Brigade testing Milans.
Overall the UK government was “using Qatar to bankroll the Libyan rebels”, the Timesreported, since the militias lacked the firepower to win the war by themselves.
The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to Qatari arms shipments in spring 2011 and soon began receiving reports that the supplies were going to Islamic militant groups.
Nato air and sea forces around Libya had to be alerted not to interdict the cargo planes and freighters transporting these arms into Libya.
Overall, Qatar is believed to have sent $400m in aid to the militias, involving huge quantities of arms. All the weapons supplies were illegal since they contravened an arms embargo, as a UN security council report of 2013 documented.
Qatar also later admitted deploying hundreds of its own troops to support the Libyan rebels. Its chief-of-staff, Major-General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya, said the regime “supervised the rebels’ plans because they are civilians and did not have enough military experience”.
He also said: “We acted as the link between the rebels and Nato forces.”
But Qatar also helped train and equip the Tripoli Brigade specifically.
Training in the western mountains
The militants in the Tripoli Brigade who successfully took the capital had swept through the country from the west, from their base at the town of Nalut in the Nafusa Mountains, about 280 kilometres from Tripoli.
The Brigade had been formed in late April in Benghazi by Mehdi al-Harati, an Irish-Libyan living in Dublin, and Husam Najjair, his brother-in-law, a 32-year-old building contractor also living in the Irish capital.
The Brigade received training from Qatari special forces in Nalut and is also reported to have flown some rebel commanders to the Gulf state for training.
Some reports have said Britain was involved in this secret training of opposition fighters in the Nafusa mountains, alongside Qatari and French forces.
Indeed, a Reuters investigation, quoting several allied and US officials, as well as a source close to the Libyan rebels, noted that Britain played a key role in organising this training.
It reported that British, French and Italian operatives, as well as representatives from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, began in May 2011 to organise serious efforts to hone the rebels into a more effective fighting force. Most of the training took place in the rebel-held western mountains.
Fighting with Nato
“We started from the border of Tunisia, called Jebel Nafusa”, Abdalraouf Abdallah told the Manchester bombing inquiry. He said he received training from Nato on “how to aim, shoot and reload”, and that he was “translating for Nato”.
“We were fighting and Nato fighting actually with us, or alongside with us, as the British Government also,” he added. “And then there was a big plan of how to take over Tripoli because that was the stronghold of Gaddafi”.
In his memoir Tripoli Brigade sub-commander Husam Najjair reveals that “three American Nato officials” visited the unit’s Nalut headquarters in the Nafusa mountains. “Having communication with Nato was very important to us, so we were happy to show them around”, he wrote.
“They made it clear they didn’t want media attention”, he added.
Najjair says he once acted as a translator between the Americans and two Libyan gun smugglers funnelling arms into Tripoli. This was “to give the Yanks as much information as possible about the coordinates of the latest loyalist military installations”.
Najjair also wrote that he met the Americans “to detail our plans for the advance and our military targets” as the brigade pushed towards Tripoli. He had a “walkie-talkie direct to Nato”, he quotes his commander, Mehdi al-Harati saying to him.
A Nato official told Declassified: “There were no forces under Nato command in Libya during the conflict in 2011. In line with its mandate from the UN Security Council, Nato’s mission in Libya consisted of policing the arms embargo, patrolling a no-fly zone, and protecting civilians from attack by Gadhafi forces.
The official added: “While it is a matter of public record that some Nato Allies had small military contingents on the ground in Libya, Nato was not involved in training opposition forces.”
The road to Tripoli
British and Nato forces helped the Tripoli Brigade in its campaign towards the capital by taking towns and villages in the western mountains and en route.
The rebels’ advances were aided by newly-arrived Apache attack helicopters operating from Britain’s HMS Ocean, an amphibious assault ship, and which destroyed armoured vehicles. Nato aircraft also dropped leaflets to dispirit Gaddafi’s forces and reinforce rebel morale.
One town the Tripoli Brigade took in the western mountains was Bir Ghanam where rebel forces used tanks to fight Gaddafi’s troops in early August. Nato forces hit targets in the area to aid the rebels’ advance.
The UK government reported on 8 August “a precision strike was conducted against a location near Bir al-Ghanam in the Djebel Nafousa” and other patrols over and missions against targets in the Nafusa mountains.
Three days later it reported that “UK aircraft also attacked a command and control node and a weapons depot in Bir al-Ghanam”.
Another town where the Tripoli Brigade fought to remove pro-Gaddafi forces was Tiji. It was here in August 2011 that Abdalraouf Abdallah was shot in the back and paralysed from the waist down fighting for the Tripoli Brigade.
