Can Arming Teachers Curb School Violence?

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Media reports on the amok run at Uvalde Primary School in the state of Texas and the delayed intervention of police forces, such as “Parents criticise US police deployment as too hesitant” or “Why didn’t they save us?”(1) prompted me to cite the results of a three-year-old US study pointed out to me by a US expert as a basis for discussion without further political submissions.

On 17 June 2019, John R. Lott Jr, President of the Crime Prevention Research Centre published a 37-page study and concluded the following:

“Schools that allow teachers to carry guns are extremely safe” (2).

The study goes on to say:

“Twenty states currently allow teachers and staff to carry weapons to varying degrees on school grounds, (…). There has yet to be a single case of anyone being wounded or killed in a shooting, let alone a mass shooting between 6 a.m. and midnight in a school that allows teachers to carry guns, since at least January 2000.

Fears by teachers that a student might take a firearm from a teacher and use it to commit gun violence are also unfounded. (…). While there have been no problems at schools with armed teachers, the number of people killed at other schools has increased significantly – doubling from 2001 and 2008 to 2009 and 2018.”

Back in 1998, John R. Lott Jr. wrote in his book “More Guns, Less Crime”:

“The mere presence of a firearm, or even the threat that a potential victim might be armed, has prevented gun violence.”

*

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.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-us-polizei-nach-massaker-unter-druck-a-8c34594e-ea02-41d6-a65c-5f775ae8503c; https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-elfjaehrige-beschmierte-sich-mit-blut-und-stellte-sich-tot-a-e2984645-0373-41ad-8358-4a476b5c2ee5

(2) https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/32193-john-lott-s-latest-study-refutes-claims-that-schools-with-armed-teachers-are-dangerous

Featured image: Mass shooting at a Florida High School (Source: Countercurrents)

Kann Bewaffnung von Lehrern Gewalt an Schulen eindämmen?

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Medienberichte über den Amoklauf in der Uvalde-Grundschule im Bundesstaat Texas und das verspätete Eingreifen der Polizeikräfte wie zum Bespiel: „Eltern kritisieren Einsatz der US-Polizei als zu zögerlich“ oder „Warum haben sie uns nicht gerettet?“ (1) veranlassten mich dazu, als Diskussionsgrundlage ohne weitere politische Einlassungen die Ergebnisse einer drei Jahre alten US-Studie zu zitieren, auf die mich ein US-Experte hinwies.

Am 17. Juni 2019 veröffentlichte John R. Lott Jr., Präsident des Forschungszentrums für Kriminalprävention eine 37-seitige Studie und kam zu folgendem Ergebnis:

„Schulen, die es Lehrern erlauben, Waffen zu tragen, sind extrem sicher“ (2)

Weiter heißt es in der Studie:

„Zwanzig Staaten erlauben derzeit Lehrern und Mitarbeitern, Waffen in unterschiedlichem Maße auf dem Schulgelände zu tragen, (…). Es gibt noch keinen einzigen Fall, in dem jemand bei einer Schießerei, geschweige denn bei einer Massenschießerei zwischen 6 Uhr morgens und Mitternacht in einer Schule, die Lehrer Waffen tragen lässt, seit mindestens Januar 2000 verwundet oder getötet wurde. Befürchtungen von Lehrern, dass ein Schüler eine Schusswaffe von einem Lehrer nehmen und damit Waffengewalt ausüben könnte, sind ebenfalls unbegründet. (…). Während es an Schulen mit bewaffneten Lehrern keine Probleme gab, ist die Zahl der an anderen Schulen getöteten Menschen deutlich gestiegen — sie hat sich von 2001 und 2008 auf 2009 und 2018 verdoppelt.“

Bereits 1998 schrieb John R. Lott Jr. in seinem Buch „More Guns, Less Crime“:

„Das bloße Vorhandensein einer Schusswaffe oder sogar die Bedrohung, dass ein potenzielles Opfer bewaffnet sein könnte, hat Waffengewalt verhindert.“

*

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 ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Schwerpunkte: Klinische-, Pädagogische- und Medien-Psychologie). Als Pensionär arbeitete er viele Jahre als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung und eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und Frieden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Noten 

(1) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-us-polizei-nach-massaker-unter-druck-a-8c34594e-ea02-41d6-a65c-5f775ae8503c; https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/uvalde-elfjaehrige-beschmierte-sich-mit-blut-und-stellte-sich-tot-a-e2984645-0373-41ad-8358-4a476b5c2ee5

(2) https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/32193-john-lott-s-latest-study-refutes-claims-that-schools-with-armed-teachers-are-dangerous

Featured image: Mass shooting at a Florida High School (Source: Countercurrents)

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Four months ago, two days before the civilized world celebrated one year since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force on January 22, officials here at the Kansas City National Security Campus hosted a virtual celebration of a different milestone with partners from across the National Nuclear Security Administration and U.S. Air Force. “With great pride and excitement,” they recognized the completion of the B61-12 bomb’s Life Extension Program’s first production unit. This plant is responsible for producing 39 major non-nuclear component assemblies of the B61-12.

The trillion-dollar program of extending the lives of nuclear weapons is at odds with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ratified into law by the United States, flouting Article VI of the treaty, which requires “all Parties undertake to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and to general and complete disarmament.” In the nine years since the B61-12 Life Extension Program was put into action, the life expectancy of humans in this country has plummeted. Undaunted, the NNSA boasts that it has extended the life expectancy of the B61-12 by at least 20 years!

This new bomb will replace the old B61, the primary thermonuclear gravity bomb in the U.S. arsenal, also deployed with NATO allies in Europe as part of a “Nuclear Weapons Sharing Program”. One improvement is that these new bombs have steerable tail fins that make them much more precise and deployable. Their explosive force can also be dialed up or down from 1 to 50 kilotons, that is, more than three times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

“More precise and deployable” is another way of saying more likely to be used, and with these new weapons on hand, U.S. war planners are thinking up ways to use them. A June, 2019, report by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Nuclear Operations,” suggests that “using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results (and) affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

I was in Europe last fall during NATO’s “Steadfast Noon” exercises, the annual event where the militaries from 14 NATO countries rehearse an invasion of Russia. These rehearsals explain how an expanding NATO armed with more precise and flexible nuclear weapons like the ones made right here in Kansas City might tip a precarious balance. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russian commanders have likewise speculated on how their own more precise and flexible nuclear weapons could help them prevail.

“The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners,” says the Pentagon’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review. Russia, more modestly for its part, has abandoned its own no first use policy and “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons… when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

Nation states, their vital interests and their very existence are temporary. These threats to destroy the planet in their defense are insane.

It was believed that a doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” that the horrific devastation wrought by a nuclear exchange would leave no winner, is what helped prevent a world war over the last decades. The growing delusion among war planners that a nuclear war can be won places the world in unprecedented peril. In this time of climate catastrophe, famine and pandemic, the waste of resources to build nuclear weapons is an unspeakable crime.

In 1949, early in the cold war with Russia, the monk and poet Thomas Merton wrote,

“When I pray for peace, I pray God to pacify not only the Russians and the Chinese but above all my own nation and myself.

When I pray for peace, I pray to be protected not only from the Reds but also from the folly and blindness of my own country.

When I pray for peace, I pray not only that the enemies of my country may cease to want war, but above all that my own country will cease to do the things that make war inevitable.

In other words, when I pray for peace, I am not just praying that the Russians will give up without a struggle and let us have our own way.

I am praying that both we and the Russians may somehow be restored to sanity and learn how to work out our problems, as best we can, together, instead of preparing for global suicide.”

*

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.

Brian Terrell is a Catholic Worker based in Maloy, Iowa, and is outreach coordinator for the Nevada Desert Experience.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “An Unspeakable Crime”: The Trillion-dollar Program of Extending the Lives of Nuclear Weapons”
  • Tags:

EU and UK Cooperate on Insurance Ban for Russian Oil Cargoes

June 2nd, 2022 by The Maritime Executive

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The European Council agreed yesterday to ban seaborne imports of Russian oil, forcing Russia to look further afield for energy customers. But an additional, less-noticed element of the accord could have more impact. 

The EU has also reached an agreement with the government of Britain to enact a coordinated ban on European insurance for Russian oil cargoes, the Financial Times reported Tuesday. This will cut Russian energy exporters off from the Lloyd’s market for H&M and from the International Group of P&I Clubs, which provides about 95 percent of global cover for tanker liability. The reinsurance business is also heavily concentrated in Europe, and will likely be heavily affected.

In anticipation of a formal ban, Western insurers have already begun shying away from Russian oil cargoes, according to Reuters. Even vessels with no Russian connection other than a charter party risk losing their cover if they pick up Russian crude. Shipping executives told Reuters that the impact would begin to be felt by July, when withdrawn policies begin to expire.

Since oil exports account for about 40 percent of Russia’s federal budget, the marine insurance ban represents a sanctions expansion with global reach, reminiscent of stiff U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports. The absence of European insurance could force Russia to engineer its own government-backed coverage for its cargoes.

Meanwhile, other oil-producing nations are eyeing the possibility of filling the gap. Several OPEC members are considering the idea of suspending Russia from the production quotas agreed by the OPEC+ group, a loose cartel of 10 non-OPEC member nations that participate in OPEC supply controls, according to the Wall Street Journal. If the move were carried out, other OPEC nations would have the option of pumping more oil to fill Russia’s quota, without exceeding the group’s topline production number.

Russia has already fallen out of participation with the OPEC+ agreement because Russian production levels have dropped since the start of the invasion, an OPEC delegate told the Wall Street Journal. All forecasts suggest even lower production ahead: In April, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov predicted that Russia’s output would fall by 17 percent over the course of 2022, without taking the latest EU sanctions into account.

*

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: File image courtesy Primorsk Oil Terminal

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories

Through control of these core pillars, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth

The WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda. It intends to dictate what you eat, what you own and what you think, under the guise of building a “sustainable future”

The WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles, and the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check

Technocrats actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will. Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself

*

Click here to watch the video.

In the video above, which is part of a larger “Great Reset” documentary series, Rebel News highlights the origins of the World Economic Forum1 (WEF), its founder Klaus Schwab, and other key players, and the WEF’s central role in The Great Reset, which promises (read: threatens) to overturn society and life as we know it in ways that are hard to imagine.

In summary, The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories. Through control of these core pillars, the WEF and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth.

The WEF’s Plan

As noted by Rebel News, the WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda — “one that dictates what you eat, what you own, what you think, under the guise of a ‘sustainable future.'”

According to the WEF, capitalism is dead and we can no longer allow for free markets. Instead, we need a top-down governance, a New World Order, that can ensure “fair and equitable” distribution of dwindling resources, including energy and food. What they’re really saying, however, is that soon-to-be-useless people are gobbling up “their” resources. They see us — you and me — as an existential threat to their luxurious lifestyle.

So, their decades-old plan is to seize control of it all, transfer all wealth and private ownership into their own hands, and centrally control who gets what and when. It’s important to realize that this WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles.

What Is Technocracy?

Technocracy is at its core an economic system, not a political one. However, it’s wholly unnatural, and therefore also requires unnatural means to keep it going. Rather than being based on common pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand or free commerce, the economy of technocracy is based on energy resources, which then dictate the types of products being produced, bought, sold and consumed.

In essence, energy replaces the concept of money as a commodity. That’s strange enough, but it gets stranger still. Technocracy, which emerged in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, the brainchildren of which were scientists and engineers, also requires social engineering to work.

If people are allowed to do what they want, consumer demand ultimately drives commerce, but that won’t fly in a technocratic economy. Instead, consumers need to be directed, herded if you will, to consume that which the system needs them to consume, and in order for that to happen, they need to be more or less brainwashed. As a result, the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check.

Understanding the Mind of the Technocrats

Click here to watch the video.

As Schwab himself has declared on many occasions, they want a society in which humans are merged with machine and artificial intelligence (AI). They look forward to extreme longevity, if not immortality through technological means.

They place no value on spiritual ideas such as the survival of the soul. They don’t believe in the nonlocality of consciousness. If they did, they wouldn’t believe consciousness can simply be uploaded into a synthetic body. They believe that, through technology and AI, they will be able to replace God and the natural order with reengineered lifeforms of their own creation, including a reengineered humanity.

They actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest of us, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will.2 Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself. As noted by Tessa Lena in “The Mind of a Technocrat: What Drives Them?“:

“To a technocrat, a human being is an imperfect machine, a humble meat bag that is operated by software, which is produced by the brain. The technocrat’s understanding of life is based on a very primitive, linear vision; it’s void of spiritual mystery …

The force driving the mind of a technocrat is the overbearing emotional need for total control, combined with mistrust for other people in general. They seemingly look to compensate for their emotional poverty. (In other words, there is no reason to admire their successes as their successes are based on theft of other people’s right to free will.)

The technocrats’ desire to fully control their surroundings is anxiety-driven. They simply can’t stand the feeling of uncertainty that comes with allowing other people’s subjective choices to play any role. They don’t trust others to do the right thing, much like a very neurotic parent doesn’t trust his child’s ability to choose wisely without supervision — but far less benevolently.

Their desire for control is intensely neurotic. They are sitting on needles, so to speak (a Russian idiom and a pun in the light of today) — and in order to dampen their anxiety, they resort to trying to implement their controlling ambitions …

Technocrats may think they are the cream of the crop. They may think that their brilliant vision is good for the world. But regardless of whether they believe themselves to be the good guys or the bad guys, their thirst for total control is a pathological, anxiety-driven expression. They can’t stand being dependent on other people’s free will, and so they aspire to squash it, which is not existentially right.”

Annual Meeting in Davos

Each year, the WEF holds a meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Thousands of global movers and shakers fly in on private jets to decide how best to stop the working class from driving gas-powered cars, heating their homes and eating meat. Does anyone still believe that a bunch of billionaire “elites” can make life “fair and equitable” for everyone?

Attendees include corporate executives, bankers and financiers, heads of state, finance and trade ministers, central bankers, policymakers, the heads of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Many academics, economists, political scientists, journalists, cultural elites and celebrities are also invited.

This year’s meeting took place May 22 through 26.3 On the first day, participants were treated to an immersive experience of the metaverse in their own digital avatar. Essentially, this is where they want to bring the masses of mankind — into a digital reality where enjoyment of resources doesn’t involve actual use of real-world resources. For example, rather than buying clothes for your biological body, you’ll spend digital currency on a wardrobe for your digital avatar.

Day 2 included a discussion about how manufacturing companies can accelerate their implementation of automation. The idea is to replace most of the human workforce with robotics and AI. As you might expect, this will render large portions of humanity superfluous and “useless.” What to do with them all? Professor Yuval Noah Harari, a Schwab adviser, has stated he believes the answer will be a combination of “drugs and video games.”4

Haves and Have Nots Among Journalists

Among the journalists invited to the 2022 meeting was New York Times managing editor Rebecca Blumenstein. Rebel News reporter Avi Yemini confronted Blumenstein in Davos (video above), asking how the public is supposed to trust the NYT’s reporting on the event when she’s an invited guest. Blumenstein refused to answer the question, thereby cementing the impression that she’s really not there as an independent journalist. She’s part of the event. She’s part of the club.

Additional evidence that not all journalists are equal was evidenced by the attempt by armed WEF police officers to detain conservative journalist Jack Posobiec (video below).5 When other journalists got involved and started filming and asking questions, the police took off. The fact that the WEF has ITS OWN police force should be a wakeup call. Clearly, they’re far more than just another nongovernmental organization (NGO).

Sustainable Development Is Technocracy

Many of the terms we’ve heard more and more of in recent years refer to technocracy under a different name. Examples include sustainable development, Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, green economy, the green new deal and the climate change movement in general.

They all refer to and are part of technocracy and resource-based economics. Other terms that are synonymous with technocracy include the Great Reset,6 the Fourth Industrial Revolution7 and the slogan Build Back Better.8 The Paris Climate Agreement is also part and parcel of the technocratic agenda.

The common goal of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world — the ownership of them — for a small global elite group that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone. It’s really the ultimate form of totalitarianism.

When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re really referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. The WEF has publicly announced that by 2030, you will own nothing. Everything you need you will rent — from them — and deciding factors for what you’re allowed to rent will include things like your carbon credits and social credit score.

Gone will be the days of putting in a day’s work, receiving a paycheck and spending it to your heart’s content. No, the digital currency will be programmable, so the issuer can decide when and what you can spend it on, based on the data in your digital identity. This will all be automated and run by AI, of course, so there won’t be anyone to complain to.

What the Green Revolution Is All About

While “going green” sounds and feels like the right thing to do, it’s becoming imperative for people to understand what the green agenda is really all about. Shocking as it may sound, the green agenda was invented, fabricated, by the Club of Rome (a scientific think tank allied with the WEF) to justify a depopulation agenda.9

The need for population control is described in the 1972 book, “The Limits to Growth,”10 which warned that “if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century.”

Then, in the 1991 book, “The First Global Revolution,”11 the Club of Rome argued that depopulation policies might gain widespread support if they could be linked to an existential fight against a common enemy. An excerpt from “The First Global Revolution” reads:12

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.”

So, in plain English, the intended result of “going green” is depopulation. This intention is now finally becoming visible when you consider the implications of eliminating oil and gas production without having viable alternatives in place, which is what Biden and other global leaders are in the process of doing.

Not only do you need oil to make fertilizer, but we also don’t have farm equipment that can run on solar or wind power. So, food production essentially grinds to a halt. Heavy construction machinery also can’t run on these alternative sources of energy, so there go the infrastructure and home building businesses.

To many, it seems these global leaders are acting out of ignorance, but it’s quite possible their actions are intentional. It’s just that no one wants to consider that the intention is to harm as many people as possible — to actually rid the planet of soon-to-be “useless” people.

It may be quite chilling to realize that the climate change threat narrative was cooked up in the late 1980s for the sole purpose of being able to implement a global depopulation agenda without stirring up excessive resistance. But depopulation and eugenics are at the heart of what the WEF and its allies are trying to achieve.

The WEF even admits they’re using the Club of Rome’s “planetary emergency plan” to provide “a new compass for nations” to follow.13 So, the WEF and its allied nations are all following a plan that has depopulation as an admitted intended end result.

Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War

As I discussed in “Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War,” the drums of war are also part and parcel of The Great Reset plan. Why? Because war will accelerate the economic collapse required before nations can “Build Back Better.”14 The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is helping to catalyze The Great Reset in a number of different ways.

For starters, supply chains of all kinds are being disrupted at an unprecedented level and pace by the war between Russia and Ukraine. Fuel shortages and inflation are also taking off. Geopolitical tensions may also trigger stagflation, an economic situation in which inflation and unemployment rates are high while economic growth slows.15

It’s a precarious dilemma for economic policy, because strategies that help lower inflation can also make unemployment worse. You can learn more about this in the March 10, 2022, Conversation article, “Why Stagflation Is an Economic Nightmare.”16

The end result is increased dependence on government subsidies, and this is a clear goal of The Great Reset. Universal basic income is one planned strategy that will create dependency. It will also ensure we’re all equally poor and unable to threaten their monopoly on power and wealth.

Universal poverty is really what they mean when they talk about making the world “fair and equitable.” No one will have anything. Everyone will be equally poor and dependent, without hope of ever being able to rise into the “elite” technocratic class.

The Ukraine war is also reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, thereby reinforcing the urgency of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In lockstep with The Great Reset, policymakers around the world are using the sanctions against the Russian energy sector to accelerate the transition to “green” energy, the intention behind which is what I just discussed.

Russia’s decision to block exports of fertilizer and food crops in response to being deplatformed from the Swift system will also create food shortages, and this too plays right into the Great Reset plan. In recent years, we’ve been urged by Great Reset front men like Bill Gates to stop eating real meat and switch to synthetic lab-grown meat instead.

Making people reliant on patented synthetic food will benefit the globalists in more ways than one. People will get sicker, and hence more reliant on government aid. They’ll be dependent on food produced by monopolies and hence easier to control. And, over time, as people forget how to grow and raise food, the ability to control the global population will increase.

In addition to all of this, media are chumming the waters with fearporn about monkeypox — just in time for the push to relinquish national sovereignty to the World Health Organization, which is also allied with the WEF.

In closing, Michael Osterholm’s report from the 2010 Davos meeting, which was aflame with talks about pandemic planning, having just gone through the 2009/2010 swine flu pandemic is quite telling. All those years ago, he wrote:17

“I learned much in Davos, but I was troubled by the complete lack of attention to such critical questions as:

  • How do we protect global supply chains when we face another inevitable pandemic that could bring about widespread, severe illness? …
  • How do we take the lessons we’ve learned from our experience with H1N1 and embed them into our organizations so they’re not forgotten?

Instead, the tenor of the conversations at Davos was about globalization …”

Twelve years ago, the Davos billionaires, bankers and heads of state had the opportunity to prove they were capable of stewarding this Earth ship. But after the swine flu pandemic, they didn’t solve the problems that had become apparent.

They didn’t solve the supply chain issues, and we had the same but worse issues when COVID came along. The only thing they solved was how to silence the critics. Back then, there was talk that “heads should roll” because of mismanagement of the pandemic.

Well, no heads rolled. Everything stayed the same, and now we’ve gone through two years of the worst pandemic mismanagement imaginable. Now, the globalist cabal is pushing for the inept WHO to become the sole decision-maker in pandemics, which the WHO would be able to declare at will, based on its own definitions. We’re at a very dangerous crossroads.

We have to remember, though, that the fate of the world is not for Schwab and the Davos crowd to decide. It’s ours. If we do not resist their plans, we’ve made the choice to accept their version of the future.

*

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.

Notes

1 TNI.org WEF History

2 The Guardian September 14, 2018

3 WEF Program 2022

4 YouTube April 13, 2022

5 Washington Examiner May 23, 2022

6 Technocracy.news June 25, 2020

7 Gov.uk The Fourth Industrial Revolution

8 UN.org April 22, 2020

9, 12 Unlimited Hangout February 20, 2021

10 Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth

11 Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

13 Weforum.org January 13, 2020

14 Winter Oak March 9, 2022

15, 16 The Conversation March 10, 2022

17 Cidrap February 4, 2010

Featured image is a screenshot from one of the videos above

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The WEF Great Reset “Snakes” Are Slithering Together in Davos
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

June has arrived and with it comes my quarterly request for your support of this website.  Controlled narratives serving private agendas are replacing truth.  The Biden regime is even trying to establish in the Department of Homeland Security an agency with the power to rule that truth is disinformation.  This is an admission that Washington’s agendas are threatened by truth.  There are fewer and fewer sources of truth.  This website is one of the few.  Truth requires your support if truth is to continue to exist. 

Years ago I wrote that nothing would come of Special Counsel John Durham’s Russiagate investigation.  Yesterday I was proven correct. A politicized Washington, D.C., jury threw out the only case Durham has brought against a seditious operation that began six years ago.  Michael Sussman, a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer was cleared of lying to a FBI agent, the only crime Durham could find of a massive operation orchestrated by the CIA and FBI to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. 

American foreign policy was set on a totally different course from Trump’s intent by the neoconservatives with the Wolfowitz doctrine of US hegemony. 

Russia has to be pushed back and overcome with problems that would drain and redirect the Kremlin’s energy away from opposing US unilateralism.  After pouring $5 billion into preparing the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, the neoconservatives struck with the US-orchestrated “Maidan Revolution” in 2014 and installed an anti-Russian puppet government.  Neither the military-security complex nor the neoconservatives were going to let President Trump proceed with his goal of normalizing relations with Russia.  The relations were on schedule to be much worsened with the humiliation and isolation of Russia as the goal.

Trump, being a real estate developer with no sound or knowledgable advisers, had no idea of the challenge his normalization posed to the ruling establishment, Republicans as well as Democrats.  Trump was a sitting duck.

It was obvious that Durham’s job was to make sure the Russiagate investigation failed.  We have known for years of the FBI’s role in orchestrating Russiagate. The facts are available.  High level FBI officials were involved in the plot against Trump. The FBI lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, prompting one judge to resign in protest.  But Durham focused on low level Clinton campaign officials.  Despite evidence, he didn’t even go after Hillary.

He couldn’t.  Hillary on the stand would have said that the CIA and FBI brought her the issue and whereas it served her interest she did not originate Russiagate.  Conservatives no less than liberals would not want to shake the public’s confidence in government by implicating the CIA and FBI in a plot to control US foreign policy and perhaps remove a president from office.  There was no way there could be a real investigation of Russiagate.  Indeed, Attorney General Bill Barr could have stopped the orchestration while he was in office, but he did not.  Trump was out of step with the ruling establishment and had to be reduced to impotence and got rid off.

The Kremlin thinks that foreign policy is used to further a country’s national interest, but not in the United States. In the US foreign policy serves the power and profit of the military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives.

A $1,000 billion annual military/security budget requires an enemy, not normalized relations.  Clearly, the Kremlin has been in the dark about this and has been waiting patiently for the West to act rationally rather than in a suicidal manner. 

The neoconservatives’ well thought-out plan to overthrow the Ukrainian government, install a puppet, and train and equip a neo-Nazi militia to shell the Russian population in the Donbass area of Ukraine was designed to provoke a Russian intervention that could be used to justify sanctions that would isolate Russia from Europe and justify more US missile bases on Russia’s borders.

This plan was threatened by President Trump’s declared goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Trump had to go, because he positioned himself as an obstacle to a hegemonic foreign policy two decades in the making.

In the US the justice system is politicized. 

That Durham had to bring his case in the District of Columbia guaranteed that Sussman would not be convicted.  I suspect that Sussman’s acquittal is the end of the Russiagate investigation. 

Just as the media demonization of police officer Derek Chauvin meant no jury would fail to convict him, the demonization of Russia means that no jury would rule against the belief that there was Russian collusion in our internal affairs.

*

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Will the blatant fearporn ever stop? The controlled media have no shame.

If Ronald Reagan were still with us, I suspect we would be hearing “There you go again” replays. First came the coordinated media blast of public health-related fearporn. For example, the image from Jake Tapper’s CNN broadcast program “The Lead” of May 20,2022 (above) which appears to me to be a case of smallpox, not monkeypox. Another example involves the self-explanatory paired images below.

And of course the Bill and Melinda Gates – funded GAVI text which is quite blatant, claiming 10% mortality, which I covered in my prior substack article concerning Monkeypox and fearporn.

I almost cannot believe that I am writing this, but since my original substack article on this topic, we had the reveal of an Event 201-style wargame exercise modeled around a bioterror-related release of an engineered Monkeypox virus “caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight.”

With amazing (coincidental?) prescience, the “table top exercise” of March 2021 (one year and three months into the Covidcrisis) models a Monkeypox bioterror attack initiated on May 15, 2022.

Note the date of the CNN/Jake Tapper fearporn piece – May 20, 2022. The modeling deployed in the scenario upon which the “exercise” was based predicts 3.2 billion cases and 271 million deaths by December 01, 2023.

Of course, the predictive accuracy of the simplistic public health models such as that used to support this scenario have repeatedly proven to be absolutely horrid, and these types of models should be either relegated to the trash heap (or ongoing dumpster fire) as unscientific speculation which is all too frequently weaponized by the fearporn peddlers such as CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post. By now we all know the usual USG and WEF-controlled media players.

As the Italian’s like to say:

Niente e lasciato al caso.

Nothing happens by chance.

As we now know, the amazing foresight of this modeled date immediately preceded a seminal WHO meeting which has just concluded, in which international health regulation (IHR) modifications which would grant the WHO unprecedented powers to bypass national constitutions (proposed on January 23, 2022 by the US HHS) were actively considered but tabled for a future meeting (~November 2022?) largely due to African nation concerns regarding infringement of national sovereignty. The stated purpose of the “exercise” was remarkably well aligned with the stated objectives and topics proposed by US HHS in the submitted IHR modifications:

  • To establish a new global biosecurity entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks that can accompany certain technology advances. Its mission will be to reduce the risks of catastrophic consequences due to accidents, inadvertent misuse, or deliberate abuse of bioscience and biotechnology by promoting stronger global biosecurity norms and developing tools and incentives to uphold them.
  • To explore the possibility of establishing a new Joint Assessment Mechanism to investigate high consequence biological events of unknown origin. This new mechanism would operate at the “seam” between existing mechanisms—including World Health Organization (WHO) outbreak investigation capabilities and the United Nations Secretary-General’s Mechanism for investigating alleged deliberate bioweapons use—thereby strengthening UN system capabilities to investigate pandemic origins.
  • To advocate for establishing a catalytic, multilateral financing mechanism for global health security and pandemic preparedness. The goal is to accelerate sustainable biosecurity and pandemic preparedness capacity-building in countries where resources are most needed.

So, do we have yet another example of a “Plandemic”? All I can say is ~

Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion)

Or perhaps the more appropriate quote would be ~

The Italians having a Proverb, “He that deceives me once, its’ his fault; but if twice, its’ my fault.” – Anthony Weldon, The Court and Character of King James (1651)

In my prior substack entitled “Monkey Pox, Truth versus Fearporn”, I concluded the essay with the following caveat:

Unless there has been some genetic alteration, either through evolution or intentional genetic manipulation, it is not a significant biothreat, and has never been considered a high threat pathogen in the past.

Which brings us to this May 23, 2022 report from the Portuguese National Institute of Health.

Just to set the stage, the outbreak seems to be tightly associated with a point of origin at what appear to have been two large European dance party events (“Raves”), in the Canary Islands (“Gay Pride event in the Canary Islands, which drew some 80,000 people”) and “a Madrid sauna”.

The Canary Islands event was the 20th anniversary of “Maspalomas Gay Pride”, which took place from May 05 to May 15 (the precise date of the previously modeled Monkeypox bioweapon release). The organizers anticipated “a huge parade with over 100,000 participants, boat trips, pool parties and more!”. So, basically, pretty much a perfect opportunity for a Monkeypox super spreader event, whether intentional or inadvertent. Donning my “cynical skeptic” tinfoil hat for a moment, if one was looking for an opportunity to seek a pathogen into a highly mobile international population, mindful of the early history of HIV-based AIDS, this would be just what the doctor (Mengle…) ordered.

Multiple cases were soon detected in Portugal, and to their great credit, INSA Portugal got busy and promptly did the deep sequencing necessary to enable building a phylogenic map of the Monkeypox variant associated with the outbreak.

Based on their findings, they have rapidly disclosed both their data as well as a series of startling hypothesis regarding the origin of the currently circulating Monkeypox (West African Clade) Monkeypox. Cutting to the chase, having reviewed their data and paper, I now have to conclude that one of the many “working hypotheses” concerning the origin of this particular virus must be that it is the product of laboratory-based manipulation – precisely as previously modeled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI):Bio/Munich Security Conference . True story. Truth continues to be stranger than fiction.

The authors briefly (and elegantly) summarize the study purpose and methods as follows:

Following the (First draft genome sequence of Monkeypox virus associated with the suspected multi-country outbreak, May 2022 (confirmed case in Portugal) 184), we now release 9 additional genome sequences of Monkeypox virus causing a multi-country outbreak. These sequences were obtained from clinical specimens collected from 9 patients on May 15th and 17th, 2022 through high throughput shotgun metagenomics using Illumina technology (see details bellow), with depth of coverage throughout Monkeypox genome ranging from 38x to 508x (mean of 201x).

The rapid integration of the newly sequenced genomes into the Monkeypox genetic diversity, also including the sequence released by USA* (Gigante et al, Monkeypox virus isolate MPXV_USA_2022_MA001, complete genome – Nucleotide – NCBI 156).

They then proceed to raise the following main observations:

  • The multi-country outbreak most likely has a single origin, with all sequenced viruses released so far* tightly clustering together (Figure 1).
  • Confirmation of the phylogenetic placement unveiled by the first draft sequence Isidro et al, 183: the outbreak virus belongs to the West African clade and is most closely related to viruses (based on available genome data) associated with the exportation of monkeypox virus from Nigeria to several countries in 2018 and 2019, namely the United Kingdom, Israel and Singapore (1, 2).
  • Still, the outbreak virus diverges a mean of 50 SNPs from those 2018-2019 viruses (46 SNPs from the closest reference MPXV_UK_P2, MT903344.1) (Table 1_2022-05-23.zip (15.0 KB)), which is far more than one would expect considering the estimated substitution rate for Orthopoxviruses (3).
  • As also mentioned by Rambaut (Discussion of on-going MPXV genome sequencing 228), one cannot discard the hypothesis that the divergent branch results from an evolutionary jump (leading to a hypermutated virus) caused by APOBEC3 editing (4)
  • We have already detected the first signs of microevolution within the outbreak cluster, namely the emergence of 7 SNPs (Table 2_2022-05-23.zip(10.9 KB)), leading to 3 descendant branches (Figure 1) including a further sub-cluster (supported by 2 SNPs) involving 2 sequences (PT0005 and PT0008). Notably, these two sequences also share a 913bp frameshift deletion in MPXV-UK_P2-010 gene coding for an Ankyrin/Host Range (Bang-D8L); D7L protein (MT903344.1 annotation). Gene loss events were already observed in the context endemic Monkeypox circulation in Central Africa, being hypothesized to correlate with human-to-human transmission (5).

Those not versed in academic science talk may be shaking their head by this point, and probably getting ready to post a comment along the lines of “Why don’t you just tell us that this means in simple language?”

So, at the risk of oversimplification:

  1. Looks like the Monkeypox outbreak comes from a single original virus source. Following the teachings of the “Multiple working hypothesis” model for arriving at scientific “truth” (which was a core part of my education as a young scientist), a) this could be (for example) a “natural” single jump event from some infected animal into a single human somewhere in the world (who presumably had some relationship to the Maspalomas Gay Pride event). Or b) it could have come from an intentional release of a viral isolate. Mixed news – could be good or bad
  2. The authors have confirmed that this new outbreak virus maps to the “(less disease-causing) West African group (clade) of Monkeypox viruses. Good news
  3. This single source virus could have come from West Africa or could have come from United Kingdom, Israel or Singapore (consistent with either hypothesis a or b). Mixed news – could be good or bad
  4. Despite the sequences indicating that the virus is most closely related to those isolated in 2018-2019, it is significantly different. This could be due to natural evolution or due to laboratory engineering/gain of function “research” (consistent with hypotheses a) and b). Generally bad news. Basically, the authors are indicating that they believe that genome of this virus is either evolving more rapidly than one would expect from a double stranded DNA poxvirus, (left unsaid, or somebody has been messing around with it).
  5. The authors speculate that the pattern of mutations are consistent with the effects of a natural cellular protein with the abbreviated name of APOBEC3. For those who want to dive into the molecular virology of APOBEC3, here is a nice 2015 J Immunology review. For those seeking the “Cliff Notes” abridged version, see Wikipedia. For the obsessives or aficionados, note that APOBEC3 is associated with specific pattern of base changes- (C→ U). On the basis of their hypothesis regarding the potential role for APOBEC3, I infer that the authors must have detected a statistically significant fraction of C→ U changes in the current isolates relative to the 2018-2019 isolates. Mixed news – could be good or bad. Still does not differentiate between hypothesis a) or hypothesis b).
  6. Here is the rub. While APOBEC3 is associated with cellular resistance (yet another form of “innate immunity” – isn’t molecular virology and cell biology amazing!) to HIV (and presumably other retroviruses), a quick pubmed search reveals that Poxviruses are resistant to the mutational effects of APOBEC3! For example, see this 2006 paper published in “Virology”. Frankly, whether through lack of curiosity or fear of attack from government controlled media and journals, the failure of the authors to even mention this Virology article is a major oversight at best. My inference and interpretation? On the basis of this sequence analysis report from the INSA team cited above, to me this is looking more like a laboratory manipulated strain than a naturally evolved strain. Bad news.
  7. Furthermore, this double stranded DNA virus, infections by which have historically been self-limiting, appears to be evolving (during the last few days!) to a form that is more readily transmitted from human to human. Bad news.

In conclusion, the preponderance of current evidence is pointing towards a hypothesis for the origin of this outbreak which is increasingly consistent with prior “war game” scenario planning, remarkably akin to that which occurred during Event 201, which posits emergence of an engineered Monkeypox virus into the human population during mid-May of 2022.

Draw your own conclusions, and do your own diligence.

*

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

All images in this article are from Robert Malone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monkey Pox Update: “War Game” Scenario Planning. “The Controlled Media Have No Shame”. Dr. Robert Malone
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Geoff Young came of age politically as a student at MIT in the mid 1970s where he took political science courses with Noam Chomsky and Louis Kampf that opened his eyes to the evils of U.S. imperialism and to the U.S. government’s contempt for international law.

Now, decades later, Young stands a real chance of being elected to Congress in Kentucky on a platform of abolishing the CIA.

On May 17, Young defeated Chris Preece with 52% of the vote to win the Democratic primary in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District, which contains the cities of Lexington, Richmond and Frankfort, the state capital.

Young moved to Kentucky in 1982 to work in state government in the field of renewable energy, and first ran for public office in 2012 as a Green Party candidate.

In the November general election, he will face Republican incumbent Andy Barr, who has pushed for expanding FBI surveillance operations against Chinese academics in the U.S. under the neo-McCarthyite China Initiative and according to Young, criticized President Joe Biden for not sending enough weapons to Ukraine.

In an exclusive interview with CovertAction Magazine on May 25, Young said that he believes he won the primary in part because of a mailing in which he proclaimed that, unlike Andy Barr, he would never send weapons to Nazis in Ukraine.

Young also placed a billboard calling for abolishing the CIA.

Sarah Baird on Twitter: "new billboard for perennial kentucky candidate geoff young—who is currently in a primary to run against andy barr in KY-6—proclaims “he's for peace” and “abolish the CIA” ☮️✌🏻

Source: twitter.com

These latter positions have become popular because of the blowback resulting from disastrous foreign policy interventions.

Young told CAM that, besides taking courses with Chomsky and Kampf at MIT in 1976, he read almost every book written by Chomsky, who taught him about the “horrible things that the U.S. government did in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Central America and elsewhere,” and how “U.S. media corporations lie and cover up all the atrocities.”

During the Cold War, “the CIA gained influence over the big media corporations under Operation Mockingbird,” and has “never stopped deceiving the American public through PSYOPs [psychological operations] which are illegal [inside the U.S.] under the CIA’s own charter.”

“[Unfortunately], they’ve only gotten better at [PSYOPs] today,” Young said. “As an example, under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, the CIA exerts full editorial control over The Washington Post, [which] is not how it’s supposed to be.”

Operation Mockingbird | Operation, Outcome, Facts & Summary Notes

Source: schoolhistory.co.uk

Young faces an uphill climb in his quest to defeat Barr not only because of his lack of support from corporate donors, but also because the Democratic Party establishment in Kentucky refuses to support him.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, said that Young “needs help [insinuating he is mentally ill], and “yelled something nasty [at him] in front of his son.” The Kentucky Democratic Party’s State Central Executive Committee further said that “the Democratic Party could not actively support a candidate that engages in countless frivolous lawsuits against the party, its officers and virtually every elected official over the past decade.”

Young sued Beshear and other Democrats whom he said participated in gerrymandering and primary election rigging practices that violated Kentucky law.

Regarding the incident with Beshear’s son, Young said that when Beshear was walking with his son into the KDP Headquarters in Frankfort before the 2019 primary for Governor, Young announced cheerfully, “One of the criminals has arrived!” (the other alleged, election-rigging criminal being Democrat Adam Edelen). This was not something nasty but true.

CAM is delighted to see a viable congressional contender call for the abolition of the CIA and wholeheartedly endorses Geoff Young as a candidate for the U.S. Congress. We urge our readers to do the same and to try to help him win the election.

Besides calls to abolish the CIA, the rest of Young’s platform is also very forward thinking. He wants to a) abolish AFRICOM, b) tax the rich, c) get money out of politics, d) fight corruption, e) legalize cannabis and end the War on Drugs; f) expand Medicare for all, g) cut off military aid to Ukraine, and h) abolish economic sanctions.

Below is an edited transcript of the complete interview between CAM and Mr. Young on May 25:

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Hi Geoff. Thanks for joining us. It’s great to be with you. Congratulations on your primary victory. It’s quite an accomplishment.

Geoff Young: Yeah, it was. Thank you.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Why don’t you start by discussing your background. How you came to your views, criticism of the CIA, and how you came to run for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Geoff Young: Alright. I was born and brought up in a middle-class town, Marblehead, Massachusetts, in a middle-class Jewish family. My parents wanted me to get into MIT. So I worked hard as a student in the public school system and got in. And one of the reasons I wanted to go there was that, as a junior or senior in high school, I read a couple of books by Noam Chomsky on the U.S. war of aggression against South Vietnam, and its expansion into Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam.

And that opened my eyes about a lot of things—including about U.S. imperialism. And our government’s total contempt for international law, especially the prohibition against aggression. So in 1976, I took a couple of political science classes with Noam Chomsky and Louis Kampf [of MIT’s languages department]. And the first one was on U.S. foreign policy since 1945, which really influenced me ever since.

Since then I’ve tried to read every book Noam Chomsky has written on politics (I never got into his linguistic research). In a typical Chomsky book, the first half is about all of the horrible things the U.S. is doing in Vietnam or Central America, or whatever particular intervention is going on at the moment. The rest of the pages are a dissection of the way the mainstream media corporations lie about it, cover it up.

We know that the CIA has tried to gain and has gained a lot of influence over the big mainstream media corporations. I think that was Operation Mockingbird, and it’s never stopped.

CIA's OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD ~ FG "Well know our disinformation Program is complete when \everything the American public believes is false." - America's best pics and videos

Source: americasbestpics.com

And now we see former CIA agents acting as commentators on mainstream media news shows.

I moved to Kentucky 40 years ago, in 1982 to Lexington, which is in Fayette County. Been here ever since. I love it here—the people, the climate is a little bit better than Massachusetts in the winter; I like to garden and it’s a longer growing season. I got a job in Frankfort in state government, working in the state energy office. Every state has one. In Kentucky, it was very small, but the mission of the state energy offices is to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy investments in all sectors of the economy. That was a great job. I retired five years early from that because it was just kind of getting a little bit repetitive.

And since about 2004, when I retired early, I’ve been a full-time political activist, mostly antiwar, never thought I would run for any office. Until about, well, my first run was 2012. I ran for the Kentucky House of Representatives in my district in Lexington against an entrenched far right-wing Christian Republican incumbent.

Since then I’ve learned a lot about how the political system in Kentucky works. And then every two years, starting in 2014, I have run for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky’s Sixth Congressional District, which includes Lexington shading toward eastern Kentucky and Frankfort, the state capital.

This year, Kentucky Republicans rammed through a redistricting map because they have total control over the state House and Senate. They took Frankfort out of the Sixth District in order to help Andy Barr, the Republican incumbent. Gerrymandering was invented in Massachusetts by Elbridge Gerry [American founding father who served as Massachusetts Governor]. And it’s alive and well in the U.S.—probably also in Massachusetts.

But yeah, that’s how I got into politics and I’ve had a long and interesting journey there since 2012.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. Actually I was a student from 2002 to 2006 at Brandeis University [in Waltham, Massachusetts] and I used to go to MIT to attend Chomsky’s lectures. He was also an inspiration and I read many of his books, so we have a lot in common. As far as your run for Congress, what do you think is different this time? In the last few races, you failed in the primary. Why do you think you won this time? And do you think you have a chance to defeat Andy Barr?

Geoff Young: Well, this time it was a pretty narrow victory. I got 52% to 48%. I think a lot of it was name recognition. I’ve been running since 2014 and a lot of Democrats know my name, compared to my Democratic Party challenger [Chris Preece, a high school teacher from Berea, Kentucky] who is very young.

Also on the eve of the primary I put out a postcard mailing which said: “Unlike Andy Barr, I will never vote to send weapons to Nazis.”

A picture containing text Description automatically generated

Source: Photo courtesy of Geoff Young

And on the back it had a montage of articles from mainstream media sources showing that the Ukrainian government has these Nazi battalions, Azov and others. And then it had little pictures of articles from USA Today, The New York Times, all of these establishment media corporations saying Nazis are gaining influence in Ukraine, that kind of thing. And then on the back, I wrote that there is no way Andy Barr can claim that he didn’t know that the United States was arming Nazis from 2014 until today.

Postcard final back May0322.pdf

Source: Courtesy of Geoff Young

And now. Mr. Barr wants to send them even more weapons. He’s criticizing President Biden because he’s not sending enough weapons. He can’t deny he knew about it.

I think that postcard must have had an effect on the election results.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: How do you navigate the issue of money in politics? Where do you get your money and how do you balance wanting to adopt principled policies with the need to raise money sometimes from corporations?

Geoff Young: I have never been any good at raising money in any of my campaigns. In my first one in 2014, my Democratic Party rival was as unknown as I was. Two unknowns. But she had the support of the Kentucky Democratic Party and raised about a quarter million dollars during the primary campaign. And I raised about zero though I invested some of my savings from working in state government. I’m real cheap. I save money, I don’t spend a lot. And so I spent about $20,000, or let’s see about $30,000 that first time; she spent about $250,000 in the primary. And I got 39% of the vote. I was amazed that this time I could win a primary with no contributions. With the victory, now finally, after eight years, contributions are starting to come in.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Mostly from small contributions?

Geoff Young: Yes, $25 from someone in California, $25 from western Kentucky. If that continues, I should be able to run a race.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: I saw an article online, the governor of your state, a Democrat, Andy Beshear, said you were “a disrupter.” Clearly the Democratic Party does not want you running or even winning. How do you deal with that? And what do you think that the source of the backlash is and the impact that it might have?

Geoff Young: The Governor and the state central executive committee of the Kentucky Democratic Party do not represent all Kentucky Democrats. It would be inaccurate to say that the whole Kentucky Democratic Party hates me. That would not be true. The Governor [Andy Beshear—whose father Steve was Kentucky’s governor from 2007 to 2015] is not even on the state central executive committee but it’s universally recognized that he is the real leader of the Kentucky party.

I ran against Beshear in 2019 for governor. There were four Democrats in the primary. We all had a running mate. But it was not a fair contest. The party blatantly rigs its own primaries, the party leaders, the structure rigs important primaries all the time which is illegal. That’s not supposed to happen.

All the primaries, like all general elections, according to the Kentucky Constitution, are supposed to be free and equal but both parties—the Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Kentucky—routinely rig primaries that are important to them and violate the law. The Democrats have a bylaw that says you have to treat all Democratic Party candidates in the primary equally.

Republicans were smart enough not to put that bylaw in or create any formal documents. But they do it anyway. And so they’re writing their own bylaws on the Democratic side; and on both sides they’re violating Kentucky state law. So I have sued the Kentucky Democratic Party (KDP) in the past and nobody likes to be sued.

Andy Beshear was personally named in that 2019 lawsuit along with the other Democrats who I thought participated in that election rigging. I was in many events during that primary where I would say: “Look, in this primary, you have a choice. You can vote for a crook—that would be Andy Bashear or Adam Edelen—or you could vote for one of the honest, strong Democrats, Rocky Adkins, or me. If you don’t like me, vote for Rocky because he’s honest, he’s not a crook.

Andy Beshear didn’t like being in a room where someone was calling him corrupt to his face. So right before the Primary, there was the final meeting of the state central executive committee in Frankfort. And they invited the three establishment Democrats to come and talk to the committee. This is a big fundraiser with a lot of influential Democrats from all over Kentucky there.

I tried to register and a staff person said you’re not allowed in this building. They passed a resolution a year ago saying if you enter the headquarters building in Frankfort or the other one in Fayette County—my own party in my own county—we will call the police and have you arrested or we’ll call the sheriff.

And they did call the police many times. I never got arrested because I always left the building and chatted with the police officers outside. And so I’m not allowed in the building. The three others—Adam Edelen was inside. Rocky Adkins goes in, I chatted with him. He says, “Oh, I’ll find out what’s going on in there.”

And then Andy Beshear parks and is walking toward the building with his son, 12 years old at that time. And I say: “One of the criminals has arrived.” And Beshear says: “Geoff, this is my 12-year-old son.” And they just keep on walking in. That was the incident that he referred to. And when he was interviewed, when he was asked by a reporter the day after the primary this year, why he’s not supporting one of the Democratic nominees for Congress, it was a personal thing.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: I see. Now we can start discussing geopolitical affairs, but one last question about the race: What’s your game plan/strategy for trying to win in November?

Geoff Young: Well, I’m going to try to unite everybody, every Kentucky voter who is not happy with the way that the two establishment parties are running things.

And I’m going to continue to say “Unlike Andy Barr, I will never vote to send weapons to Nazis.” I’m going to point out the devastating economic impact of U S sanctions against Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, many other countries [including Cuba], and even some of our allies when they want to deal with Russia.

Now, these sanctions don’t harm Russia very much. Russia is easily able to handle any sanctions that we can possibly impose. They have China that they can work with, they can export their oil and natural gas to China, to Asia. They don’t have to export it to Western Europe or the U.S.—some of their oil.

So Russia will be fine. But when you cut off trade with a huge country that has a lot of natural resources that we need, strategic materials and everything, you’re sanctioning yourself. And these sanctions are one of the major reasons why we’re having rising gasoline prices, inflation, and all kinds of other problems.

We’re destroying our own economy just to damage Russia and the Russian people. And it’s already failed. The ruble is stronger now than it was for years. So the sanctions have totally failed. If we keep trying to do it or double down, our own economy is gonna collapse. The value of the dollar is going to disappear.

Phil Hands | Tribune Content Agency

Source: syracuse.com

We won’t be able to afford imports from anywhere outside the United States. And we’ll just be cut off from the rest of the world. In terms of trade and economics, that’s a recipe for a long Great Depression. We’re going to run on that issue. And abortion. The entire Republican Party for the last 50 years has been taking a totally immoral position on abortion.

Planned Parenthood is the most effective abortion-preventing and reducing organization that exists. And by trying to put Planned Parenthood out of business, the Republican Party will simply force women back into unsafe back-alley abortions. More women will die and the number of abortions will not decrease.

It might even increase a little bit, but they’ll be illegal. And so, so the GOP’s position is simply an attack against all women in America.

Planned Parenthood | claytoonz

Source: claytoonz.com

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. And you also have a call to abolish the CIA in your platform. Can you discuss some of the abuses in recent years that you think the CIA has perpetrated and how they’ve corrupted democracy and what alternatives you would posit to a CIA?

Geoff Young: Okay. I have already mentioned the campaign by the CIA, since it was founded in 1947, to influence U.S. mainstream media corporations, and other opinion leaders such as academics. That’s probably the worst thing it has done. They’ve never stopped doing it when their charter makes it illegal for them to conduct psychological operations, PSYOPs against the American people.

The CIA has been violating its own charter and conducting PSYOPs against all of us since 1947. Since that time, they’ve only gotten better at it. They’ve done it more and more.

The Washington Post today is owned by Jeff Bezos. He has a very large contract with the national security state. The CIA now has editorial control over The Washington Post, especially when it’s reporting about some foreign country or a foreign war. The CIA controls The Washington Post. That’s not how it’s supposed to be.

And so we have this propaganda campaign today that is the worst I’ve ever seen. I lived through 9/11; in the years after that there was extreme uniformity in the mainstream media in supporting the war, supporting the troops and all that. The media never discussed whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 violated international law; that was never brought up.

When they would talk about the weapons of mass destruction issue, they never brought up the fact that even if Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, that would not have justified the U S invasion and conquest and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Nothing can justify international aggression. It’s the worst war crime possible for any country or any leader to commit. It’s a crime for which German officers and their propagandists and other officials were hanged at Nuremberg. So controlling the media is the worst thing the CIA does.

But also there’s a long, shameful record of torture, regime-change operations, overthrowing a government that is an official enemy. The United States has been doing that constantly since 1947. We have 16 other “intelligence agencies.” I always do that—use quotation marks with my fingers when I use the word intelligence—we have 16 others. We should just save some money and abolish the worst.

Source: marxist.com

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. Thank You. You seem to be the only candidate in this congressional race advocating for that position.

Geoff Young: Yeah, exactly. I am the only one. I don’t know of any other candidate anywhere. And we put up a billboard saying “Abolish the CIA.” I think that billboard actually contributed to my narrow victory.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Excellent. It seems that the American people may have come around. I was reading an article today by Chris Hedges, who you probably read.

Geoff Young: Some of his articles. He’s fantastic.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: He’s a brilliant guy. And he was saying in the Cold War, the American public turned a blind eye to covert operations like in Indonesia because the U.S. economy was going well, but a generation or two later, the public has really come to revile the foreign policy elites in Washington and agencies like the CIA.

From what you’ve seen, do you think that your positions are really popular in Kentucky and could the majority of people agree with your assessment?

Geoff Young: Well, I haven’t done polls, but I think that a lot agree with me. People have told me and my campaign helpers. “Yeah. Yeah. Profanity the CIA. I agree with him on that position.”

The CIA it should be pointed out has run drugs, addictive drugs since they were founded. And I said in my campaign video, the addiction problem that has plagued Kentucky is not Kentucky’s fault. I hold the CIA responsible for that—you know, they pretty much ran the Afghan opium trade and heroin trade for 20 years while our troops were there. And guarding the poppy fields. The CIA was raking off money, cooperating with organized crime all over the world and flooding the world, including the United States, including Kentucky with opioids, a tremendous amount of suffering and damage caused by the drug trade.

So I have a solution for all that: to legalize all drugs. Libertarians like that; the Tea Party likes that. Other countries like Portugal have done that and they have dramatically reduced overdose deaths, which is a horrible problem in Kentucky and across America. If drugs were legalized, people would not have to buy poison on the street from the illicit drug business and they can get a pure or safe doses as they work to treat their addiction.

We could use marijuana as a kind of a stepping stone toward recovery, which is not addictive and not harmful. It’s been used as a medicinal herb for thousands of years. So, yeah, make marijuana legal and all drugs legal. Addicts could go into a clinic. John Oliver did a great segment on this in March; it’s called harm reduction. I agree with that. That was a brilliant video. Probably the best thing I’ve seen of John Oliver’s.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Great. Two more questions. Your platform advocates for the abolition of AFRICOM [the Africa Command] and we’ve done some articles exposing AFRICOM. So maybe you can just say a bit about that—the harmful nature of AFRICOM and why you want to have it abolished.

Geoff Young: Well, it’s a purely military operation with Special Forces running around; no oversight. Helping our dictator friends in Africa avoid being overthrown by their own people.

Image Courtesy of Mail and Guardian.

Source: pulitzercenter.org

Jeremy Kuzmarov: Yes and it’s also to grab the natural resources. One of AFRICOM’s first commanders even admitted it. That’s what it was all about and to counter China because China’s moved into a lot of African countries.

Geoff Young: But China does not move in with their military.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: True, yes.

Geoff Young: They don’t set up a base in Central Africa or anywhere. They’ve got one base, I think next to our base in Djibouti, but we have bases all over Africa [the U.S. has at least 29 bases in Africa]. And the purpose—as you said—the ultimate purpose is to get African resources at low prices.

Map Description automatically generated

Source: mg.co.za

China’s goal is for mutual benefit. China and Russia are not imperialist powers. They are not trying to dominate the areas they trade with. So AFRICOM is just a continuation of the old French-British-Belgian colonial system. The purpose of which is to just get those resources and leave Africa in poverty. China with its new silk roads, Belt and Road initiative is there to help everyone profit and benefit, develop their economy.

China does not interfere in the internal affairs of the countries they trade with; countries along the Silk Road, the Belt and Road initiative. They don’t meddle in there in the governments of their trading partners. The United States by contrast always meddles—all the time as a matter of habit.

The U.S. is by far the worst imperialist country in the world today. And the rest of the world is getting tired of it.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: And my final question is about the media. The CIA controls the media; have they got wind of your campaign yet? Have you received any negative press or are they just kind of ignoring you?

Geoff Young: Well, public radio station WEKU interviewed me—reporter Stu Johnson was there the night of the primary results—May 17th. I was one of the last elections to be announced. Something like 11 o’clock and he was there. He was very even-handed and friendly in the interview.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: That’s good.

Geoff Young: But KET [Kentucky Authority for Educational Television] is not friendly. That’s a public television station. They have always hated me. They favor the establishment candidate, even if it’s a Republican.

This year they set three criteria to be in a debate before the primary. I had one primary opponent. Andy Barr had one primary opponent. So potentially, there could have been four people, maybe two debates, one or two for the Democrats, and one or two for the Republicans.

The first two criteria are reasonable. You have to have an active campaign essentially. Everybody always meets the first two.  The third was that you had to raise a certain amount of money or spend a certain amount of money by March 31, 2022. And it had to be reflected in the FEC, Federal Election Commission’s website, on or before April 15th.

So my Democratic Party rival [Chris Preece] didn’t meet that third criterion. I met it. However, I got a letter from a private lawyer in Louisville; I don’t know why they don’t use state attorneys or the assistant attorney general from Kentucky to represent them. But they have a lawyer in Louisville who said that number in the box there on the FEC website was higher than $25,000. But he said that those expenditures weren’t legitimate; they had to do with things in the past; we’re not counting that and you’re not going to be on our stage. You will not receive an invitation to be interviewed by KET. So you met the criteria, but we’re not inviting you.

Anyway, KET has a problem and that lawyer is one of their problems.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: This was very recently.

Geoff Young: Yes. I got that letter I forget exactly when; I’d probably say in April. And the primary was May 17.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: There is a progressive wing of the Democratic Party—Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “The Squad.” A lot of them were supporting the bill for the billions to Ukraine, which is disappointing. But on other issues often they’ve been good. Do you have any connection or support from them?

Geoff Young: I’m looking forward to working with all of them very closely. I want to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus if I win in November and work with the progressive wing of the party, I saw an article yesterday in The Guardian saying progressives have done unexpectedly well in recent primaries across the United States. And I think it’s a trend.

Even though they were vastly outspent by their establishment Democratic Party opponents, they did surprisingly well. And I think that trend is going to actually accelerate. I think the future of the Democratic Party is the anti-war progressive wing of the party; it’s going to replace all these ancient establishment politicians.

Jeremy Kuzmarov: I hope 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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from Geoff Young

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geoff Young: Peace Candidate Who Wants to Abolish CIA Wins Democratic Primary in Kentucky
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

The pro-medical freedom group US Freedom Flyers (USFF) is suing Atlas Air with the help of John Pierce Law, and plans to sue every major U.S. airline.

This is the first lawsuit to make it to court on behalf of USFF, but according to the Epoch Times, there are “plans to sue all major airlines, 18 altogether, plus the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT).”

The contention on behalf of USFF is that the COVID jab mandates imposed by various federal regulators are unconstitutional for reasons of medical and religious liberty.

The lawsuit, which can be found here, reads: “Fundamentally, this case is about whether Americans should be required to choose between their livelihoods and being coerced into taking an experimental, dangerous medical treatment.”

The founder of John Pierce Law is attorney John Pierce, who previously represented George Papadopoulos as part of the “Russia Hoax” saga. He is also representing January 6 defendants.

Pierce told the Epoch Times: “So the complaint has been filed. We’re in the process of serving everyone. And then, we’ll likely be looking for some kind of injunctive relief here soon to make sure that all the COVID-related mandates stop immediately. And then we’ll proceed [with] litigation, motion, practice, and discovery and then onward to trial eventually.”

United Airlines is the next major airline on USFF and Pierce’s list.

“We’ll be hitting basically all of them in sequence,” he added. “And then we’ll be going after the FAA as well. We’re gonna get these vaccine mandate type of rules and COVID restrictions ruled unconstitutional.”

Pierce also said that his firm will prove that there was “discrimination” under Title VII. Title VII is a statute of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

“…[T]he reason we’re doing it that way is because so many people have been harmed and people have experienced different levels of harm. We have the unvaccinated who have been harassed, threatened, and intimidated into getting vaccinated. Then we have many people as well who got vaccinated against their will, who were coerced and forced into doing it under threat of losing their employment,” Yoder said.

Yoder added that the “numbers of vaccine-injured [pilots] are growing by the day.”

“And so what we’re seeing is many pilots are experiencing health conditions. Specifically, cardiac issues [are] what we’re seeing a lot of. And many of these pilots are afraid to come forward because if they come forward they lose their flight physical, they lose their flight medical. So they’re continuing to fly. We have a lot of pilots that are flying with chest pain and neurological conditions, because if they come forward they lose their careers.”

*

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 Shutterstock

Masking: More Harms Than Good?

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Robert Malone

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Foegen effect

A mechanism by which facemasks contribute to the COVID-19 case fatality rate

Fögen, Zacharias MD∗ The Foegen effect, Medicine: February 18, 2022 – Volume 101 – Issue 7 – p e28924 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028924

Abstract: Extensive evidence in the literature supports the mandatory use of facemasks to reduce the infection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which causes the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the effect of mask use on the disease course remains controversial. This study aimed to determine whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas, USA between August 1st and October 15th 2020.

This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on county-level data was conducted on these data. Results were controlled by performing multiple sensitivity analyses and a negative control.

A parallelization analysis based on county-level data showed that in Kansas, counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51–2.10) for COVID-19-related deaths. Even after adjusting for the number of “protected persons,” that is, the number of persons who were not infected in the mask-mandated group compared to the no-mask group, the risk ratio remained significantly high at 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24–1.72). By analyzing the excess mortality in Kansas, this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.

These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention.

The cause of this trend is explained herein using the “Foegen effect” theory; that is, deep re-inhalation of hypercondensed droplets or pure virions caught in facemasks as droplets can worsen prognosis and might be linked to long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. While the “Foegen effect” is proven in vivo in an animal model, further research is needed to fully understand it.

*

My friend Dr. Byram W. Bridle wrote a great article on a topic near and dear to my heart. I highly recommend reading his entire article. Below is an excerpt from his piece:

Stop Masking Children They Need To Interact With The Microbial World

Isolating children from the microbial world promotes the development of chronic diseases.

Young children need to interact with the microbial world. It is absolutely essential to the proper development of their immune systems. I am not going to delve into too many scientific details here because I wrote about this in an article that I published in The Conversation in March 2021. It is entitled “A year of COVID-19 lockdown is putting kids at risk of allergies, asthma and autoimmune diseases”.

In a nutshell, we are born with naïve and immature immune systems. Our immune systems don’t fully mature until well into the teenage years, with most of that development occurring between birth and about six years of age.

The ability of the immune system to self-regulate relies on interactions with the microbial world; especially via interactions with other people, particularly family members. This allows their immune system to learn to differentiate between things that are dangerous and those that are not. In turn, their immune system will become equipped to respond to dangers while preventing potentially harmful responses to things that pose no threat, such as self and inert environmental molecules and normal gut-resident bacteria, etc.

Isolating a young child from non-dangerous microbes in their environment compromises the ‘immunoregulatory’ components of their immune system. A dysregulated immune system often manifests itself in the form of allergies, asthma, and autoimmune diseases.

I felt compelled to write about this concern in May 2021 after I witnessed children being chronically isolated for more than a year. One year was the timepoint at which I felt that substantial, potentially irreparable harm could be done to children’s immune systems. I am appalled that many children have now been enduring this for well over two years, with no end in sight for some.

Masking is controversial and, arguably, largely ineffective against preventing the spread of viruses in ways other than via coughing and sneezing. However, they can pose a reasonable barrier to larger environmental particles (e.g., dust particles, dander, pollen, etc.) and bacteria. Throw in the excessive use of things like antibacterial hand sanitizers, being locked down in homes and lack of physical interactions, and we are now well on our way to having a micro-generation of children who will have been isolated like no other human beings in history. Unfortunately, these children will now be part of an unanticipated experiment on a global scale; one to really assess the validity of the so-called ‘hygiene hypothesis’. Although I would like to be wrong on this one, basic immunological principles suggest that very young children that had to endure COVID-19 lockdown policies might be faced with the highest rates of autoimmune diseases, allergies, and asthma in human history.

Dr. Bridle ends his article with the following statement:

Moving Forward

The moral of this story is to stop isolating our children from their microbial world. Let them get dirty. Let them interact with other children. Let them hug family members and friends. Consider getting a cat or dog that they can interact closely with. Take them on hikes in the woods or countryside. Definitely have them wash their hands with regular soap, but cut down on the antibacterial soaps and sanitizers. Every time normal flora on the skin are killed one risks having them re-populated with pathogens.

And, for goodness sake, let children see the mouths of others so they can learn to speak properly.

What harm is done from the last two-and-a-half years is done. But, please, let’s not keep locking down, physically distancing and masking our children ad nauseum. Not for SARS-CoV-2, not for the annual flu, not for monkeypox. Not for anything unless it is demonstrated via transparent, objective, publicly disclosed and openly debated science to be a genuine threat to the lives of a substantial proportion of children.

*

The Ocular Manifestations and Transmission of COVID-19: Recommendations for Prevention

See here for the full article

Background

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel coronavirus termed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been linked to ocular signs and symptoms in several case reports. Research has demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily through close contact via respiratory droplets, but there is the possibility for ocular transmission, with the conjunctiva as a conduit as well as a source of infection.

Discussion

Ocular manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 include follicular conjunctivitis, and have been repeatedly noted as an initial or subsequent symptom of COVID-19-positive patients. Particularly in patients with ocular manifestations, there is evidence that the virus may present in tears, based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in conjunctival swab samples via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The virus may therefore be transmittable from the ocular surface to a new host via contact with the ocular mucosa, tears, or subsequent fomites.

Conclusions

All health care professionals should ask patients about ocular symptoms consistent with SARS-CoV-2, and use eye protection such as goggles or face shields as part of the standard personal protective equipment for high-risk patients in addition to wearing of masks by both the patient and provider, and should consider tears to be potentially infectious.

*

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 Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Masking: More Harms Than Good?
  • Tags:

Fake Meat, Fake Breastmilk and Food Shortages

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab, along with other varieties of fake food

Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes

This “protein” industry convergence is jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops

When you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources, lab-grown meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork

There are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground; shares of Beyond Meat lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth

To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised using regenerative, grass fed methods

*

Fake food is being poised as a panacea to end world hunger and food shortages, but there’s nothing miraculous about synthetic, lab-made food. It can’t compare to food that comes from nature in terms of nutrition or environmental protection, and as we’re seeing with the mysterious infant formula shortages, when you’re dependent on fake food, your very survival is also dependent on the handful of companies that manufacture them.

With parents getting desperate in the search for infant formula, it’s eye-opening that campaigns haven’t been started to encourage new mothers to breastfeed — the best food for infants and one that also happens to be free and readily available in most cases. If you haven’t read my article on the best workaround for infant formula for those that are unable to breast feed, it is on Substack.

In the video above, you can watch a concerning timeline about why this may be, as Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab,1 along with other varieties of fake food.

Bill Gates’ Formula for Disaster

In June 2020, Bill Gates announced startup company BIOMILQ, which is using biotechnology to create lab-made human milk for babies. Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says “recreates conditions similar to in the breast.”2

This synthetic lab-made breast milk replacement raised $3.5 million in funding from Gates’ investment firm Breakthrough Energy Ventures.3 Gates has also contributed at least $319 million to the media,4 including The Guardian, allowing him to control and dictate what they print. The day after the Gates Foundation paid The Guardian its annual funding in May 2022, it released a hit piece on breastfeeding titled, “Turns out breastfeeding really does hurt — why does no one tell you?”5

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) offers also seized 588 cases of infant formula from Europe in April 2021 because it lacked appropriate nutritional labeling. In February 2021, CBP officers said they inspected 17 separate shipments of infant formula from Germany and The Netherlands, leading to a warning against buying infant formula online from overseas.

At the time, Keith Fleming, CBP’s acting director of field operations in Baltimore, Maryland, said in a news release:6

“Consumers should be very careful when contemplating the purchase of items over the internet from an international source, because they may not get what they expect. People expect that the products they purchase comply with existing U.S. health and safety laws and regulations and they’ll be safe for them or their family. That’s not always the case.”

While warning Americans against purchasing infant formula from overseas, in February 2022 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced bacterial contamination at the Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan facility,7 which is behind the current infant formula shortages. While Gates is clearly behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage BIOMILQ in lieu of breastmilk or formula, the formula shortages highlight the risks of consolidated food production.

Abbott Enriched Shareholders While Formula Sickened Babies

Corporate consolidation is rampant in the U.S. baby formula market, of which 90% is controlled by four companies. Abbot is among them, responsible for 43% of baby formula production in the U.S.8Yet, according to a whistleblower filing from October 2021, equipment at the company’s Sturgis facility was “failing and in need of repair.”

Pitting and pinholes reportedly existed in a number of pipes, allowing bacterial contamination. Leadership was aware of the failing equipment for up to seven years before the February 2022 outbreak, according to the whistleblower’s report.9

With equipment in need of repair, and a bacteria outbreak in their formula sickening babies, Abbott used its massive profits from 2019 to 2021 to announce a lucrative stock buyback program.10According to The Guardian:11

“Abbott detected bacteria eight times as its net profits soared by 94% between 2019 and 2021. And just as its tainted formula allegedly began sickening a number of babies, with two deaths reported, the company increased dividends to shareholders by over 25% while announcing a stock buyback program worth $5bn.”

Speaking with The Guardian, Rakeen Mabud, chief economist for the Groundwork Collaborative, added, “Abbott chose to prioritize shareholders by issuing billions of dollars in stock buybacks instead of making productive investments.”12

Big Meat and Dairy Companies Dominate Fake Meat Industry

The increasing number of plant-based fake foods and lab-grown meat companies give the illusion that consumers are getting more choices and the food industry is becoming less consolidated. However, there are still relatively few firms that are controlling the global grab for “protein” markets.

In a research article published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Philip Howard, a faculty member in the department of community sustainability at Michigan State University, and colleagues explain how this “protein” industry convergence is further jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops:13

“Recent years have seen the convergence of industries that focus on higher protein foods, such as meat processing firms expanding into plant-based substitutes and/or cellular meat production, and fisheries firms expanding into aquaculture. A driving force behind these changes is dominant firms seeking to increase their power relative to close competitors, including by extending beyond boundaries that pose constraints to growth.

The broad banner of “protein” offers a promising space to achieve this goal, despite its nutritionally reductionist focus on a single macronutrient. Protein firm strategies to increase their dominance are likely to further diminish equity in food systems by exacerbating power asymmetries.”

Tyson and Cargill, two of the largest meat processors in the world, for instance, have invested in fake meat company Memphis Meats, which also has backing from Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Other billionaires invested in fake foods include Sergey Brin (Mosa Meat), Peter Thiel (Modern Meadow) and Marc Benioff (Eat Just).

“These companies wouldn’t be making these investments if they didn’t expect that the intellectual properties held by these start-ups will lead to monopoly profits,” Howard notes.14 In “The Politics of Protein,” a report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), Howard explains:15

“Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes, establishing footholds in a market that is growing approximately 20% per year.

More than a dozen of these firms have also invested in start-ups that are attempting to commercialize lab-grown meat and fish. Meanwhile, Vanguard and BlackRock — two of the world’s biggest asset management firms — have investments in almost all the largest meat, dairy, and animal feed companies.”

It is important to understand why all of these fake meat products are an absolute metabolic disaster relates to the fact that they are using vegetable fats to replace animal fats. Not only are they devoid of important vitamins like vitamin A and vitamin K2, but they are loaded with the dangerous omega-6 fat linoleic acid LA.

In some cases they contain up to 10 to 20 times the amount found in meats, which will radically contribute to diseases like diabetes, obesity, cancer and heart disease.

Lab-Grown Food Is an Environmental Catastrophe

The push for fake food is being made on the platform that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, which has devastated the environment with its concentrated animal feeding operations and monocultures. But this, too, is misleading.

In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.16 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”

In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.

And, the oxygen and nutrients available must be adequately distributed to all the cells — something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.17

The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.18,19

Farmer and historian John Lewis-Stempel also points out that the world’s farmers already produce enough food for the global population: “[A]ny discussion of global food policy needs to begin with one plain fact: there is … no actual food shortage. Already, the planet’s farmers produce enough food to cater for the projected 10 billion humans of 2050. The problem is waste and distribution.”20

Yet, the push for the creation of fake protein sources continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva also details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:21

“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.

Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change. The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.

Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”

Signs the Fake Meat Industry Is Stalling

For all of its fanfare, there are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground. Shares of Beyond Meat, for one example, lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth and has resorted to partnering with PepsiCo to release a plant-based jerky product.

“My analysis is the launch will do very little to increase the company’s fortunes,” writes business development consultant Victor Martino in Just Food.22 He argues that the “plant-based meat revolution” is just a PR stunt, a narrative that’s set to implode:23

“The fact is, despite increased product availability in terms of brand choices and added retail outlets, plant-based meat sales stalled in 2021, recording zero growth, according to recent research from SPINS, data commissioned and released by The Plant-Based Foods Association and The Good Food Institute.

According to the research, the total annual sales of plant-based meat in the US remained stable at $1.4 billion. That’s a continuation of the 1.4% share of total meat category sales.”

Shares of Beyond Meat and Oatly, a plant-based milk substitute, have lost more than half their value in 2022,24 but this isn’t to say that their executives are suffering. Beyond Meat’s former chief growth officer Chuck Muth sold shares valued at more than $62 million from 2019 to 2021, while Biz Stone, a current board member and Twitter co-founder, has made millions on Beyond Meat stock.25

The fact remains that when private companies control the food supply, they will also ultimately control countries and entire populations. Biotech will eventually push farmers and ranchers out of the equation and will threaten food security and human health. In other words, the work being done in the name of sustainability and saving the planet will give greater control to private corporations while weakening the population.

To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised the right way instead. When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are bringing you truly sustainable food for a healthy population and planet.

*

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.

Notes

1, 3 Rumble May 17, 2022

2 BIOMILQ, Our Science

4 MintPress News November 15, 2021

5 The Guardian May 9, 2022

6 U.S. Customs and Border Protection April 5, 2021

7 U.S. FDA May 17, 2022

8, 9, 10 Children’s Health Defense May 23, 2022

11, 12 The Guardian May 20, 2022

13 Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 16 August 2021

14 Civil Eats September 22, 2021

15 IPES-Food, The Politics of Protein, Executive Summary, Page 3

16 Techno-Economic Analysis for the production of cultivated meat February 2021

17, 19 The Counter September 22, 2021

18 LCA of cultivated meat – February 2021, Page 3

20 Unherd May 17, 2022

21 Children’s Health Defense April 5, 2022

22, 23 Just Food March 30, 2022

24 CNBC May 14, 2022

25 Michele Simon March 1, 2022

Featured image is from OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fake Meat, Fake Breastmilk and Food Shortages

Biden Tweaks Ukraine Narrative

June 2nd, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The US President Joe Biden’s op-Ed in the New York Times on Tuesday on the Ukraine war starts with a bluff. He says President Vladimir Putin had thought Russia’s special operation would only last days. How Biden arrived at such an estimation is unclear. Like the US narrative on the war, it is largely presumptive. 

Russians are rooted — and well-founded — in their belief that Ukraine has become an American colony and the leaders in Kiev are mere puppets. How could Putin and his Kremlin advisors have estimated that the special operation would be a cakewalk? The core objectives of the special operation are such — a treaty affirming Ukraine’s neutral status and its recognition of Donbass republics as independent states and Crimea as integral part of Russia — that an operation that “would last days” wouldn’t secure them. 

Moscow knew that the US had absolutely no intentions to accommodate Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding NATO expansion into Ukraine that were formally projected in December in writing.  

That is the main reason why the Russians have no timeline for their special operation. They would love to round it off the soonest but knew that the integration of Ukraine’s southern regions — Zoporozhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv — that is vital for Crimea’s economy and security and Ukraine’s Black Sea Ports was not going to be child’s play and might be a long haul. 

In the fourth month of the special operation only, Putin could decree the streamlining of procedures for Russian citizenship from applicants in the Kherson, Zoporozhia regions of southern Ukraine.(here, here and here)

Zaporozhye Region in southern Ukraine has offered Russia a military airfield in Melitopol and a naval base in Berdyansk on the coast of the Sea of Azov. The Kherson region plans to integrate into Russia’s education system. Cars are using Russian number plates, Russian SIM cards operate internet and phones. Suffice to say, the shoe is on the other foot.

It was Biden who thought that Russia could be thrown away like a piece from a chessboard but only to realise belatedly that life is real. Biden threatened to render Russian currency ruble a mere rubble and destroy the Russian economy. Having been a hatchet man as a professional politician, Biden never really understood the resilience, fortitude and grit of the Russian people or their historical consciousness and psyche to rally behind Putin. 

In the Times op-Ed, Biden thinks Biden makes a personal gesture toward Putin by promising that he “will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow.” Yet, Putin’s rating in his country is around 80 percent, while Biden’s is less than half of that — 36%! 

Herein lies the predicament of the Biden Administration. The US is groping in the dark about the Russian intentions in Ukraine. It keeps improvising and updating its narrative to cope with emergent realities that keep coming as nasty surprises. 

This is not only about the military part but also about Russia’s political roadmap. The only constant in Washington is about providing Ukraine with “advanced” weaponry — but then, that is also either about regenerating lucrative business for the military-industrial complex by fuelling wars abroad, or, compensating for the NATO allies who transfer their Soviet-era redundant stockpiles to Ukraine.   

Nonetheless, Biden proclaims in his op-Ed that he will “stay the course” and the massive aid to Ukraine will continue “in the months to come.” That said, Biden makes a nuanced presentation in the op-ed, where, apart from the iteration of usual catechisms — about “a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”; allied unity; unprovoked Russian aggression; “rules-based international order”, etc. — he does some messaging as well to Moscow as the war graduates to a new phase. 

For a start, he no longer makes any false promises to send the Russians packing to Siberia. Biden doesn’t predict winners and losers. On the contrary, he acknowledges that this war can only have a diplomatic solution. He signals modestly that such massive scale of US military aid may put Kiev “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” Carefully drafted words. 

Elsewhere, Biden estimates that the focus of the Russian operation is “to take control of as much of Ukraine as it can” before negotiations begin. Implicit here is the realisation that the Russians have turned the tide of the war and a reversal of fortunes is not to be expected. 

It is from such a rational perspective that Biden’s uncharacteristic avoidance of vituperative and belligerent rhetoric toward Russia (or Putin personally) needs to be understood. He reaffirms categorically: “So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces. We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.” 

Of course, Washington will “continue cooperating” with allies regarding sanctions — “the toughest ever imposed on a major economy” — but Biden won’t evaluate its effectiveness. He promises to “work with our allies and partners to address the global food crisis that Russia’s aggression is worsening,” but won’t allege anymore that world food shortage is Russia’s creation. He will help European allies and others to “reduce their dependence on Russian fossil fuels” but also links it to “speed our transition to a clean energy future.” There is no acrimony. 

As regards the security issues, Biden reiterates the US policy to continue “reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank with forces and capabilities” and welcomes Finland’s and Sweden’s applications to join NATO — “a move that will strengthen overall U.S. and trans-Atlantic security by adding two democratic and highly capable military partners” — but refrains from directly linking either of these to Russian aggression. 

Most important, Biden retracts from the dramatic prognosis by CIA Director William Burns that under military pressure, Putin might order use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.  

The sombre tone of Biden’s words is in sharp contrast with his own intemperate and tendentious past remarks. This eschewal of the “big macho tough guy” image betrays that some degree of realism is appearing in the US official narrative. But on the other hand, Biden also discloses in his op-ed that the US will provide the Ukrainians with “more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine.”

All this adds up to a calculated signal to Moscow, no doubt. But it isn’t easy to resurrect the Atlanticist inclinations in the Kremlin. The tortuous policy procrastinations on NATO expansion through the past quarter century have cost Russia dearly in lives and treasure. That folly or naïveté — depending on one’s viewpoint — shouldn’t repeat.

Again, stalling the momentum of the special operation at this point would carry immense risks. The operation almost lost momentum on the outskirts of Kiev in March due to the “stop-and-go” approach. 

Fundamentally, there has been a certain inevitability about the western sanctions, with or without the Ukraine crisis, aimed at weakening Russia permanently. The compass is now set. Therefore, no matter the deliberate sobriety of Biden’s op-Ed, the big picture cannot be wished away.

Indeed, the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces held drills in the Ivanovo region, northeast of Moscow today, the day after Biden’s op-ed appeared.

The Russian Defence Ministry said some 1,000 servicemen participated in the drills using over a hundred vehicles, including Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, which have the capability to launch the MIRV-capable (Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles) thermonuclear RS-24 Yars inter-continental ballistic missile with range of 12,000 km that can carry up to 10 warheads and cruise at speeds of up to 24,500 kilometres per hour.

*

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: Yars ICBM launchers participated in drills of Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, Ivanovo region, northeast of Moscow, June 1, 2022 (Source: IP)

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

***

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed entitled, “Why Does the Pentagon Give a Helping Hand to Films Like ‘Top Gun’?” by Roger Stahl, a communication studies professor at the University of Georgia and director of the documentary film “Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood.” 

The op-ed pointed out that if a proposed film does not meet with the approval of the Pentagon and the CIA, it will probably not get made. Moreover, according to 30,000 documents from the Department of Defense that Stahl and his team of researchers secured under the Freedom of Information Act, “the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have exercised direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and television shows.”

There is one film from the early 1960s that did not meet with the approval of the Pentagon and the CIA that was nevertheless put into production. That film was entitled Seven Days in May and starred Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Ava Gardner, and Frederic March. You can watch a trailer for the movie here.

The movie is based on the overwhelming power of the U.S. national-security establishment within America’s federal governmental structure. America’s military generals decide that the president is leading America to doom and decide that they have no choice but to remove him from office in order to save the country. The president gets wind of the scheme and moves to foil it. 

As I detail in my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, the movie was based on a novel that had the same title as the movie — Seven Days in May. President Kennedy read the novel and decided that it should be made into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people of the grave danger posed by the national-security establishment. 

Of course, Kennedy was not the first president who issued such a warning. In his Farewell Address, President Eisenhower, the president who preceded JFK, warned the American people of the grave danger to the rights and liberties and democratic processes of the American people posed by the “military-industrial complex,” which was the name he used for the “national-security establishment.” 

In fact, in an earlier draft of his speech, Ike had used the term “military-industrial-congressional complex” to denote the symbiotic relationship between the national-security establishment and the members of Congress. That intimate relationship was most recently demonstrated by the quick passage of the $40 billion aid package that the Pentagon wanted for Ukraine.

In fact, the Founding Fathers felt much the same way. That was why they fiercely opposed“standing armies,” the name they used for a national-security establishment. That was why America did not have a Pentagon, a vast and permanent military-industrial complex and “defense industry,” an empire of foreign military bases, a CIA, or an NSA for more than 125 years. There was a relatively small, basic military force designed primarily to protect settlers from attacks by Native-Americans. 

America’s army was so small that there was no way that the country could get embroiled in the forever wars and conflicts in Europe and Asia. That’s how the American people wanted it. They didn’t want the U.S. military getting America involved in foreign wars. They understood that such wars weakened a nation and also were the prescription for the destruction of liberty and prosperity here at home at the hands of a large, permanent, and ever-growing military-intelligence force. 

If the Constitutional Convention had come out with a proposal for a national-security state that consisted of a Pentagon, a vast and permanent military establishment and “defense” industry, a CIA, and an NSA, there is no doubt that the American people would have soundly defeated it. The last thing our ancestors wanted was the type of government under which Americans live today.

In 1970, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile. As a socialist, he made it clear that he had no interest in joining the U.S. government’s fierce anti-Russia, anti-communist crusade. On the contrary, he reached out to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other communist countries in a spirit of friendly and peaceful coexistence. 

The U.S. national-security establishment, imbued with the same fierce anti-Russia animus that drives it today, deemed Allende to be a grave threat to U.S. national security. Equally important, Allende was deemed to be a grave threat to Chilean national security. Therefore, the U.S. national-security establishment embarked on a course of action designed to convince the Chilean national-security establishment that it had a moral duty to remove the country’s democratically elected president in order to save the country. 

In other words, the mindset of the U.S. national-security establishment was the same mindset depicted in Seven Days in May — the mindset about which Kennedy wanted to warn the American people. 

A big problem arose, however. The overall commander of Chile’s armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, said no. He said that the constitution of Chile did not provide for the violent ouster of the president and, therefore, he would not go along with the scheme.

Consequently, the CIA orchestrated Schneider’s kidnapping and assassination on the streets of Santiago. Once he was removed from the scene, the road was opened to doing what Seven Days in May warned about — the violent removal of Allende from office, followed by round-ups, executions, rapes, torture, or disappearances of tens of thousands of people, including two young American men, Charles Horman and Frank Terrugi.

CIA Director Richard Helms was later summoned to testify before Congress. When asked about CIA involvement in the Chilean coup, he lied under oath by falsely stating that the CIA had played no role in the coup. Perhaps the reason he did that was because the Chilean regime-change operation bore a remarkable similarity to the Kennedy assassination, especially after Kennedy reached out to the Russians and the Cubans in a spirit of friendly and peaceful coexistence, the same thing that Allende would do.

Ironically, Seven Days in May was scheduled to be released at the time Kennedy was assassinated. The release was delayed owing to the assassination. 

Purchase An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story at Amazon.

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Featured image: Burt Lancaster (Source: FFF)

Turkey Spoils the Big NATO Party

June 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Complacency has been the hallmark of NATO expansion.  Over time, it has even become a form of derision, notably directed against Russia.  As with many historical matters, records ignored can be records revisited, the second time around sometimes nastier than the first.

With the Ukraine conflict raging, a few of Russia’s neighbours have reconsidered their position of military non-alignment and neutrality.  Last month, both Sweden and Finland submitted membership applications to formally join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This reconsideration must be taken with the heaviest of qualifications.  Sweden and Finland, while they have claimed neutrality and non-alignment status, have hardly been neutral on the subject of cooperation with NATO.  Since the 1990s, Sweden has become an increasingly important partner of the alliance, using its military in concert with NATO exercises.  Finland, with its 280,000 troops and 900,000 reservists, also boasts an interoperability function with the alliance.

Admission to the security club does, however, come with the requirement of unanimity from current members.  As things would have it, one country has shown little enthusiasm to acquiesce to the plan.  Turkey, at times the large fly in the pact’s ointment, sees an opportunity to extract concessions and muddy the pool of consensus.  With the Russian invasion, the Erdoğan regime has broadened its military and political efforts against its long-term enemies, the Kurds.  Militarily, Turkish forces have intensified efforts in Kurdish-run parts in northeast Syria.  Politically, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hopes to have Sweden and Finland surrender a number of Kurdish dissidents, or terrorists, as he prefers to call them.

The point for Turkey regarding the Kurdish issue is far from new.  In 2009, Erdoğan kicked up a fuss by blocking the appointment of former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO chief, citing Denmark’s sympathies for “Kurdish terrorists”.  He also accused Rasmussen of failing to heed Turkish requests to ban ROJ TV, a Danish-based station linked to the Kurdistan’s Workers’ Party, the PKK.  The appointment did eventually come through after much haggling and a solemn promise from President Barack Obama that a Turk would be given a prominent leadership role.

Be it NATO relations with Israel, efforts to bolster Eastern European states against Moscow, or the acquisition of Russia’s S-400 missile defence system, Erdoğan has proved a determined spoiler.  In 2020, he sorely tested NATO relations by teasing Greece with a gas-exploration ship backed by fighter jet support.  The Oruç Reis was sent to waters in the East Mediterranean claimed by Turkey, with the purpose of exploring hydrocarbon reserves.  France deployed its own ships in support of Greece.  NATO had gotten into a squabble with itself.

The PKK continues its unrelenting guerrilla campaign on behalf of the large Kurdish minority within Turkey, one it has waged since 1984.  While the party is listed as a terrorist group by the EU and the United States, Sweden and Finland have generally opposed extradition of its members and sympathisers.  For its part, Sweden has welcomed somewhere in the order of 100,000 Kurds since the 1970s.  Erdoğan, in typically blunt fashion, has accused Sweden of being a “hatchery” for “terrorist” organisations.

Ankara is also unlikely to have forgotten the condemnation by Finland and Sweden of its military incursion into Syria in 2019, a move that was accompanied by restrictions on weapons sales.

Last month, Turkey’s Justice Ministry noted the rejection by Helsinki and Stockholm of the request “for the extradition of people with links to the PKK and Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ)”.  In terms of numbers, six members of the PKK and six from FETÖ have been sought for the last five years, while a further 21 “suspects” have bulked the list.

The affair has become something of a spectacle.  Sweden has extended an arm to Ankara, hoping to pacify Erdoğan even as he tells members of his Justice and Development Party (AK Party) about the devious way Stockholm and Helsinki have tried to rebrand the PKK in other theatres, such as Syria.

The propitiating move has caused tremors of worry within Sweden.  “If you want to sell everything for NATO membership,” stormed Swedish lawmaker Amineh Kakabaveh, “then go ahead but I think it’s awful.”

A note of determined stroppiness has also been struck.  “Let’s not fall into Erdoğan’s trap,” urged 17 cultural and literary figures in an opinion piece published by Dagens Nyheter.  Other Swedish papers, including Aftonbladet, Expressen and Svenka Dagbladet also ran the piece titled “Do not hand over the publishers to Erdogan!”  The key concern: the demand from Ankara that various journalists, writers and publishers be surrendered to Turkish authorities.

This point is particularly biting, given that many of these figures have become Swedish citizens.  But it is also of concern given Turkey’s notoriously poor record in treating members of the fourth estate.  The stern op-ed recalls “the attacks and assassination attempts against prominent journalists, Can Dündar, in Istanbul, Erk Acarer in Berlin, and Ahmet Dönmez in Stockholm.”

There is a certain irony in the Swedish and Finnish decision, not least in claimed efforts to bolster their security against an authoritarian Russia.  NATO, despite supposedly promoting liberal democratic values, has members (Turkey and Hungary spring to mind) who are much at odds with them.

An authoritarian Turkey, argue the 17 signatories, is fiendishly attempting to insinuate its own values into the Swedish political and legal system.  The Turkish leader’s “political manoeuvre to extradite the people who took refuge in Sweden to be free as an attempt to export his own understanding of freedom of expression to our country, Sweden.”

Despite the tangle, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is convinced “that we will be able to address the concerns that Turkey has expressed in a way that doesn’t delay the membership”.  In the final heave-ho, all eyes will be on what concessions will go Erdoğan’s way.

*

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 frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from InfoRos

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Spoils the Big NATO Party
  • Tags: ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Imran Khan Alleges the US for the Fall of His Government
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sunshine by Day, Water by Night: Indonesia Could Pair Its Vast Solar and Hydro Storage to Decarbonise the Country
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Prepares Launch of Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier on ‘Dragon Boat Festival’

Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was planned with a purpose”

By Stop World Control, June 01, 2022

THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened.

Cases of Brain Damage in Children Skyrocket Following COVID-19 Vaccines

By Brian Shilhavy, June 02, 2022

Weakened hearts, blood clots, and now you can add neurological brain damage to the list of side effects being reported in children following COVID-19 vaccinations. In at least one case, one poor child developed all three conditions.

How the Nixon Doctrine Blew Up the Persian Gulf, Undermined US Security

By David Wight, June 01, 2022

On May 31, 1972, Nixon and the shah privately met at the Saadabad Palace in Tehran. For the first time, Nixon agreed to sell F–14 and F–15 jet fighters and laser-guided bombs, some of the most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal, to Iran. In return, Nixon asked the shah that Iran use these weapons to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region.

EU Commission Studies Price Cap on Imported Russian Gas

By Julianne Geiger, June 01, 2022

The EU has been contemplating a natural-gas price cap to avoid significantly higher costs should Rissia limit or cut off the flow, and to limit profits for Russia—the very country the West is trying to punish for its invasion of Ukraine.

War Within the War: The Fight Over Land and Genetically Engineered Agriculture

By Mitchel Cohen, June 01, 2022

Ten months before Russian troops poured into Ukraine, that country’s President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill into law authorizing the private sale of farmland, reversing a moratorium that had been in place since 2001.

Moldova Goes Full Zelensky: President Sandu Invites Nation’s Destruction!

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, June 01, 2022

The Moldovan parliament is far more powerful than its president as are the constitutional provisions of neutrality. But this does not keep NATO from rabidly salivating to use Moldova as a staging ground from its lair in Romania, a country with its own ulterior motives that historically sees potential war as a cultural and historical opportunity to join with NATO in a quest for expansion back to its former borders.

Charles Ray at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

By Prof. Sam Ben-Meir, June 01, 2022

Throughout his career, Ray has been engaged in a sustained dialogue with the entire history of sculpture, going as far back as ancient Greece; and at the same time, he is immersed in a conversation with America, with its art, and literature, as well as its (homo)social and racial tensions.

Ukraine Fires Own Human Rights Chief for Perpetuating Russian Troop ‘Systematic Rape’ Stories

By Zero Hedge, June 01, 2022

For over the past two months, an avalanche of stories have hit Western mainstream press which purported to document instances of mass rape carried out by Russian troops against Ukrainian civilians. One particular story in Time took off, driving outrage and condemnation by Western officials and receiving repeat coverage on CNN and other major US networks.

IEA: Current Energy Crisis Is “Much Bigger” Than 1970s Oil Crunch

By Charles Kennedy, June 01, 2022

The world faces a “much bigger” energy crisis than the one of the 1970s, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, told German daily Der Spiegel in an interview published on Tuesday.

Monsanto’s Former CEO Testifies in Roundup Trial, Points to EPA Safety Findings

By Carey Gillam, June 01, 2022

Former Monsanto chief Hugh Grant spent several hours on the witness stand on Tuesday – testifying for the first time in front of a jury at a Roundup trial – telling the court repeatedly that global regulators had found no evidence that the company’s herbicides cause cancer.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was planned with a purpose”

Azovstal’s Neo-Nazi Fighters Will be Prosecuted as Criminals

June 2nd, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Recently, Russian troops involved in the special operation in Ukraine gained full control over the entire territory of Azovstal plant, freeing the region from the occupation of neo-Nazi militants and foreign mercenaries. The defeat forced many pro-Kiev fighters to surrender, abandoning their weapons and coming under the tutelage of Russian forces and Donbass militias. Since then, a debate has erupted over what Russian decision would be whether to treat such fighters as military prisoners or as volunteers, excluding them from the norms of humanitarian law. However, Moscow has recently made its position clear.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the Russian government will take a stand to investigate the involvement of the combatants in war crimes. If evidence of participation in illegal activities is found, the prisoners will be put on trial as criminals, following a request previously made by the Donbass authorities for an international tribunal to be established to prosecute neo-Nazi militants who committed massacres in the region.

“Crimes will not go unpunished. The leadership of the Donetsk People’s Republic plans to create an international tribunal on the territory of the republic to try nationalists from Azovstal. Its charter is currently being worked on. We welcome this initiative”, she said.

Previously, the head of the Republic of Donetsk, Denis Pushilin, had stated that a court would be set up with the main objective of making clear to the world the unacceptable crimes committed by neo-Nazi agents, which is why publicity would be heavily worked: “The main task for the tribunal is to be held with maximum publicity, for it to be as transparent as possible. It is very important that as many people as possible are made aware of the unacceptable war crimes of the neo-Nazis”. The court’s charter is currently being prepared by a special committee of different government departments, including the DPR attorney general and Russian legal advisers.

It is important to note that the Ukrainian conflict did not start on February 24, when the Russian operation began, but in 2014, when Kiev launched the first offensives against the Russian-speaking civilian population in the east. Therefore, crimes committed by combatants over the last eight years will be investigated. If evidence of their participation in the bombing of civilian areas, massacres of innocents, torture, collective sexual violence and any other crimes already reported by local authorities is found, their fate will be decided during the trial in the new international court.

As expected, in the West, the repercussion of the news has not been positive, with pro-Kiev agencies adopting a pseudo-humanitarian stance in defense of the prisoners. Over the last week of May, there has been report on some newspapers stating that relatives of the Ukrainian fighters are waiting for news after their surrender, pointing to the “drama of Ukrainian families” who are worried about the fate of their “loved ones” after the trial. Undoubtedly, there is a family drama in every situation of armed conflict and the combatants’ relatives are the ones who suffer the most, but this type of approach is not enough to evaluate what needs to be done to people involved in war crimes.

The reason why a dramatic and pseudo-humanitarian approach has been focused is simple to understand: the West simply has no arguments to oppose the joint decision of Russia and the Donbass’ republics. There is no plausible argument to oppose the trial of neo-Nazi militants accused of war crimes. This is what would happen in any other conflict situation after the fighters responsible for massacres fell into the hands of their enemies. The Russian attitude could be even more radical, subjecting all prisoners to trial, but there is a selection only of neo-Nazis and war criminals, with the Ukrainian military not involved in the crimes being spared and protected by humanitarian law. These conditions are really advantageous for all sides and there is no argument against this, apart from the rhetoric of “family drama”.

On May 28, in a phone call, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz tried to directly advance some negotiations with the Russian government, asking, among other things, that Vladimir Putin order the release of 2,500 of the Azovstal’s “defenders” (as called by western media). The Russian president was attentive to other requests made by the French and German leaders but did not promise any decision contrary to the one announced by spokeswoman Zakharova some days earlier, delegating responsibility for the trial of the prisoners to the court organized by the DPR.

Given the current scenario, the best thing for the West is to negotiate the sending of observers to ensure fair compliance with the rules that will be established for the court. Paramilitary volunteers, according to international law, cannot be protected by humanitarian norms, so there is nothing Kiev can claim in this case.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Protect me,” President Richard Nixon implored the shah of Iran 50 years ago. In asking this, Nixon initiated a doctrine bearing his name in the Persian Gulf that, while often relegated as a relic of the 1970s, in fact continues to guide U.S. policy toward the region to this day, despite being a strategic and humanitarian disaster.

On May 31, 1972, Nixon and the shah privately met at the Saadabad Palace in Tehran. For the first time, Nixon agreed to sell F–14 and F–15 jet fighters and laser-guided bombs, some of the most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal, to Iran. In return, Nixon asked the shah that Iran use these weapons to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region.

With the ability of the United States to commit troops abroad constrained by the Vietnam War, Nixon pressed allies around the world to accept a greater share of the military defense burdens of the Cold War, a strategy dubbed the Nixon Doctrine. Nixon viewed Iran as the ideal partner in the Persian Gulf to counter growing Soviet influence in neighboring countries given the shah’s close ties with the United States and rising Iranian oil revenues.

The shah, who dreamed of establishing Iran as the unrivaled military power of the Persian Gulf, embraced the Nixon Doctrine, initiating a massive arms export race in the troubled region that continues to this day.

Earlier in the Cold War the United States had coordinated with the United Kingdom and France to limit the sale of weapons to states in the Persian Gulf, including Iran. Through the 1960s the U.S. government restricted the number of arms it would sell to Iran out of concern that the shah, if left unchecked, would spend too much on foreign weapons at the expense of developing Iran’s economy, endangering Iranians’ support for the monarch.

After his meeting with the shah in May, 1972, Nixon ordered the U.S. government to abandon its policy of arms sales restraint to Iran. From 1970 to 1974, U.S. arms and military services and construction sales agreements with Iran increased twenty-three-fold. Into the late 1970s the shah continued his expensive purchases, including scores of F–14s, four state-of-the-art missile destroyers, and seven high-tech AWACS surveillance aircraft.

Iran’s massive military buildup spurred an arms race in the Persian Gulf. Iraq, responding to Iran’s growing strength and its provision of weapons to Iraqi Kurdish rebels, increased its acquisition of arms from the Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia, reacting to Iraq’s growing armed forces, rapidly increased its purchases of U.S. weapons, including 60 F–15 jet fighters in 1978.

But in early 1979 the shah was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution, replaced by the fiercely anti-American Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Many Iranians revolted against the shah in large part due to their sense that he had spent lavishly on U.S. weapons (that were then turned against them) but failed to invest in programs that would improve the quality of life for most Iranians, a theme Khomeini regularly turned to in his revolutionary speeches. The Nixon Doctrine had helped to change Iran from an ally to an adversary of the United States.

Despite the shah’s fall, the United States doubled down on the Nixon Doctrine, hoping arms sales to Arab allies could contain Iran. Saudi royals likewise pressed hard for more U.S. weapons to defend themselves against the new anti-monarchical government in Iran that was armed to the teeth with U.S. weapons and promising to export Islamist revolutions abroad.

While the Iranian Revolution at the start of 1979 had shocked Riyadh and Washington, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the end of that year triggered full on panic. In response, President Jimmy Carter declared that “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region… will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force,” and ordered a buildup of U.S. forces in and around the Persian Gulf.

This Carter Doctrine has often been characterized as the end of the Nixon Doctrine in the Persian Gulf, as the Carter Doctrine emphasized the use of U.S. armed forces, rather than the militaries of local allies as per the Nixon Doctrine, to defend the region. In truth, however, the two doctrines worked in tandem, with a heavy initial reliance on the Nixon Doctrine. The deployment of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf moved slowly in the first half of the 1980s. In contrast, from 1979 to 1984 over a quarter of the value of all U.S. arms and military services and construction sales agreements to other countries were made with Saudi Arabia.

In 1980 the eight year-long Iran-Iraq War began, further destabilizing the Persian Gulf. The enormous scale of the conflict’s violence was made possible by the arms buildups of the two countries driven by the Nixon Doctrine during the 1970s. Furthermore, in a twist on the Nixon Doctrine, Washington supported unprecedented arms sales from the Soviet Union and France to Iraq to check the power of Iran. Iran, meanwhile, obtained U.S. weapons on the black market. The war contributed to higher global oil prices, drew the U.S. military more deeply into the Persian Gulf, and killed roughly 750,000 people.

The U.S. military’s interventions in the 1991 Gulf War and 2003 invasion of Iraq, with their large deployments of U.S. combat troops, marked Washington’s furthest deviation from the Nixon Doctrine in the Persian Gulf. Yet both wars increased the relative regional power of Iran by degrading Iraq’s ability and willingness to counter Iranian power, and as the Iraq War dragged on for years, American support for large-scale deployments of U.S. troops to warzones largely dissipated. These factors led Washington to turn again to the Nixon Doctrine, with the United States selling unprecedented numbers of weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates so they could independently counter Iran militarily. This included a record $60 billion arms sale package to Saudi Arabia in 2010.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates used the flow of U.S. arms to launch their misguided invasion of Yemen, a country in which they aimed to preserve their influence at the expense of Iran. The Obama and Trump administrations assisted them with a massive resupply of weapons; from 2015 to 2019 Saudi Arabia received a quarter of all U.S. arms exports. The Biden administration has also offered advanced U.S. weapons, albeit with some new restrictions, to the Saudis and Emiratis.

Yet again, the Nixon Doctrine harmed U.S. interests and the people of the Middle East. The war in Yemen has killed an estimated quarter of a million people and pushed more than half of Yemen’s population into acute levels of food insecurity. The Saudi-led intervention has actually increased Iranian influence in Yemen and inflamed anti-American sentiment there due to the many Yemenis killed by U.S. munitions.

The sale of countless advanced weapons to Persian Gulf countries under the logic of the Nixon Doctrine has produced repeated humanitarian and strategic disasters. After 50 years, it is critical that the United States end its role in the arms races of the Persian Gulf and to instead recommit itself to negotiating multilateral agreements on reducing weapons sales and regional military buildups.

*

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: President Nixon chats with the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the Oval Office, July 24, 1973 (Photo: Nixon library)

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The European Commission will look into setting a price cap on imported Russian natural gas, Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Draghi said on Tuesday.

“The Commission received a mandate to study the feasibility of a gas price cap,” Draghi told reporters after today’s summit in Brussels.

The European Union leaders agreed to cut Russian crude oil imports by as much as 90 percent by the end of this year, setting out first to target crude oil shipments via tankers. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic are exempt from the embargo.

The EU has been contemplating a natural-gas price cap to avoid significantly higher costs should Rissia limit or cut off the flow, and to limit profits for Russia—the very country the West is trying to punish for its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s Gazprom has already cut off gas supplies to Dutch GasTerra, Denmark’s Orsted, and Shell Energy for its supply contract with Germany, as those companies have refused to pay Gazprom in rubles per the latest mandate. Gazprom’s move to cut off gas supplies was largely expected. Russia has also cut off natural gas shipments to Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland due to their refusal to pay in rubles.

Germany, Italy, and France, however, all are willing to comply with Russia’s demand for payment in rubles, as they have found few alternatives to the large amount of Russian gas that they currently rely on.

Billionaire investor George Soros cautioned Europe last week to hold its nerve, citing Russia’s nearly full gas storage and lack of outlets for its gas beyond Europe.

Europe may have finally agreed on a Russian oil embargo that will take many months to enact, and is considering gas price caps to limit the amount of funding the EU provides to Russia as it continues its invasion of Ukraine—but the timeline thus far has not impressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The EU sends hundreds of billions of dollars each year to Russia in compensation for Russian natural gas.

*

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.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

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

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

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

***

Soon we shall be covered by wheat.
Did you say, wheat?

Wheat, wheat.

– from Woody Allen’s “Love and Death”[1]

Ten months before Russian troops poured into Ukraine, that country’s President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill into law authorizing the private sale of farmland, reversing a moratorium that had been in place since 2001.

An earlier administration in Ukraine had instituted the moratorium in order to halt further privatization of The Commons and small farms, which were being bought up by oligarchs and concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. As documented in a series of critical reports over ten years by the Oakland Institute based in California, the moratorium on land sales in Ukraine aimed to prevent the acquisition and consolidation of farmland in the hands of the domestic oligarch class and foreign corporations.

The marketization of farmland is part of a series of policy “reforms” that the International Monetary Fund stipulated as a precondition enabling Ukraine to receive $8 billion in loans from the IMF.[2]

Ukrainians protest privatization of land in December 2020. [Source: oaklandinstitute.org]

Even amid the pandemic there has been “wide-ranging opposition from the Ukrainian public to reversing that ban, with over 64 percent of the people opposed to the creation of a land market, according to an April 2021 poll.”[3]

Additionally, the IMF loan conditions required that Ukraine must also reverse its ban on genetically engineered crops, and enable private corporations like Monsanto to plant its GMO seeds and spray the fields with Monsanto’s Roundup. In that way, Monsanto hopes to break the boycott by a number of countries in Europe of its genetically engineered corn and soy.

It is the thesis of this essay that agricultural competition over land use between the U.S. and Russia—two gigantic capitalist countries with the most powerful nuclear arsenals in the world—is a neglected but important force driving the war in Ukraine.

*

The U.S. government has for the last decade wrestled with Russia over who controls the energy pipelines through Ukraine into Europe, and in what currency costs for that so-called “natural” gas and oil are to be paid. At the same time, the war’s disruption of Ukraine’s wheat harvest and the historic droughts hitting the U.S.’s “wheat belt” have driven the cost of bread around the world through the roof. United Nations officials are making dire predictions concerning the world’s supply of grain.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, world food commodity prices made a significant leap in March 2022 to reach their highest levels ever, rising 12.6% in that month alone as war in the Black Sea region shocked the markets dependent on staple grains and vegetable oils.[4] Global wheat prices rose by 19.7%, vegetable oil by 23.2%, and grains 20.4%. In Tunisia and in other countries, cooking oil, semolina, and rice have all but disappeared from grocery stores, and flour shortages have led to a run on bakeries.[5]

In the Middle East, millions who already spend more than a third of their income on food, are being hit hardest by the war’s impact on the global food supply. Yet UN agencies have begun to divert sacks of grain that had been earmarked for other war zones to the Ukraine, leaving the people of Yemen and refugees from many areas in desperation.[6]

In peaceful times Ukraine harvests 80 million metric tons (MMT) of grain—a category that includes wheat, corn, barley, rice and millet. Between them Russia and Ukraine supply more than 25% of the world’s wheat. Russia recently overtook the U.S. and Canada to become the leading wheat-exporting country in the world; Ukraine is the world’s 6th largest exporter of wheat.

But this year, Ukraine’s harvest will likely reach less than half the norm. “A single MMT of wheat…is enough to feed every person in Europe for about two days, or the entire population of Africa for about a day and a half.…A country like the UK could only make it up by having everyone stop eating for three years. That’s the thing about tonnes of grain: a million here and a million there and pretty soon you’ve got a real issue on your plate.”[7]

People in France or Italy were never expecting to have any Ukrainian wheat shipped to them at all; but they are now competing against Egyptians and Moroccans, who are now suddenly looking for new sources of bread.[8]

The grains are not only used for bread and flour, but also for alcohol, fuel, and for feeding animals.[9] With more than half the tonnage grown in Ukraine last year never intended to be used for direct human consumption, shortages will impact other parts of the economy too.[10]

The Communist Party of Greece points out that “the military conflict in Ukraine is the result of the sharpening of competition between the two warring camps, primarily focused on spheres of influence, market shares, raw materials, energy plans and transport routes; competition which can no longer be resolved by diplomatic-political means and fragile compromises.”[11]

How much of the predicted food system collapse is a result of the war’s disruption of grain harvests, and—a question few in the U.S. mainstream media are asking—how much are skyrocketing food prices caused by plain old capitalist rivalry between two of the main grain-exporting countries of the world?

Competing systems for growing crops

U.S. agriculture relies on two main inputs: migrant farm labor and the monocropping of genetically engineered corn, soy, and other crops designed to tolerate—and thus be saturated with—Monsanto’s cancer-causing herbicide Roundup. The government’s regulatory process is broken, if it ever worked properly at all: Corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, Novartis, BASF and the other pesticide and pharmaceutical manufacturers are allowed to mask the truth about the dangers of their products.

They are facilitated in this by the complicity of federal (and global) regulatory agencies, allowing them to intentionally thwart the Precautionary Principle. Where the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown, that product or process should be rejected. We need to support the development of international movements opposing the subservience of government agencies to the giant corporations.[12]

Source: transcend.org

Six years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to seize economic opportunities around the growing of food by opposing genetically engineered agriculture and Monsanto’s Roundup, the world’s most widely used herbicide; he initiated a program to eliminate pesticides and genetically engineered crops from Russia’s fields. The goal was to out-compete the U.S. and Canada as the world’s number one and two grain exporters by going organic, which mattered especially in Europe with its stricter laws regarding the import and planting of GMOs.

Monsanto had planned to open its first plant in Russia,[13] but in June 2016 Russia’s State Duma adopted a government bill banning the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified plants and animals, except as used for scientific research purposes.[14] A few weeks later, Putin signed federal law No. 358 prohibiting cultivation of genetically engineered crops. The law also made it illegal to breed genetically engineered animals on the territory of the Russian Federation.[15]

Putin had said he envisioned a future in which Russia would become “the world’s largest supplier of ecologically clean and high-quality organic food.”[16] He called on the country to become completely self-sufficient in food production: “We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources; Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthful, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing.”[17]

The 2016 laws were designed to implement Putin’s earlier proposals “to protect the Russian market and consumers from GMO products, as their use could have unforeseen consequences.”[18]

As reported in Farmers Weekly in June 2015, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich announced that Russia would not use GM technology to increase productivity in agriculture. “Russia has chosen a different path. We will not use these technologies,” Dvorkovich said.

As a result of this decision, Russian products will be “some of the cleanest in the world in terms of technology use,” Dvorkovich continued. A bill for a full ban on the cultivation of GM crops is currently making its way through the Duma.[19]

Farmers Weekly continues: “Russian agriculture minister Nikolai Fyodorov also believes Russia must remain a GM-free country. At a meeting of deputies representing rural areas organized by United Russia, he said the government will not ‘poison their citizens.’”[20] United Russia is Russia’s largest political party, holding 2/3 of the seats in the state Dumas.

This was a far different response than provided by the government of Ukraine. Despite large protests against GMOs and the foreign corporate land grab, and despite the fact that Ukrainian law had prohibited private sector farmland ownership, Ukraine’s government negotiated a multi-billion dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund that stipulated a removal of the blocks to GMO production that was “transforming millions of pristine acres into [a] poisoned wasteland. Eco-genocide for profit. Monsanto’s dirty hands are hugely involved.”[21]

Ukraine’s agricultural success is crucial for its economy and ability to reduce its dependence on Russia, the New York TImes explained in May 2014. The Times continued:

““Western interests are pressing for change… As part of (an IMF loan agreement), the country’s government must push through business reforms that” let agribusiness and other corporate sectors operate freely.

In a recent article for The Real Agenda News, Luis R. Miranda takes it a step further: “Big multinationals want to exploit Ukraine’s potential. Especially Europe’s richest farmland.”

In retaliation for Western sanctions over the Ukraine crisis back in August 2015, Russia extended its list of countries that it would subject to a food import ban.[23] Far from the sanctions hurting Russia’s economy, as Monsanto and other pesticide-producing corporations expected (and hoped), over the decade Russia succeeded in its plan to become the world’s number one exporter of wheat and other grains. Putin claimed that Russia’s success in that regard was due in part to the preference of much of the world for non-GMO food.[24]

Russia emerged as a top grain exporter because of the world’s preference for non-GMO food. [Source: youtube.com]

The United States, on the other hand, uses genetically engineered crops (and now trees), and the pesticides and fertilizer they require, as weapons, breaking up the indigenous communities in Mexico, for example, disrupting the economies of other countries and forcing them into dependency.[25] Even U.S. food aid to the victims of the tsunamis in the South Pacific and to earthquake victims in Pakistan and Haiti was genetically engineered and saturated with pesticides. One result of the U.S. “police action” in Somalia in 1992 was the imposition of thousands of acres of genetically modified cassava, uprooting local communities.[26]

In the last 30 years, the takeover of domestic agriculture by GMO crops has been part of U.S. war efforts. Following the U.S. “shock-and-awe” bombing of Iraq in 2003, L. Paul Bremer—the U.S.-appointed administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq—issued Order 81. Officially titled “Amendments to Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law,” the edict prohibited farmers from saving seeds from genetically engineered crops, and made it illegal for them to replant those seeds, thereby serving as enforcer of Monsanto’s patents.

Bremer’s edict was part and parcel of the IMF’s “structural adjustment program” (SAP)—the subject of major protests in Ukraine 11 years later in 2014. The IMF’s SAPs mandated the purchase and planting of Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds as part of its requirement before allowing for the ending of military hostilities, opening up Iraqi agriculture to the cultivation of GMO crops.[27]

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the author of much of U.S. foreign policy, portrayed American aid this way: “To give food aid to a country just because they are starving is a pretty weak reason.”[28] For Kissinger, the withholding of food as well as its selective distribution is to be used as a weapon in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives.

And so, the United States systematically dumps cheap genetically engineered products saturated with pesticides on foreign markets, undermining local producers and forcing them to purchase the patented seeds from the company manufacturing them, along with the pesticides needed to kill off the plants’ weedy competitors.[29] Uprooted from their lands, local producers become dependent on the United States and its corporations, and many try to flee across the border to the United States.

In his 2001 book, A Cook’s Tour, chef Anthony Bourdain presented a very unexpected take on Kissinger, one worth savoring:

“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia—the fruits of his genius for statesmanship—and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević.”[30]

One note on Milošević and Kissinger: As brilliant a quote as this is by Anthony Bourdain, to compare Milošević with mass-murderer Henry Kissinger is an error. Milošević was posthumously cleared of all crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which after his death ruled in 2016—contrary to years of U.S. and particularly Germany’s denunciations—that there was no evidence that Milošević had “participated in the realization of the common criminal objective” and that he “and other Serbian leaders openly criticized Bosnian Serb leaders of committing crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing and the war for their own purposes” during the Bosnian War.[31]

With the advent and proliferation of genetically modified crops in the 1980s—a technology intimately tied to the widespread application of pesticides and in particular Monsanto’s Roundup—the tentacles of globalization expanded outward into control of the world’s food supply. Those private commercial patents were (and continue to be) enforced by U.S. military power.

And so, Leticia Gonçalves, for ten years the head of Monsanto’s operations in Europe and the Middle East, was not worrying over the new Russian anti-GMO and pesticides laws. “We still believe that Ukraine and Russia both are long-term opportunities for our business and we want to make sure we are in a position to accelerate our business growth despite the short-term geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges,” she said.[32]

Such longer term strategic views are not usually part of U.S. thinking; they might more readily be associated with China’s command-economy strategists, who plan ahead for 20, 50, and even 100 years. And yet, here we see a shift within capitalist planning. Today, Gonçalves oversees leading GMO exporter Archer Daniels Midland’s ancient grains, seeds and edible beans, and is a member of ADM’s Executive Council.

Monsanto Is the Devil and the Devil Must Be Slain. But It’s Not the Only One

In the U.S., powerful figures such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, former President Barack Obama, and current President Joe Biden have rejected the demands of the anti-GMO coalitions.

A picture containing text, person, outdoor, building Description automatically generated

Reverend Billy Talen, Savitri B. and the Church of Stop Shopping Choir. [Source: Photo courtesy of Mitchel Cohen]

Fed up with the pharmaceutical/agribusiness company lies, movements like “Millions Against Monsanto,” networks like the “Organic Consumers Association,” dynamic “artivists” such as Rev. Billy and his “Church of Stop Shopping Choir” (whose performances of “Monsanto Is the Devil” galvanized New York audiences for weeks on end), and the movement for community-supported agriculture coalesced family farmers and anti-corporate activists.

They exposed the government agencies’ revolving door—an arrangement whereby the giant agriculture and pharmaceutical corporations place their hirelings onto U.S. regulatory boards such as the Food and Drug Administration. Monsanto’s lackeys in government write their own laws and block even tepid demands for labeling of GMO products, at Monsanto’s behest.[33]

March against Monsanto in Vancouver in 2013. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Billionaire Bill Gates—a major investor in Monsanto and proponent of genetic engineering (as well as experimental vaccines in the so-called “Third World”)—seized the opportunities he envisioned (and created) regarding a future of massive food shortages in global grain production, that we are seeing today; Gates began buying up acre after acre of farmland on which to grow GM crops.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used taxpayer money to stomp all over the world promoting Monsanto’s controversial GM seeds; she mouthed the industry’s talking points as though they were gospel.[34] The Clinton State Department intervened at Monsanto’s request “to undermine legislation that might restrict sales of genetically engineered seeds.”[35]

Source: snopes.com

Clinton was so gung-ho in promoting GMOs that Mother Jones writer Tom Philpott called her department “the de facto global-marketing arm of the ag-biotech industry.” Meanwhile, Gates has become the largest private individual owner of farmland in the U.S. and Clinton, while losing her campaign for the U.S. presidency to Donald Trump in 2016, received hundreds of thousands of dollars from GMO manufacturers for speeches she delivered.[36]

Key pieces of information regarding the U.S. government’s worldwide pressure tactics (including the use of its military) on behalf of Monsanto’s patented seeds exploded onto the internet via thousands of cables “liberated” by current political prisoner Julian Assange. The cables Assange published—some of which I have described in more detail in “‘The World’s Most Evil Company’ May Lose a Few Court Fights—But Will Keep On Poisoning and Killing Millions of People with Its Carcinogenic Pesticide Roundup,’”[37]—revealed massive U.S. government attempts on behalf of Monsanto and the other biotech corporations, twisting arms of government regulatory bodies throughout the world, along with planting its agents in movements to squelch opposition to GMOs.

The cables showed U.S. diplomats bringing financial, diplomatic, and even military pressure on behalf of Monsanto and other biotech corporations.

Source: Courtesy of John Jonik

Where Is Nestor Makhno Now That We Really Need Him?

Back in Europe, Monsanto’s Leticia Gonçalves was counting on Russia being forced to yield its opposition to Monsanto and support for organic agriculture; inter-capitalist rivalries and the U.S. military (and its control of NATO) would put the squeeze on Putin’s anti-Monsanto bluster, and make the world—or at least Russia—safe for Monsanto’s Democracy. And it appears she was right. By the end of February 2017, less than two years after Russia banned the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and animals, the first Monsanto factory was nevertheless allowed to open in the Kirov region near the village of October (Zuyevsky District).

“We have been waiting for Monsanto on the Kirov lands for a long time and have been working systematically for several years,” said marketing expert Igor Vasilyev, who now serves as the Governor of the region. Its former governor, Nikita Belykh, is a “liberal” in the Russian context—a long-time critic of Vladimir Putin and at least in theory a supporter of more human rights in Russia.

But Belykh allowed himself to be appointed by Putin to government office in the Kirov area 500 miles away from his home in Moscow where, according to Russian scientist Boris Ikhlov, writing from the State University of Perm, Belykh brokered the deal allowing Monsanto to set up shop in Russia.[38] Belykh was arrested in 2016 and has been serving an eight-year prison sentence for accepting a large cash bribe.

A number of Russian intellectuals understandably merge their opposition to Putin’s rule with involvement in “human rights” groups, but they do not stop there. They also bring into the ideological mix ardent support for neoliberal “progress,” as exemplified by their applause for Monsanto and the genetic engineering of agriculture.

According to Ikhlov, the liberal intelligentsia “sought to re-assure the Russian people that GMOs are safe and challenged the government’s anti-GMO policies.…Russian supporters of GMOs cite a list of hundreds of works in which the harmlessness of GMOs is allegedly proved. The list is on the Internet, but there is no text of any of these works. I wrote a letter to the Italian authors of this list, asking them to give me a link where I could find out more about each scientific article from the list. The Italians gave me a link, and it turned out that in this list there is not a single work dedicated to proving the harmlessness of GMOs.”[39]

Ikhlov illustrates the case of a member of the board of a main “human rights” organization funded by U.S. “donations,” who was a proponent of expanded civil liberties in Russia and who at the same time tied his critique of Putin’s human rights policies to supporting Monsanto’s biotechnologically engineered seeds and privatization of agriculture. (I have removed his name and affiliation, as well as other examples that Ikhlov provided, awaiting independent confirmation.) Many liberal Russian intellectuals, Ikhlov says, ended up supporting the Zelensky government in Kyiv, which today has strong ties to Monsanto despite public protests for many years against it.

Convoluted? Yes. Especially as the politics of neoliberalism express themselves through what at first may seem to be “human and scientific progress” in biotechnology and opposition to centralized political rule. So how can we disentangle these threads? Looking at the reality of the institutions of global capitalist domination—imperialism—should help.

“The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is [sic] helping biotech run the latest war in Ukraine,” writes Christina Sarich in Natural Society. “Make no mistake that what is happening in the Ukraine now is deeply tied to the interests of Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and other big players in the poison food game.”[40]

Exposed by the California-based Oakland Institute in 2014, the World Bank and IMF provided a loan of $17 billion to Ukraine.[41]

Hidden from mainstream media exposure in the U.S., the World Bank and IMF loan “has opened up Ukraine to major corporate inroads,” writes Joyce Nelson in The Ecologist. “Loan conditions are forcing the deeply indebted country to open up to GMO crops, and lift the ban on private sector land ownership. U.S. corporations are jubilant at the ‘goldmine’ that awaits them.”[42]

It is worth reading more from this 2014 report in The Ecologist—years before Russia sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022. The information provided is shocking—and unreported here in the U.S. While some in the U.S. understand that the 2014 political battles in Ukraine were over the expansion of NATO and control over energy pipelines to Europe,[43] there was, and still is, an equally large but hidden global battle over GM grains, land ownership and usage, and “food pipelines.”

In late 2013, the then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected a European Union association agreement tied to the $17 billion IMF loan, whose terms are only now being revealed.

Writing in The Ecologist in September 2014, Joyce Nelson examines the IMF-Ukraine loan packages in great detail. The next few paragraphs below are taken directly from that report:

Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth $15 billion plus a discount on Russian natural gas. His decision was a major factor in the ensuing deadly protests that led to his ouster from office in February 2014 and the ongoing crisis.

According to the Oakland Institute,

“Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, Article 404 of the EU agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies.

“There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, ‘Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont.’”

Ukrainian law bars farmers from growing GM crops. Long considered “the bread basket of Europe,” Ukraine’s rich black soil is ideal for growing grains, and in 2012 Ukrainian farmers harvested more than 20 million tons of corn.”

Monsanto’s “non-GMO” $140m investment

The excerpt here from Joyce Nelson’s Ecologist article, concludes with: In May 2013, Monsanto announced plans to invest $140 million in a non-GMO corn seed plant in Ukraine, with Monsanto Ukraine spokesman Vitaliy Feschuk confirming that “We will be working with conventional seeds only” because “in Ukraine only conventional seeds are allowed for production and importation.”

But by November 2013, six large Ukrainian agriculture associations had prepared draft amendments to the law, pushing for “creating, testing, transportation and use of GMOs regarding the legalization of GM seeds.”[44]

The Oakland Institute report and Nelson’s story in The Ecologist are devastating, and reveal what (to us) are the intense intra-capitalist rivalries that have exploded into open warfare in Ukraine.

Nor does it end there. The U.S. non-profit Food & Water Watch combed through five years of cables from 2005 to 2009 released by WikiLeaks revealing U.S. State Department pressuring governments worldwide on behalf of Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations like DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow. On May 14, 2013, it released its report, “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda.”[45]:

“The U.S. State Department has lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology, and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules – even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-engineered (GE) foods.”

According to consortiumnews.com (March 16, 2014), Morgan Williams is at “the nexus of Big Ag’s alliance with U.S. foreign policy.”[46]

Besides being president and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams is Director of Government Affairs at private equity firm SigmaBleyzer, which touts Williams’ work with “various agencies of the U.S. government, members of Congress, congressional committees, the Embassy of Ukraine to the U.S., international financial institutions, think tanks and other organizations on U.S.-Ukraine business, trade, investment and economic development issues.”

The U.S.-Ukraine Business Council’s 16-member Executive Committee is packed with U.S. agribusiness companies, including representatives from Monsanto, John Deere, DuPont Pioneer, Eli Lilly, and Cargill.

The Council’s 20 “senior Advisers include James Greene (former head of NATO Liaison Office Ukraine); Ariel Cohen (Senior Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation); Leonid Kozachenko (President of the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation); six former U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine, and the former ambassador of Ukraine to the U.S., Oleh Shamshur.

Shamshur is now a senior adviser to PBN Hill + Knowlton Strategies—a unit of PR giant Hill + Knowlton Strategies (H+K). H + K is a subsidiary of the gargantuan London-based WPP Group, which owns some dozen big PR firms, including Burson-Marsteller (a long-time Monsanto adviser).[47]

Hill + Knowlton, one might recall, orchestrated the phony “incubator” testimony to Congress in 1990, which became the pretext for sending thousands of U.S. soldiers into battle and bombing the hell out of Iraq. The PR firm invented the infamous yellow ribbon campaign, to whip up support for “our” troops. In pure advertising terms, the war campaign was a public relations masterpiece. First 15-year-old Nayirah’s unchallenged testimony about having witnessed babies pulled from incubators and left on the floor, then the yellow ribbon campaign, and then the claim that satellite photos revealed that Iraq had troops poised to strike Saudi Arabia—all fabricated by the PR firm, with the support of the U.S. government.[48]

As I wrote at that time in HOW PROPAGANDA WORKS, 101: Yellow-Ribboning the Lies: How George Bush Sold the 1991 Bombing of Iraq to America,[49] Hill + Knowlton was paid between $12 million (as reported two years later on 60 Minutes) and $20 million (as reported on 20/20) for “services rendered” for its Iraq fictions. The group fronting the money? Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a phony “human rights agency” set up and funded entirely by Kuwait’s emirocracy to promote the war to a gullible U.S. population.

Yet, even though these facts are now well known, the myths persist, and are reinforced in order to continue the perpetual drumbeat of war against Iraq, and now against Russia and Ukraine. (“Oh, but this time it’s different,” we’re told.) A 2003 HBO “behind-the-scenes true story” of the Gulf War never makes clear that the incubator story was fraudulent, and in fact had been managed by an American PR firm, not Iraq.

Poster promoting “Free Kuwait” movement. [Source: psywarrior.com]

“Curiously, however, the truth seems to have been clear to Robert Wiener, the former CNN producer who co-wrote Live from Baghdad. As he explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (11/21/02), ‘That story turned out to be false because those accusations were made by the daughter of the Kuwaiti minister of information and were never proven.’ Unfortunately, HBO viewers won’t know that when they see the film.”[50]

“[W]hen Hill + Knowlton masterminded the Kuwaiti campaign to sell the Gulf War to the American public, the owners of this highly effective propaganda machine were residing in another country,” the United Kingdom, writes Sharon Beder and Richard Gosden in PR Watch. “Should this give some pause for thought? Does it demonstrate a certain potential for the future exercise of global political power…. the power to manipulate democratic political processes through managing public opinion”?[51]

Hill + Knowlton demonstrated 31 years ago that, when it comes to facts, the truth can be bought and sold to the highest bidder regardless of the consequences for U.S. soldiers, Iraqi civilians and indeed the idea of whether real democracy could exist under such manipulative circumstances.[52]

Hill + Knowlton Strategies

Joyce Nelson continues in The Ecologist, noting that on April 15, 2014, Toronto’s Globe and Mail newspaper published an op-ed piece by H+K assistant consultant Olga Radchenko. The piece railed against Russian President Vladimir Putin and “Mr. Putin’s PR machine” and stated that

“Last month [March 2014—a month after the coup], a group of Kiev-based PR professionals formed the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, a voluntary operation aimed at helping to communicate Ukraine’s image and manage its messaging on the global stage.”

The PBN Hill + Knowlton Strategies website states that company CEO Myron Wasylyk is “a Board member of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council,” and the company’s Managing Director/Ukraine, Oksana Monastyrska, “leads the firm’s work for Monsanto.” Monastyrska also formerly worked for the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation.

According to the Oakland Institute, the terms of the World Bank/IMF loan to Ukraine have already led to “an increase in foreign investment, which is likely to result in further expansion of large-scale acquisitions of agricultural land by foreign companies and further corporatization of agriculture in the country.”

Nelson concludes her absolutely crucial 2014 investigative report in The Ecologist with the following prescient warning:

“Now the company is involved in fomenting a Cold War 2 or worse, and on behalf of Monsanto—recently voted the ‘most evil’ corporation on the planet. That’s something to recall in the midst of the extensive mainstream media demonizing of Putin.[53]

War

Russia’s military incursion into Ukraine has both obscured and heightened the competition between the GMO/non-GMO modalities for the export of grains and the use of vast acreage of land for GMO cultivation, just as it is a direct outgrowth of the more obvious fight between the U.S. and Russia over who controls the energy pipelines to Europe.[54]

One important consequence of the U.S.’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—the administration of sanctions on Russia accepted by many countries in Europe, but not in Asia or South America—is the driving up of the costs of fuel, fertilizer, pasta and bread throughout the world, as well as increasing farmers’ economic insecurities which threaten consistent and dependable food production. Add to that, perhaps, the recent explosions, fires, and plane crashes at nearly two dozen food processing facilities across Canada and the U.S.[55]

Source: bnnbloomberg.ca]

Also driving up prices in the U.S. are large, sudden and unexpected mandates reducing available railroad transport of nitrogen fertilizers, diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) and other farm-related materiel, just in time for spring planting season.[56]

Russia, which manufactures much of the world’s fertilizer (estimated at 25%), derives it—along with the energy pipelined to Europe—from fracked “natural” gas. Fracking—banned now in New York State, but not in Pennsylvania or in other states—is as environmentally destructive in Russia as it is everywhere else.[57]

There was a moment a few years ago when things might have gone differently when, along with the marketing of organic foods, came opposition to the use of synthetic fertilizer and pesticides (part of the definition of what in Europe is meant by what it means to be “organic”). But with Russia now as fully invested in “mainstream” corporate agricultural technology as the U.S., that hope is greatly diminished.

Sanctions’ Unexpected Consequences

On March 27, 2020, Russia’s Minister of Agriculture signed Order #160 that establishes a process for registering genetically engineered (GE) events for feed use “making it possible for those events to be imported after registration.”

However, the existing mechanism for registration of GE products for food use is still in effect. As of October, 2020 Russia continues to ban cultivating and breeding GE plants and animals.[58]

Still, in Russia, just as it is in the U.S., the ideology of industrial modernization is disguised as “progress.” Individuals and social movements are portrayed as “anti-progress,” which trivializes opposition to the imposition of the IMF’s neoliberal structural adjustment programs. Today in Russia food regulation is virtually non-existent. Sausages, fish, mineral water, wines, chocolate and even bread are adulterated.[59] Diabetes is rampant. And the liberal intelligentsia use the cover of “scientific progress” to dispense support for Monsanto and its genetically modified agriculture—a hallmark of the IMF’s structural adjustment programs.

United Nations World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley, who oversees international aid to refugees, warns that his agency is out of money. “We need a billion dollars for the next six months and we have just a little over 10 percent of that,” he warns.[60]

That is an amount that the wealthier countries of the world could make up in a heartbeat … if they really cared about the suffering of people in Ukraine, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere. It is chicken feed compared to the amounts President Biden has asked Congress to provide. They could end this war (and most wars, such as the bombing of Yemen) on the spin of a dime, instead of perpetuating it.

But they would rather keep the fight going over who controls the energy pipelines to Europe, as well as whether to allow genetically engineered crops in Ukraine—among other decisions and actions that Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. have been dancing to.

In June 2020, “the IMF approved an 18-month, $5 billion loan program with Ukraine,” writes the Bretton Woods Project. The Ukraine government lift[ed] the 19-year moratorium on the sale of state-owned agricultural lands, after sustained pressure from international finance institutions (see Observer Winter 2019). Olena Borodina with the Ukrainian Rural Development Network commented that, “the agribusiness interests and oligarchs will be the primary beneficiaries of such reform…[This] will only further marginalize smallholder farmers and risks severing them from their most valuable resource.”[61]

Ukraine saw several large protests against the privatization of its land and agriculture.

A bill lifting the moratorium was passed in an emergency Parliamentary session in March. According to a May press release by U.S.-based think-tank the Oakland Institute, this coincided with mandatory Covid-19 stay-at-home orders in place across the country, “effectively quelling potential protests or demonstrations.”

U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia reflect the return of U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s geo-political Cold War strategems—what he termed the “Grand Chessboard.”[62] While Ukraine’s Zelensky government welcomed the IMF and World Bank’s stipulations insisting on the growing of Monsanto’s GM crops, it is not clear at the time of this writing how tightly Putin and the Russian Duma are willing to chain Russia to existing relations with Monsanto/Bayer and the technologies of the genetic engineering of agriculture.

On the one hand, the war has driven Russia further away from its prior anti-GMO policies, even though one could surmise that its new relationship with Monsanto would be negated by the sanctions and push Russia back into the “organic food” direction. But the Russian government seems now willing to forego its potential market for organic crops and energy in Europe, blocked by the sanctions, and pivot to China.

China has been driven closer to Russia as a result of the war in Ukraine—especially as the potentially huge market opens for Russia’s products there and in other Asian countries which do not claim the same strictures on how food is grown.

As I had written earlier, it is complicated, with several different forces at play. We never hear about the Oakland Institute’s May 2020 analysis[63] in U.S. mainstream corporate media, nor even on some erstwhile “Left” media like Democracy Now. Who would know, in the U.S., that “on April 28, 2020, President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a bill into law authorizing the sale of farmland in Ukraine, lifting a moratorium that has been in place since 2001. This bill is part of a series of policy reforms upon which the IMF conditioned its $8 billion loan package.

“Amidst an ongoing economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic prevented street protests against the lifting of the moratorium by Ukrainians who are overwhelmingly opposed to the law.”[64]

The Oakland Institute concludes that “opening the sale of land will benefit Western agribusiness interests and oligarchs who will now further consolidate ownership of land and intensify large-scale, industrial agriculture in ‘Europe’s Breadbasket,’ at the expense of Ukrainian farmers. While conditionalities accompanying Western foreign assistance are common practice, the way Ukraine has been forced to put its land for sale has no precedent in modern history.”[65]

Meanwhile, the World Food Program’s David Beasley’s appeal to push the politics aside to help the world’s children is especially gut-wrenching…and ignored, unless it serves some immediate ideological purpose: “Don’t make us make decisions between taking food from the children in Ukraine to the children in Yemen,” Beasley pleads.[66] But that is exactly what the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine sectors of the world’s capitalist class are doing.

*

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.

Mitchel Cohen coordinates the No Spray Coalition in New York City, which successfully sued the City government over its indiscriminate spraying of toxic pesticides. Mitchel’s latest book, The Fight Against Monsanto’s Roundup: The Politics of Peticides (SkyHorse) is being published as a softcover book this month with a Forward by Vandana Shiva and a new Preface and Introduction by Mitchel Cohen. For more information, go to https://ThePoliticsofPesticides.com. Mitchel can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. Diane Keaton, in Woody Allen’s Love and Death, https://youtu.be/Tt2JVOrAZGU 

  2. Oakland Institute,Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict,” July 28, 2014; and also, Oakland Institute, Ben Reicher and Frederic Mousseau, “Who Really Benefits from the Creation of a Land Market in Ukraine?” August 6, 2021. 
  3. Ben Reicher and Frederic Mousseau, Oakland Institute, ibid. 
  4. FAO report, April 8, 2022. https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/fao-food-price-index-posts-significant-leap-in-march/en
  5. Taylor Luck, Ahmed Ellali, and Hamada Elrasam, “Ukraine war food crisis hits Arab world markets, right at Ramadan,” Christian Science Monitor, April 13, 2022. 
  6. Ibid. 
  7. Hana Trollman, “Ukraine produced a lot of grain – can farmers elsewhere replace the crops lost to war?” The Conversation, April 12, 2022 
  8. Ibid. 
  9. Ibid. 
  10. Ibid. 
  11. Communist Party of Greece, as published in “The Ukraine war: A view from South Africa,” CPUSA https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-ukraine-war-a-view-from-south-africa/ 
  12. Mitchel Cohen, The Fight Against Monsanto’s Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides (New York: Skyhorse, 2019, reissued 2022). 
  13. “As Crisis Hits, Seed Giant Monsanto Sees Business in Russia and Ukraine,” The Moscow Times, January 23, 2015. 
  14. Sustainable Pulse, January 25, 2016. 
  15. U.S. Department of Agriculture GAIN Report, Agricultural Biotechnology Annual | RS2020-0069, April 26, 2021. For more information, see FAS/Moscow GAIN Report, “GMO Registration for Cultivation Postponed,” June 27, 2014; “Producers Consider It Reasonable to Ban GMO Products [Russian language report],” May 7, 2016, http://ria.ru/economy/20160705/1459098131.html
  16. Philip Case, “Putin wants Russia to become world leader in organic food,” Farmers Weekly, December 7, 2015, citing Putin’s December 3, 2015, address to the Russian Parliament. https://www.fwi.co.uk/international-agriculture/putin-wants-russia-become-world-leader-organic-food
  17. Eduard Korniyenko, “Putin Wants Russia to Become World’s Biggest Exporter of Non-GMO Food,” Reuters, December 3, 2015. 
  18. “Russia to Ban Genetically Modified Organisms in Food Production,” The Moscow Times, September 20, 2015. 
  19. Farmers Weekly, op cit. Much of these two paragraphs is directly quoted from Farmers Weekly. 
  20. Ibid. 
  21. Luis R. Miranda, “Monsanto’s Land Grab in Ukraine,” The Real Agenda News, March 5, 2022. https://luisrmiranda.substack.com/p/monsantos-land-grab-in-ukraine?s=r 
  22. Ibid. 
  23. Farmers Weekly, op cit. 
  24. The International Reporter, April 24, 2016, “Russian Organic Wheat Takes World by Storm, US GMO Glyphosate Losing Out!” www.theinternationalreporter.org/2016/04/24/russian-organic-wheat-takes-world-by-storm-us-gmo-glyphosate-losing-out. To my knowledge no GMO wheat has been marketed, yet, although Argentina, Brazil, and Australia are on the verge of doing so
  25. Mitchel Cohen, op cit. In his Monsanto book mentioned earlier, Cohen goes into some detail about how this use of genetically engineered corn, for one, disrupts the indigenous communities in Mexico. 
  26. Mitchel Cohen, Somalia and the New World Order: You Provide the Collateral, We’ll Provide the Damage (New York: Red Balloon Publications, 1994). See also GM Watch,”GM Cassava ‘Our Only Hope,’” www.gmwatch.org/en/gm-cassava-our-only-hope. 
  27. “Why Iraqi Farmers Might Prefer Death to Paul Bremer’s Order 81,” GM Watch,September 19, 2008. 
  28. Cited in Mel Reeves, “The African Union is Right: The U.S. is a Hypocrite,” The Spokesman, February 8, 2017, https://spokesman-recorder.com/2017/02/08/african-union-right-u-s-hypocrite/ 
  29. Mitchel Cohen, The Politics of World Hunger; also, Somalia and the Cynical Manipulation of Hunger; Silvia Federici, Africa, the IMF and the New Enclosures, Red Balloon Collective; and Midnight Notes, One No, Many Yeses, Box 204, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, December 1997. 
  30. Joshua Keating, “Anthony Bourdain Really, Really Hated Henry Kissinger,” Slate, June 8, 2018, quoting from Bourdain’s book, A Cook’s Tour: Global Adventures in Extreme Cuisines (New York: HarperCollins, 2002). 
  31. Public Redacted Version of Judgement Issued on 24 March 2016 in Prosecutor vs. Radovan Karadžić, p. 1303″ (PDF). 
  32. The Moscow Times, January 23, 2015, op cit. “Ukraine is the world’s sixth largest grain grower this season, and Goncalves said the region remained a priority for Monsanto.” 
  33. See Brian Tokar, “Monsanto: Origins of an Agribusiness Behemoth,” in Mitchel Cohen, The Fight Against Monsanto’s Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides, for an enumeration of who is who in that revolving door of corporate lackeys on U.S. government regulatory bodies. 
  34. Tom Philpott, “Taxpayer Dollars Are Helping Monsanto Sell Seeds Abroad,” Mother Jones, May 18, 2013. 
  35. Dave Murphy, Food Democracy Now, http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/campaign/hillarys-monsanto-how-clinton-state-department-became-global -marketing-arm-monsanto. 
  36. https://sustainablepulse.com/2016/02/06/hillary-clintons-support-for-gmos-confirmed-by-gates-foundation/ 
  37. Mitchel Cohen, “‘The World’s Most Evil Company’ May Lose a Few Court Fights—But Will Keep On Poisoning and Killing Millions of People with Its Carcinogenic Pesticide ‘Roundup,’” CovertAction Magazine, January 19, 2022. 
  38. “Ecology and War,” Boris Ikhlov, Perm State University (Russia), Chair of the now lapsed Perm Public Environmental Committee, and Secretary of the executive committee of the Russian political association “Worker,” March 16, 2022. 
  39. Ibid. 
  40. Christina Sarich, “What They’re Not Telling You About Monsanto’s Role in Ukraine,” Natural Society, January 11, 2015, and updated October 10, 2021. 
  41. See also, Oakland Institute, “Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict.” 
  42. Joyce Nelson, “Ukraine opens up for Monsanto, land grabs and GMOs, The Ecologist, September 11, 2014. https://theecologist.org/2014/sep/11/ukraine-opens-monsanto-land-grabs-and-gmos
  43. Marilyn Vogt-Downey, “Wither Ukraine? An imperialist invasion without an imperialist army,” in The Ukraine & the U.S. Left, a Red Balloon Collective pamphlet, 2014. 
  44. Nelson, op cit. 
  45. Food & Water Watch, “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda,” May 14, 2013, https://foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Biotech-Ambassadors-Report-May-2013.pdf 
  46. JP Sottile, “Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch,” Consortium News, May 11, 2022. 
  47. Ibid. 
  48. Despite the heart-rending testimonies TV viewers in the U.S. were subjected to night after night, in actuality fewer than 200 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Compare that to such “peaceful” ventures as the U.S. invasion of Panama the year before, which killed an estimated 7,500 Panamanians; or, a year after the first Gulf war, the 10,000 Somalis killed by U.S./U.N. troops in what was portrayed as a “peace mission” to bring food aid to the allegedly starving region. (In actuality, people in only certain areas of Somalia were starving—those that had been subjected to IMF structural adjustment programs. See Mitchel Cohen, “Somalia & the Cynical Manipulation of Hunger,” Red Balloon Collective, 1994.) 
  49. See Mitchel Cohen, “HOW PROPAGANDA WORKS, 101: Yellow-Ribboning the Lies: How George Bush Sold the 1991 Bombing of Iraq to America,” https://www.mitchelcohen.com/how-propaganda-works-101-yellow-ribboning-the-lies-how-george-bush-sold-the-1991-bombing-of-iraq-to-america 
  50. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, “HBO Recycling Gulf War Hoax?” December 4, 2002. 
  51. Sharon Beder and Richard Gosden, PR Watch, Volume 8, No. 2, 2nd Quarter 2001. The PR firm has since been working at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry to ban over-the-counter vitamin and nutritional supplement sales in Europe. 
  52. See Mitchel Cohen, “HOW PROPAGANDA WORKS, 101,” op cit. 
  53. https://theecologist.org/2014/sep/11/ukraine-opens-monsanto-land-grabs-and-gmos 
  54. Marilyn Vogt-Downey, “Wither Ukraine? An imperialist invasion without an imperialist army,” in The Ukraine & the U.S. Left, a Red Balloon Collective pamphlet, 2014. 
  55. Melanie Risdon, “EXCLUSIVE: Food shortages magnified by string of destroyed food processing facilities,” Western Standard, April 23, 2022 – updated May 3, 2022. https://www.westernstandard.news/news/exclusive-food-shortages-magnified-by-string-of-destroyed-food-processing-facilities/article_c5e4d4c3-325f-56b4-9089-8b8a69fe7d1f.html 
  56. Dennis Rudat, “Union Pacific restricts fertilizer shipments, will not accept new orders,” Michigan Farm News, April 19, 2022. 
  57. See Gasland, a 2010 film about fracking by Josh Fox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mp4ELXKv-w 
  58. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN), USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_10-20-2020
  59. Boris Ikhlov, “Ecology and War,” a letter to the executive committee of the Russian political association Worker, March 16, 2022. 
  60. “UN Aid Drive to Avert Yemen Catastrophe Falls Far Short,” Agence France Presse, March 17, 2022. In The Defense Post, https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/03/17/un-aid-yemen-short/ 
  61. “IMF and World Bank help push through contentious Ukraine land reform amid Covid-19 pandemic.” Bretton Woods Project: Critical Voices on the World Bank and IMF, July 2020. https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2020/07/imf-and-world-bank-help-push-through-contentious-ukraine-land-reform-amid-covid-19-pandemic/ 
  62. See Zbigniew Brzezinski’s elaboration of U.S. policy under the Carter administration, when he served as U.S. National Security Adviser, in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997). 
  63. “International Monetary Fund Leverages COVID-19 Economic Fallout to Create a Land Market in Ukraine Despite Widespread Opposition.” Oakland Institute, May 21, 2020. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/international-monetary-fund-leverages-covid-19-economic-fallout-ukraine 
  64. Bretton Woods Project, op cit. 
  65. Oakland Institute, op cit. 
  66. Agence France Presse, op cit. 

Featured image is from orientalreview.org

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

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

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

***

Chisinau, Moldova.

I am sitting in the brilliant mental sunshine of Chisinau’s Central Park. All around me couples stroll at a very casual pace, hand in hand, arm in arm. Art vendors display excellent examples of their local crafts as do many other local merchants who sit alongside the pristine pathways criss-crossing the park under the ever-expanding canopy of leaves swaying in today’s Springtime sunshine. Moldova, as revealed in Part Four, is a land that has not yet had its future torn out from under its people by the barbarities of US-inspired war and EU capitalism, one IMF debt payment at a time.

Yet.

Reclining further into the warmth of the day, I enjoy a series of violin concertos performed by young budding virtuosos on the modest stage just uphill from the flowering rose gardens that bloom just beyond the huge dome of the lovely Nativity Church at the park’s centre. Unlike Britain and Wales which have recently used their national orchestras as propaganda tools that have dutifully banned the music of all classical Russian composers, the announcer now informs the crowd that the next piece of music will be of Russian origin. The crowd immediately applauds this news, embracing art and music for its own sake; not as a demonization of their nation’s brothers, sisters and families who also lounge about the palatial grounds- be they Russian or Moldovan- happily listening in carefree abandon.

 

This day, thankfully, Moldovans have good reason to relax while the grotesque forces of war fight it out less than 200 miles to the north. But, these forces are moving ever south.

As examined in Part Four of this series, recently elected President Maia Sandu has shown her willingness to support western intentions of hegemony. NATO knows this and has already massed at least 8000 Polish and 2000 Turkish troops- that are under NATO command- on the Moldovan/ Romanian borders. Sandu has already attempted to promote fictitious Moldovan divisions and anti-Russian sentiments. (see: Part Five)

So far, multi-cultural Moldova just ain’t buying it.

Article 11 of the Moldovan constitution enshrines peace by virtue of mandated neutrality, stating:

Article 11: The Republic of Moldova – a Neutral State (1) The Republic of Moldova proclaims its permanent neutrality. (2) The Republic of Moldova does not admit the stationing of any foreign military troops on its territory.

The Moldovan parliament is far more powerful than its president as are the constitutional provisions of neutrality. But this does not keep NATO from rabidly salivating to use Moldova as a staging ground from its lair in Romania, a country with its own ulterior motives that historically sees potential war as a cultural and historical opportunity to join with NATO in a quest for expansion back to its former borders.

Moldovans are growing more concerned daily. Too close, this western evil lurks: north and south.

That evil arrived on May 22 in the form of Gregory Meeks, who chairs the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs. With the US constitution long ago discarded as a public policy priority and the American public along with it, Meeks came to Chisinau with the promise of the only gifts American hegemony has at its disposal: Weapons. Said Meeks, in English, not Russian:

“My position is that we need to talk to the government of Moldova. We’ve got to make sure that we are in agreement upon [sic] what needs to take place….The US will stand with Moldova.”

This was no more than a veiled threat against Moldovan neutrality, peace and the Moldovan people. Moldova does not need Meeks, nor his weapons.

NATO, however, needs Moldova. Not Culturally or economically, but..for war!

So does US concubine Britain which echoed Meeks’ duplicitous lies just two days before his arrival. On May 20, UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss revealed that London was also in talks with its warmongering allies and attempting to have Moldova equipped to [a] NATO standard.” Any reader of Part Four knows well that Truss utterly lied as she provided the NATO big lie of this war: assuring the politically ignorant British that Moldova could become, as she stated,  a victim of Vladimir Putin’s “ambitions to create a greater Russia.”

Rubbish!

In the past several weeks Moldovans have heard reports from Transnistria of attacks inside this autonomous Moldovan region just forty kilometres to the north-east of Chisinau.

Although none of these attacks was in or against Moldovan territory or its cities, the western press, although utterly absent from this peaceful country, have lied to their readers by claiming that Moldova is now in a state of fear of “Russian” Transnistria- not NATO- and that Sandu should immediately bring in NATO as the only available defence, rather than to maintain peace by proclaiming loudly its constitutional neutrality. Claim of “Russsian Aggression” are bald-faced lies by Sandu, Meeks and Truss, when considering that factually there have been no examples of any terrorist incident, nor conflict, during the past thirty years and that Transnistria and Moldova have peacefully coexisted.

This was evidenced by the huge Russian Victory Day march on May 9 of over 30,000 Moldovans in Chisinau that provided definitive proof of this vital fact: Culturally, politically, and emotionally, the Russian influence here in Moldova does not just prefer peace; it demands it. (see: Part Five)

Contrast this massive cultural demand for peace with the pro-EU rally the following Saturday, May 13. There was a full-size stage rising some eight feet in the air from where a full orchestra played and famous singers sang across Central Park via the massive sound system. Every EU country had its own booth while hawking the wares offered by their nations as well as the implicit thrill of EU membership. Teams of young girls stood on the street corners as each girl madly waved a gold starred and blue EU flag while all chanted together some some kind of pro-EU slogan I did not fully understand.

But despite this theatrical effort to drum up EU support for Moldova joining as a new EU member, at no time did I see more than two hundred Moldovans in attendance. Most strolled by in disinterest. Some stopped for a quick look at one of the many booths or a moment or two in front of the stage. Unlike the staggering attendance and success of Victory Day and its demands for peace, this EU solicitation for the opposite was an indoctrinational failure.

The two thwarted drone attacks recently reported in Transnistria were comically childish, amounting to using tinker toy-like flying machines to ineffectively carry improvised explosives towards Transnistrian positions on the Ukrainian border. The small explosions and single RPG strike in the Transnistrian capital of Tiraspol were isolated and without casualties. The two downed communications towers, although of some strategic importance, were only of consequence to Russian interests and Transnistria, not to Moldova as was the much-ballyhooed gun fire skirmish also on the Ukrainian border.

But, like Meeks and Truss, this Moldovan reality has not prevented President Maia Sandu from suckling on the teats of the IMF’s and NATO’s ever-burgeoning war chest.

It is impossible that Sandu does not know quite well that Transnistria poses no threat to Moldova or Chisinau, yet she dutifully, like the EU/ NATO leaders, sounds a false alarm with her Siren’s call to NATO. However, the people I meet in the park on this glorious day are not so easily conned.

With Sandu welcoming Meeks publicly on May 22 the Moldovan president seemed willing to take on a similar role as Ukrainian president Zelensky: Ignoring facts, negotiation, and the true will and interests of her public in favour, rather, of Moldova’s destruction at the hands of her NATO masters.

Barely three days after Meeks’ visit, Sandu proved that she was indeed Zelensky incarnate.

Western-backed Sandu won the election over incumbent and culturally Russian president Igor Dodon just eighteen months before due to only one reason: the mail-in votes from the younger generation of the Moldovan ex-pat community that overwhelmingly voted for her due to EU- not NATO- enthusiasm. Not surprisingly, despite defeat, Dodon remains a strong force as an opposition leader in the Moldovan parliament.

Taking a page directly out of NATO’s play book, previously delivered as a practical guide to Zelensky in Ukraine, on May 25, just three days after Meeks’ arrival, a Moldovan court-ordered Dodon placed under thirty-day house arrest and charged him with corruption, illicit enrichment, illegal party financing andinterestingly, “Treason.”

As he left the courtroom, Dodon claimed the charges against him were politically motivated and at the behest of foreign powers. He claimed that the judge was carrying out a “political order” from Sandu, saying,

“It is a political issue aimed at neutralising the opposition. It is strange and despicable for those who … filled all the state institutions with foreign, Romanian, American and German advisers, who control all of the institutions, to accuse me of treason.”

Certainly Dodon’s words ring true, particularly considering that all these charges could have been filed against him at any time before Meeks’ visit to Chisinau.

Interestingly, when reaching out to my contacts in Tiraspol, Transnistria for reaction to Dodon’s arrest they informed me that Dodon was not that well-liked in Transnistria. Surprisingly, he did not have a track record of supporting this antonymous culturally Russian region to any great degree despite his international Russian affiliations. This surprised me.

Does this also surprise Sandu? Not bloody likely.

It must be remembered that in Ukraine president Zelensky performed the same scripted act when on April 12 he ordered the arrest of the main opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk and charged him, also, with treason.

However, the suspicious definition of “treason” applied by both Zelensky and Sandu against Viktor Medvedchuk and Igor Dodon is in reality the surreptitious crime of suggesting national “peace.” Neither man supported Russian expansion into their countries beyond the antonymous and disputed culturally Russian regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, the Donbas or in the case of Moldova Transnistria. Further, both men, to the horror of NATO’s grand scheme, advocated a negotiated peace with Russia.

In Part Four it was suggested that Sandu would face a civil war in Moldova before she could effect a world war. As of her arrest of Dodon, that civil war has commenced. Thankfully, it is so far relegated to the Moldovan parliament. When quantitatively reviewing her parliament, the numbers show that she has already lost this war and why she arrested the main opposition leader in her Zelensky style coup attempt.

As referenced, Sandu cannot, under the Moldovan constitution allow foreign troops on Moldova soil. Not even parliament can do this except by first changing the provisions of article 11.

For parliament to change the constitution it must first have the support of two-thirds of the deputies of the parliament. There are 101 deputies which means at least 74 supporters are needed. Here lies Sandu’s problem and the pending parliamentary war.

Sandu’s party is the PAS (Party of Action and Solidarite) and currently holds just 63 seats. The remaining 28 seats are held by the Socialists which are all pro-Dodon, pro-Russian and pro-Moldovan. This means that the chances of Sandu changing Article 11, for the moment, are absolutely zero. Even if she was to force a constitutional vote it is doubtful that her PAS party members will not see through her ruse and favour sovereign neutrality instead.

With respect to Russian cultural influence by the 28 opposition seats, those nationalist “traitors”  well understand that Sandu and NATO -not Russia- are the real threat and are highly unlikely to change Article 11.

But for the aficionado or student of NATO’s worldwide quest to propagate US imperial power and to use horror as its main implement of persuasion, we must all fear for Moldova. (see: Maidan Square, Ukraine: 2014)

The tepid western efforts to stir Sandu’s cocktail of media inspired anti-Russian fear into Moldovan nationalism have not had the desired Zelensky-esque results.

Yet.

Reuters, that western bastion of US/NATO propaganda reported that, after Dodon’s arrest the resultant public demonstration in front of the parliament building in Chisinau was in support of his arrest and also fervently anti-Russian. This was nothing more than utter balderdash. I was there!

Reuters used photos of the many Moldovan flags being waved to support their propaganda. Those flags were actually being waved in the face of Maia Sandu,  the parliament, NATO, and were an absolute demand for peace to be maintained in Moldova. Not one person I spoke with, via a friendly and supportive translator, condoned Dodon’s arrest. Rather, they were furious because of being condemned as pro-Russian when they are actually pro-Moldovan!

Screamed one affected demonstrator into my face in disgust- and broken English- as he forced his Moldovan flag-stick into my hand while still waving it feverishly and understandably mistaking me a standard-bearer for western lies,

“Moldovan. We… Not… Ukraine!”

The value of human life has ceased to be of any concern to US hegemony or NATO decades ago. Barely ninety days ago, it ceased to be of any concern to NATO’s Nazi marionette Zelensky. Only time will tell, but if the actions of president Maia Sandu over the past few days following the visit by just one representative from The Great Satan- America- are any indication, her concerns for the lives of the Moldovans she claims to represent have already been cast – like Zelensky- to the winds.

The winds of war!

Barely a week ago I again stepped off a plane, grabbed a taxi and headed into this time capsule called Moldova. I have fulfilled my promise: To return and fight against this war. To rally the troops of proper conscience. To slap public ignorance across its face with the truth- again and again– until all rise up in world protest and outrage similar to my own.

And, to do my utmost to save Moldova. Before it’s too late.

It must be remembered, at this pivotal time for Moldova, that there are only two acknowledged combatants in this war: Ukraine and Russia. Certainly, there are peripheral countries like Germany, the USA, and Britain that provide support as well as Poland (see: Part Two) and Romania that are active participants and have ulterior motives. However, tiny Moldova with a very poorly trained army of 5000 that acts more as a police force has no reason whatsoever to participate in this war.

Well, perhaps one reason.

Her name is Maia Sandu and as to the definitive charge of treason, a factual indictment regarding her working deliberately against the peaceful interests of her sovereign nation and promoting, instead, the carnage of war, only one word- if not a bullet– need be applied:

Guilty!

*

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.

Dedication: To Terje and Galina… A much-needed rest, while re-sharpening my pen.

Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last decade travelling and documenting the “Sorrows of Empire.” He has authored over 200 articles all of which have been published and often republished and translated by news agencies worldwide. An archive of his many articles can be found at watchingromeburn.uk. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Author’s Note: This concludes Part Seven of my series, “Destination Ukraine.”

For further insight, please see:

Featured image: Sandu with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2022 (Licensed under Public Domain)

Charles Ray at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

June 1st, 2022 by Prof. Sam Ben-Meir

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

Charles Ray (b. 1953) – undoubtedly one of the most conceptually and visually breathtaking sculptors alive today – is enjoying something of cultural moment at present, with four exhibitions on two continents, including “Charles Ray: Figure Ground” at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Throughout his career, Ray has been engaged in a sustained dialogue with the entire history of sculpture, going as far back as ancient Greece; and at the same time, he is immersed in a conversation with America, with its art, and literature, as well as its (homo)social and racial tensions.

Bringing together sculptures from every stage of Ray’s career, “Figure Ground” comprises some 19 works, including three photographic editions documenting early work from 1973. Ray has been making art, fashioning sculptures, for roughly fifty years: and in that time has he has produced some 100 works. Ray’s oeuvre reverses the Marxian dictum that quantity is quality: in Ray’s case, quality is quantity.

“Chicken” (2007), “Hand holding egg” (2007), and “Handheld bird” (2006) are three pieces that are materially and conceptually linked together – the first being the smallest and undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary pieces of the exhibition. The latter two came about tangentially and in the process of creating “Chicken.” In “Hand holding egg” we find a porcelain rendering of a child’s hand gently cupping an egg that has clearly been evacuated, or as Ray puts it, “the beast is long gone.” An irregularly shaped opening at the top clearly reveals the empty darkness inside. “Handheld bird” is a complete white painted stainless steel avian fetus which is in fact intended to be held by the viewer – a delightful proposition unfortunately rendered impracticable in the context of during a public exhibition.

“Chicken” combines both media: the eggshell is stainless steel, while the chick (complete within its shell) is porcelain. A perfectly round hole, in sharp contrast to the cracked opening of hand holding egg, reveals only very little of the animal inside, yet it is wholly there. The choice to create a clearly artificially round opening is a resonant one – it becomes a kind of window: a window into time, the flesh, the hidden, a two-way portal that has been created by leaving a space uncreated.

image

Chicken (2007) (Source: Charles Ray)

At first glance “Tractor” (2005) and “Chicken” could not be more different, materially, and otherwise. To begin with, the full-sized “Tractor” (an astoundingly ambitious sculpture) is massive; it is also in a state of disrepair: its front fender has dislodged and collapsed on the ground; its tread or continuous track has been severed almost as if it had succumbed to an anti-tank mine. Apparently, “Tractor” has its original impetus in being a child and playing with and on such a machine. Is it then a derelict object of childhood memory that is being reproduced? Or is it the memories of childhood itself that are fragile and liable to decay and fade? Or is Ray consulting the limits of human ingenuity in the face of time and the elements?

Yet for all their differences, “Tractor” and “Chicken” share something significant in common: both are complete within themselves. Although their internal structures are for the most part hidden from us, those structures are nevertheless there. The perfectly round opening in the case of “Chicken” reveals little enough of the creature inside (a talon, the tip of a wing perhaps) but the entire bird is there. Similarly, with “Tractor”: all the parts of the machine are there, albeit sealed off from view. When the time came to do the covering, Ray was immediately met with stunned disbelief since of course no one would be able to see inside: Ray’s response was that if left unsealed the audience would not do anything but look inside – the sculpture would be gone.

I am reminded of Kurasawa who famously included items in his sets – in drawers and cabinets of the hospital in the film Red Beard (1966) for example – which would never be seen by the viewer. In Kurasawa’s case it is verisimilitude that is the aim and justification for the inclusion of things that do not enter the viewer’s experience. If the actors feel that they are not on a set but in an actual hospital, then their performances will presumably be that much better. But verisimilitude as such is not what is driving Ray: the tractor he originally found has been aesthetically transformed, remade entirely from aluminum. Ray calls it “a tractor in heaven.” If that is so, then it is a tractor not in the heaven of some idyllic afterlife, but the heaven of Plato’s Forms, as it were. He is not offering us a real, or better a found tractor, nor is it the representation of a tractor, rather it is something that breaches the divide between these two, the real and the copy – a gulf which defines the central problem for Plato’s dualistic metaphysics. Ray is doing what artists and philosophers have sought to do for over two millennia (indeed, at least since Aristotle) namely to bring the eternal Forms down to earth; to bridge the gap, and pluck the Forms from their heaven outside time and space; to materialize them, to sensualize the purely intelligible, and embody the eternal.

“Archangel” is perhaps the single most monumental work of the show, standing at 13.5 feet tall. The over twice life-sized figure stands atop a wooden block (with which it is continuous), his arms outstretched in a pose somewhat reminiscent of the crucifixion, though he may with greater justification be surfing. In short, this is not Christ. The figure, carved from cypress by Japanese woodworkers, is wearing rolled up jeans and flip flops, his hair done up in a top-know, giving him a contemporary look, as if we could have seen him today on the beach or in the park. He is not Christ, but the title does suggest a kind of supernatural being, and the figure seems to be reveling in a state very nearly that of apotheosis.

charles ray archangel photo by gail worley

Charles Ray’s Archangel (2021) (Source: Gail/The Worley Gig)

Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) serves as the impetus for several of Ray’s large-scale sculptures. “Huck and Jim” (2014) feature the boy and runaway slave, nearly twice life-size, as they contemplate where the stars come from. Both figures are completely nude which is not inconsistent with Twain’s novel.  Huck leans over collecting something near the ground though we do not see what it is (in fact, it appears he was originally intended to be scooping water). Jim stands tall beside him, with his right hand hovered just above Huck’s lower back.

Ray speaks of Huck and Jim as a singular being as it were – they are what the philosopher Deleuze might call an assemblage. Though they do not physically touch they are deeply intertwined, spatially, and ethically, in the deepest sense of the word – where the ethical is not reducible to the moral but references our way of being, our lifeworld, or milieu. In its originary sense, going back to Homer’s Iliad, the ethical is already linked to the drive to break free, to be unfettered and at home in one’s own haunt or habitat. This yearning for freedom is what unites Huck and Jim in friendship: Huck wants to be free of an abusive father, Jim wants to liberate himself from slavery. The river is not simply their road to freedom, it is their freedom; their nakedness is a function of their being at home, in their element as it were.  The friendship between Huck and Jim – perhaps the most sublimely subversive friendship in American literature – hits upon the very essence of this ethical dimension, where the ethical is irreducible to conventional morality, or morality as a merely ideological structure.

Ray’s sculpture has the merit of raising far more questions than it answers, questions about the perception of scale, the inter-dependence and transformation of figure and ground, the malleability (of our perception) of space, depth, and time. Ray does not simply arrange his pieces in space – rather, the space itself becomes part of the work: “space is the medium with which the sculptor works,” as Ray puts it. But Ray’s conceptual daring and ingenuity is in the service of something that goes beyond the merely conceptual and touches on the ethical in its primordial signification.

In Twain’s controversial and much-maligned ending, Huck cannot escape the belief that he will go to hell for attempting to set the captured Jim free. The ethically sublime moment comes when Huck accepts damnation for the sake of Jim’s freedom. While their relationship remains racially fraught and reproduces the hierarchies that form its socially given coordinates, it nevertheless outruns its social determinations. The work of Charles Ray reminds us, among other things, that true friendship, love and art, enjoy a certain autonomy relative to their social-historical context, and therein lies their inherently transgressive and ineliminable emancipatory potential.

*

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.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Met

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Charles Ray at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

For over the past two months, an avalanche of stories have hit Western mainstream press which purported to document instances of mass rape carried out by Russian troops against Ukrainian civilians. One particular story in Time took off, driving outrage and condemnation by Western officials and receiving repeat coverage on CNN and other major US networks.

It alleged “a systemic, coordinated campaign of sexual violence” – relying chiefly on testimony gathered by Ukraine’s appointed top human rights representative. It included a particularly shocking story of 25 teenage girls being gang-raped by Russian troops – nine of which became pregnant. According to the report:

Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman, Lyudmyla Denisova said that 25 teenage girls were kept in a basement in Bucha and gang-raped; nine of them are now pregnantElderly women spoke on camera about being raped by Russian soldiers. The bodies of children were found naked with their hands tied behind their backs, their genitals mutilated. Those victims included both girls and boys…

As has been the pattern in prior wars, whether in Syria or Libya, the media claims got more and more sensational and over-the-top as the conflict intensified, and as Western powers became more deeply involved, yet with no concrete or definitive proof.

But one consistent detail in the majority of the stories is that the aforementioned Ukraine human rights ombudsman, Lyudmyla Denisova, is often the central figure feeding Western correspondents the shocking rape stories.

For example, she’s featured in this April Newsweek piece:

Lyudmila Denisova, the Ukrainian Parliament’s Commissioner for Human Rights, alleged on Friday that Russian soldiers have raped children during the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

In a Facebook post, Denisova alleged that an 11-year-old boy was raped by Russians in front of his mother who was tied to a chair and forced to watch as it happened in the Ukrainian city of Bucha.

Many such stories which presented ever-more horrifying details as the war progressed quickly went viral, particularly among pro-Ukraine activists on Twitter and other social media, to the point where prominent pundits would begin casually agreeing amongst themself that Russians simply are “animals”.

And below is another example among many, which tended to be based on “reports say” for many of the most central, damning claims…

But recently, within the last couple of weeks, as investigators began to dig deeper into the allegations, it seems the media stories started to dry up. The geopolitical analysis blog Moon of Alabama details what happened in the following:

However, a bunch of eager NGOs in Ukraine, hoping for fresh ‘western’ money for new ‘rape consultation and recovery’ projects, tried to find real rape cases. They were disappointed when they found that there was no evidence that any rape had taken place

(machine translation):

On May 25, a number of media outlets and NGOs published an open appeal to Lyudmila Denisova calling for improved communication on sexual crimes during the war.

The signatories insist that Denisova should disclose only information about which there is sufficient evidence, avoid sensationalism and excessive detail in their reports, use correct terminology and take care of the confidentiality and safety of victims.

“Sexual crimes during the war are family tragedies, a difficult traumatic topic, not a topic for publications in the spirit of the ‘scandalous chronicle.’ We need to keep in mind the goal: to draw attention to the facts of crimes,” the appeal reads.

An entire global activist movement even sprang up which focused on highlighting Russian sexual crimes in Ukraine, based on the premise that Russia’s military is using “rape as a tool” as part of its arsenal to spread a campaign of terror…

And now on Tuesday, Interfax, PoliticoThe Wall Street Journal, and others are reporting that Lyudmyla Denisova has been firedprecisely for floating and perpetuating fantastical claims of mass rape but without providing evidence

“Ukrainian lawmakers dismissed the country’s ombudsman for human rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, in a no-confidence vote on Tuesday, concluding that she had failed to fulfill obligations including the facilitation of humanitarian corridors and countering the deportation of Ukrainians from occupied territory,” The Wall Street Journal reported late in the day.

“Lawmaker Pavlo Frolov said Ms. Denisova was also accused of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes and spending too much time in Western Europe during the invasion,” the report added.

Frolov said in a Facebook post announcing her dismissal as the country’s top human rights investigator:

The unclear focus of the Ombudsman’s media work on the numerous details of ‘sexual crimes committed in an unnatural way’ and ‘rape of children’ in the occupied territories that could not be confirmed by evidence, only harmed Ukraine.”

Needless to say this is an absolutely devastating blow to Ukraine’s ‘information war’ which has been in full force since the Russian invasion (as naturally in war each side will enter into propaganda campaigns against the other simultaneous to the actual ground war, and while seeking to sway world opinion).

Angry pushback has started already within hours after the news of Denisova’s removal was confirmed, including from UN accounts and US media pundits…

That Ukraine’s parliament took the drastic step of dismissing her in such a public manner also speaks volumes – strongly suggesting that Ukrainian officials themselves don’t believe the bulk of the ‘systematic rape’ claims.

*

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 RT News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine Fires Own Human Rights Chief for Perpetuating Russian Troop ‘Systematic Rape’ Stories
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

The world faces a “much bigger” energy crisis than the one of the 1970s, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, told German daily Der Spiegel in an interview published on Tuesday.

“Back then it was just about oil,” Birol told the news outlet. “Now we have an oil crisis, a gas crisis and an electricity crisis simultaneously,” said the head of the international agency created after the 1970s shock of the Arab oil embargo.

The energy crisis started in the autumn of last year, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine made it much worse as the markets fear disruption to energy supply out of Russia, while Western governments are imposing increasingly restrictive sanctions on Moscow over the war in Ukraine.

The EU agreed late on Monday to ban most of the imports of Russian oil, leaving pipeline supply exempted from the embargo, for now. This will further tighten already tight crude and product markets.

The world, especially Europe, could face a summer of shortages of gasoline, fuel, and jet fuel, the IEA’s Birol told Der Spiegel.

Fuel demand is set to rise as the main holiday season in Europe and the United States begins, Birol added.

Upended crude oil flows add to reduced global refinery capacity resulting in low inventories of products, including in the United States.

Refinery capacity for supply, globally and in the U.S, that is now a few million barrels per day lower than it was before the pandemic.

Some 1 million bpd of refinery capacity in the U.S. has been shut permanently since the start of the pandemic, as refiners have opted to either close losing facilities or convert some of them into biofuel production sites. Globally, refinery capacity is also stretched thin, especially after Western buyers—including in the U.S.—are no longer importing Russian vacuum gas oil (VGO) and other intermediate products necessary for refining crude into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

The fuel market is extremely tight in Europe, too, and is set to tighten further after the EU ban on most Russian imports.

*

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.

Charles is a writer for Oilprice.com.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on IEA: Current Energy Crisis Is “Much Bigger” Than 1970s Oil Crunch
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

As the collapse of their portion of the frontlines in Donbass continues, the Kiev regime forces are showing what they’ve been best at for nearly a decade – senseless slaughter of Donbass civilians. What most militaries with sensible leadership do when faced with mounting losses, both in manpower and equipment, is change their tactical approach and adapt to new frontline conditions.

Yet, the worse the situation is, we see more of the same behavior by the Kiev regime forces. What is the military sense of shelling residential areas? Precisely none. Does it have a demoralizing effect? No. The people of Donbass have been under constant shelling for nearly a decade now and they don’t even duck when hearing incoming shells and rockets. Children born in the besieged region don’t know what peace is. For them, shells hitting their homes is a “normal”, regular occurrence. They never got the chance to see anything else.

And yet, despite the feeling of deep respect one has for the people of Donbass and their fearlessness, unfortunately, casualties are nearly a daily occurrence in the region. Upwards of 15,000 people have been killed, with several times more injured in the process in nearly a decade of Neo-Nazi junta shelling. And this keeps going. The Kiev regime forces entrenched several kilometers outside Donetsk have been there just so their artillery could target the city, although the DNR People’s Militia is virtually not in the city, leaving no significant military targets there.

Thus, the obvious question arises – why do it? What is the reasoning, no matter how senseless, behind the desire to keep murdering innocent civilians? Well, there’s only one logical explanation – raging hatred of genocidal proportions. As many of the Banderist Neo-Nazis have stated, Ukraine has “too many people, especially in the south and the east. These people are good for nothing and should be dealt with”. These words were uttered by a Neo-Nazi journalist over a year before the Western-backed Maidan color insurrection brought a Neo-Nazi junta to power.

And the “final solution” continues in the minds of these individuals. No matter how crippling the losses of the Kiev regime forces are, the need to kill the people of Donbass seems to be their main driving force. After Russia’s military operation started, the regime forces have been pushed back from their positions near the residential areas along the entire Donbass frontline, with the exception of Donetsk outskirts, where the frontlines are still virtually unchanged.

As a consequence, locals are still suffering from artillery bombardment, but as stated before, this yields no military results, but only leads to the senseless murder of civilians and destruction of local infrastructure. Unable to launch a counteroffensive, the Kiev regime forces continue the failed attempts to get rid of the Russian-speaking residents. The advance of Russian and Donbass forces is slowed down by the heavily fortified and entrenched Kiev regime forces in areas of Avdeevka and Mariinovka and by occasional, mostly unilateral ceasefire instances, the aim of which is to evacuate remaining civilians.

Also, for the first time, the Kiev regime forces are reported to have started using weapons provided by their NATO backers for the purpose of this “final solution”. The last days of May have seen a spike in artillery attacks on Donetsk and the surrounding areas, as well as elsewhere in the areas of Donbass still in range of Kiev regime forces. DPR officials have confirmed that nearly all city districts have been targeted, including the city center. To make matters worse, even areas outside Donbass are being shelled.

As per various sources, including South Front, the following areas have been targeted in the last 5 days:

  • On May 26th, the village of Novovoskresenskoye in the Kherson region was shelled with rocket-propelled cluster munitions. In total, two unguided missiles were fired at the settlement by the Kiev regime forces, which also launched more than 600 PFM-1C anti-personnel mines. The attack was carried out by using 9M27K3 “Uragan” multiple rocket launchers with PFM-1S anti-personnel mines. Each rocket carries 312 mines.
  • On May 27th, the regime forces carried out an attack on the town of Svatovo in the Lugansk People’s Republic, the settlement was struck by three “Tochka-U” cluster munition-tipped missiles, which are prohibited by the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. As a result of the attack, 3 residents were killed, 23 wounded, 5 of them children, including a 2-month-old baby.

According to the local officials, the air defense units of the LPR People’s Militia managed to shoot down the missiles, however, civilians were killed as a result of the detonation of the cluster warhead of the missile.

On May 29th alone, 4 civilians were killed, with at least 20 injured. The DPR office in the Joint Center for Control and Coordination on ceasefire and stabilization of the demarcation line (JCCC) reported the following attacks on the settlements in the Republic:

Makeyevka:

A woman born in 1949 and a man born in 1957 were killed. Men born in 1990, 1957, 1959 and 1982 and women born in 1967, 1982 and 1964 suffered varying degrees of injuries.

Donetsk city (Petrovsky district):

An infant born in 2021, a teenager born in 2006, men born in 1956 and 1959, and women born in 1958 and 1988 were injured.

Donetsk city (Kuibyshev district):

A woman born in 1995 was killed, while a man born in 1941, an infant (girl) born in 2021, and women born in 1988 and 1959 were injured.

Donetsk city (Leninsky district):

A woman born in 1959 was killed.

Donetsk city (Kalininsky district):

A woman born in 1957 was injured.

Donetsk city (Budennovsky district):

Women born in 1983, 1982, 2002 and 1997 were injured.

Thus, the total number of civilian casualties from the Kiev regime attacks on May 29 alone is 24 people. Unlike the Kiev junta, the Russian military does not deploy its military equipment in residential areas in the settlements and areas under its control. On the contrary, the Russian forces are going out of their way to avoid injuring civilians. On the other hand, the Kiev regime is deliberately targeting them.

*

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 InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine Forces Continuous Shelling of Donbass Residential Areas. Results in 24 Casualties in a Single Day
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

Former Monsanto chief Hugh Grant spent several hours on the witness stand on Tuesday – testifying for the first time in front of a jury at a Roundup trial – telling the court repeatedly that global regulators had found no evidence that the company’s herbicides cause cancer.

Under sharp questioning from the plaintiff’s attorney in the case, Grant answered questions about whether or not Monsanto had a duty to warn consumers of a cancer risk by saying there was no such established risk.

“The product had been examined and studied almost continuously for 40 years around the world and had never been deemed to be a carcinogen,” he said. “It’s a circumstance that never occurred. There was never, never a need to communicate such a hypothetical.”

During his 37 years at the company, Grant said:

“The reality is that based on regulatory examination almost constantly during that entire period the product was never found to cause cancer.”

In multiple answers to a range of questions regarding the company’s messaging to consumers, Grant cited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the authority for determining what information is displayed on product labels.

“The label isn’t designed by Monsanto,” he said.

Grant, 64, was called as a witness in the case of Allan Shelton, a 34-year-old man suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who alleges his repeated use of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides caused his disease.

Lawyers for Monsanto sought to block Grant from having to appear live at the trial, which is taking place in Jackson County Circuit Court in Kansas City, Missouri. But the judge in the case and an appeals court denied the company’s request.

Multiple sources involved in the case said settlement talks over the weekend nearly netted a deal, but ultimately fell short and the trial resumed Tuesday.

Shelton, who lives in Kansas City, Mo., was diagnosed with NHL in May 2016, a little more than a year after international cancer scientists affiliated with the World Health Organization classified the active ingredient in Roundup, a chemical called glyphosate, as a probable human carcinogen.

Shelton’s lawsuit against Monsanto mirrors tens of thousands of other U.S. lawsuits filed since the 2015 classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). His lawyers allege Monsanto knew of scientific research showing its product could cause cancer, but failed to warn consumers, instead working to suppress and manipulate information about Roundup dangers.

Jousting match

Grant left Monsanto in June of 2018 when the St. Louis-based seed and chemical powerhouse was acquired by Germany’s Bayer AG for $63 billion.

In answering questions from Shelton attorney Roe Frazer on Tuesday, Grant said after liquidating all of his accumulated shares he left Monsanto with roughly $75 million.

Monsanto lawyers raised numerous objections to both the tone and content of Frazer’s questioning of Grant, successfully deflecting multiple lines of questioning.

In one exchange, Frazer asked Grant if he knew what “a consumer” was; to which Grant confirmed that indeed he did.

In another, Frazer asked Grant about language he said was part of Occupational Health and Safety Administration warnings regarding protective clothing for Roundup, and Grant in turn asked Frazer multiple times to show him a document with such language. Frazer did not comply and moved to a different line of questioning.

At one point Frazer used the questioning of Grant to show jurors a September 2015 communication to Monsanto from the American Academy of Pediatrics telling the company the group was returning more than $500,000 to Monsanto, saying it could not continue to “partner” with Monsanto due to concerns about glyphosate impacts on health.

“Humble” upbringing

Under questioning from Monsanto attorney Hildy Sastre, Grant described for jurors what he said was a “humble” background, growing up in a small town in west Scotland in a one-bedroom home with no indoor bathroom. His two grandfathers both worked in area coal mines and neither of his parents graduated high school, Grant recounted.

He became the first in his family to graduate from high school and to attend and graduate from college, obtaining a degree in molecular biology, he testified. He married his childhood sweetheart, to whom he is still married, and focused his graduate studies and then his career on agriculture, working for a time on a dairy farm and later a potato farm, Grant testified.

He joined Monsanto in July 1981, spending his entire professional career at the company. Grant said he still lives in St. Louis, Missouri, where Monsanto was headquartered until the acquisition by Bayer.

In answer to a question about his feelings about his successful career and wealth, Grant said he considered himself a “lucky individual.”

 “I am very grateful, and I count my blessings every day,” he said. “I’m very proud of the work I did, but I’m much prouder of the team that I built and people that I worked with.”

In addition testimony under questioning from Sastre, Grant denied that the company had a “plan” or “agreement” with the EPA to support the safety of Roundup. And he told jurors that glyphosate-based weed killers were very beneficial to farmers, helping them avoid tilling the ground, a practice that has an array of negative environmental impacts.

At one point during questioning about Monsanto’s stable of genetically engineered crops, Grant spoke almost wistfully about the company’s abandonment of a plan to introduce a “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered wheat that would not die if sprayed with glyphosate herbicides. In the late 1990s and 2000s Monsanto introduced an array of such glyphosate-tolerant crops, including Roundup Ready soy and corn, cotton and canola.

But the company dropped plans for Roundup Ready wheat in May 2004 amid an uproar from global wheat buyers who threatened to stop buying wheat supplies from the United States if a genetically engineered wheat was introduced.

In Tuesday’s testimony Grant said it was unfortunate there was no Roundup Ready wheat today given the feared shortages due to the war in Ukraine.

As questioning wound down, Frazer asked Grant if anyone had ever gotten non-Hodgkin lymphoma from “pulling weeds.”

Sastre concluded her questioning of Grant by asking if he knew if people got non-Hodgkin lymphoma before glyphosate herbicides were introduced in 1974.

Monsanto has long insisted that there is no valid evidence of a cancer connection between its weed killing products and cancer. Still, Monsanto lost the first three cases to go to trial as juries awarded over $2.3 billion in damages to four plaintiffs. The damages were later lowered but the jury findings in favor of plaintiffs were upheld on appeals. Juries in the most recent two cases to go to trial found in favor of Monsanto.

Bayer has announced that it will stop selling Roundup, and other herbicides made with glyphosate, to U.S. consumers by 2023, but said the move is solely to “manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns.” The company plans to continue to sell its glyphosate-based herbicides for commercial use and for use by farmers.

Bayer has set aside more than $11 billion for Roundup litigation settlements, but while the majority of plaintiffs in the nationwide Roundup litigation have settled, many more are pushing for trials.

A trial is planned for July in St. Louis, and two cases are set for trial in St. Louis early next year.

*

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 TNL

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto’s Former CEO Testifies in Roundup Trial, Points to EPA Safety Findings
  • Tags: , ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dutton’s Record: Building the Surveillance State in Australia

Don’t Trade Real Liberty for Phony Security

By Rep. Ron Paul, May 31, 2022

Authoritarian politicians wasted no time using the recent shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, to justify new infringements on liberty. Just days after the Buffalo shooting, the US House of Representatives passed a law creating new domestic terrorism offices in the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

FDA Authorizes Pfizer Boosters for Kids 5 to 11

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 31, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot to allow a booster dose for children ages 5 to 11. The FDA’s “evaluation of safety” for the booster dose in young children was based on a study of only about 400 children, and no meeting was held with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Pressure Builds on Biden to Investigate Israel over Abu Akleh Killing

By Mitchell Plitnick, May 31, 2022

Had Shireen been killed by the military of any other country, a thorough, transparent, and honest investigation would be virtually automatic. She was a Palestinian citizen of the United States. Yet, as we have seen in the past, the odds are against the U.S. undertaking an investigation let alone carrying one out that is independent and impartial.

A World at War? Biden Lashes Out Against “Enemies” as