Fighting alongside him was the Royal Air Force (RAF). The UK government reportedon 8 August that Tornado jets “were … able to prosecute successfully a target of their own, destroying a military staging post further south at Tiji.”
Other Nato forces were also conducting airstrikes around Tiji at this time.
Najjair wrote that Tiji was “a turning point” for his Tripoli Brigade since it stood its ground in the face of “the intensity of the firepower we were up against”. “It proved to the mountain lads the real potential of the Tripoli Brigade”, he wrote.
Radicalisation
Abdalraouf Abadallah was a long-time friend of Salman Abedi and his family and he was visited by Salman in jail in the months before the 2017 Manchester bombing.
Matthew Wilkinson, who gave evidence to the inquiry as an expert on Islamic extremism, said Abdallah was one of the “major influences in that process of radicalising” Salman Abedi.
The Greater Manchester Police gave conflicting evidence to the inquiry. It said in its closing submission that Abdallah’s influence was “likely to have been ideological motivation and encouragement rather than… a more practical hands-on assistance” and that “there is no evidence that he was involved in attack planning”.
But the police’s senior investigating officer, Det Chief Supt Simon Barraclough previously stated to the inquiry: “It is highly suspected that Abdallah played some part in the planning, influence and ideological motivation of the attack”.
That assertion is, however, strongly rejected by Abdallah’s lawyers. What is clearer is that Salman was likely radicalised by his experience in Libya to some degree.
A lawyer for the bombing victims, Pete Weatherby, stated to the inquiry that “it is highly likely that he [Salman] had a baptism of violence by exposure to the 2011 uprising… and that he met others in Libya with a violent extremist ideology at that stage.”
Austin Welch, another lawyer for the families, said the 2011 war was “key to their radicalisation”, referring to Salman and Hashem. Although they may not have been fully radicalised then, Welch added, “common sense dictates that exposing teenage boys to the experience of an armed group and fighting in a war zone would have had a profound effect on them”.
While MI5 and parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee have acknowledged the Manchester bomber was likely radicalised by his father, Ramadan, neither is keen to stress the Abedis’ participation in a war that Britain backed.
Yet the counter-terror chief of the North West Counter Terrorism Unit, Det Supt Russ Jackson, has been more open. He has said: “If you have been in Syria, or Libya during the anti-Gaddafi fighting then you could have got exposed to all sorts of radicalised groups. You may come back having fought against Gaddafi in a more radicalised position.”
Aftermath
The war turned Libya into a lawless country with vast ungoverned spaces that enabled Islamic State to flourish for several years after 2011. The country remains divided today, with two rival governments, and an ongoing civil war.
Yet David Cameron visited Tripoli soon after its ‘liberation’ and claimed a victory.
Abdallah told the inquiry that “David Cameron praised us very well after the revolution and he came and he was very proud of us and very proud of the sacrifice that we did”.
Indeed, Cameron gave a speech to the United Nations in September 2011 claiming “the Libyans liberated themselves”. He even specifically praised “the warriors from the Nafusa mountains, who defied Gaddafi’s shells from inside their ancestors’ caves, before going on to help free Tripoli”.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.
Featured image: Salman Abedi holds a heavy machine gun in Libya. (Photo: Police handout)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Last Monday, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated the United States and other NATO/EU countries are continuing talks to “restrict Russia’s energy revenues” by “imposing a price cap” on the country’s oil.
“We are continuing to have productive conversations, today and with our partners and allies around the world with how to further restrict energy revenues to Russia while preventing spillover effects to the global economy,” Yellen said during a press conference. “We are talking about price caps or a price exception…”
The US, Canada, the UK and other satellite states have banned Russian oil imports, while the EU, which remains highly dependent on Russian energy supplies, agreed on a partial ban by year’s end. The G7 countries, the largest Western and Western-aligned economies, have agreed to “study possible price caps” on Russian oil and gas to try to “limit Moscow’s ability to fund its invasion of Ukraine”, G7 officials said on Tuesday. The change of wording is quite telling, as just a week prior, Western political leadership was talking about the price cap as if it was already a done deal. However, at the G7 meeting, the officials were talking about “an agreement to study the Russian oil and gas price cap”. The officials, again, including US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, are claiming the move will reduce the revenues Russia is making with energy sales, while allowing Western consumers to continue getting oil and gas supplies.
This claim is extremely farfetched, to say the least. The very idea of caps in international trade goes against the most basic principles of free trade and market economy, both of which are (or at least they officially were) the holy grail of the political West’s economic system. The US and its allies, along with numerous client states have even gone to war with pretexts to establish “free trade” and “market economy” in certain countries, including Yugoslavia, which had a mixed (market and planned) economy. Apart from the political West quite literally destroying and dismantling the country, it also forced the shattered remains of Yugoslavia to renounce entire sectors of their economy and effectively surrender it to Western oligarchs. Essentially, by introducing an oil and gas price cap, the political West is trying to implement the same economic policies it used as an excuse to bomb and destroy numerous other countries.
Another important note is that these impotent attempts are still a far cry from the pompously announced all-out Russian export ban from approximately 4 months ago. Had the political West been able to limit or halt Russian revenues from oil, gas, food and numerous other commodities which are as essential as they could possibly be, they would’ve done it long ago. However, the political West realizes that any serious disruptions to Russian commodities reaching their own countries would have a disastrous effect on the stability of their economies. At the same time, the political West is frustrated that it needs to pay for those commodities. This results in a series of schizophrenic moves or comically arrogant proclamations of future moves which never really happen.
The declared aim is to “encourage sales of Russian oil at levels slightly above production costs to ensure Russia’s earnings are reduced while it maintains production”. Tamas Varga from oil broker PVM stated the gas and oil price cap idea amounts to evidence that outright bans on Russian commodities have been “counterproductive as Russian revenues have increased”. And indeed, Russia’s revenues from gas and oil sales have increased exponentially in comparison to the same period last year. Thus, Varga believes that “creating a buyers’ cartel to starve Russia of petrodollars while alleviating inflationary pressure from oil prices is challenging”.
“The big unknown is Vladimir Putin’s reaction,” said Varga. “If Russian President Vladimir Putin decides to reduce oil or gas exports the plan will backfire and lead to further rise in prices. It is a nightmare scenario,” Varga added.
According to Reuters, Russian production costs are $3-$4 per barrel and Russian firms could probably profit even if oil prices were $25-$30 per barrel. The goal of this Western “buyers’ cartel” is to impose a price cap which would be just above the production cost, making it possible for the oil companies to continue to operate, which should prevent the Russian government from getting any profits. Richard Mallinson from Energy Aspects confirmed this was the goal in his statement for Reuters.
“G7 countries want to reduce Russian oil revenues and this implies a price cap well below what buyers are currently paying. Some campaigners advocate for a very aggressive reduction, pointing to Russia’s low production costs and arguing it would continue to sell oil at any price above this level,” Mallinson stated.
There’s only one “tiny” issue with this plan. Russia can simply cut gas and oil supplies to all countries trying to impose this illegal Western price cap. This would push global markets into yet another frenzy. With OPEC countries openly stating they can’t replace Russia’s share in the oil and gas market, the prices would go into orbit, causing a cascading effect of price hikes in every other industry, exponentially increasing inflation, while stagnation would turn into recession in many countries. Thus, any attempt to impose price caps isn’t just illegal, but could easily backfire and destroy Western economies. It seems the political West learned nothing from the last 4 months of a failed economic siege of Russia.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide: Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer “Confidential Report”
Will the Tragic Fate of World Stars like Celine Dion and Justin Bieber Open the Eyes of their Fans? Impacts of Covid-19 Vaccine
38,983 Deaths and 3,530,362 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database as Mass Funeral for Children Who Died After Pfizer Vaccine Held in Switzerland
Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was Planned with a Purpose”
Black Sea Geopolitics and Russia’s Control of Strategic Waterways: The Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov
Bayer Head Admits COVID-19 Vaccine Is Gene Therapy
Global Planned Financial Tsunami Has Just Begun
Cases of Brain Damage in Children Skyrocket Following COVID-19 Vaccines
Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide
We’re Now in the Last Stage of a Tyrannical Takeover
The Devastating Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccine Confirmed: We Were Lied to: Game Over, We Won. Steve Kirsch
Video: Graphene Hydroxide in the mRNA Vaccine Vial: Assassination of Dr. Andreas Noack
The COVID Pandemic and the mRNA Vaccine: What Is the Truth? Dr. Russell L. Blaylock
Switzerland’s Secretive Banking System and the WEF’s “Great Reset”: First in “You’ll Own Nothing and You’ll be Happy”?
Video: Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”
The Top Ten Creepiest and Most Dystopian Things Pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF)
The War in Ukraine Marks the End of the American Century. “What’s Left is a Steaming Pile of Dollar Denominated Debt”
Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data
US Department of Defense Finally Comes Clean – Admits in Public Document that There Are 46 US Military-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine
Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid
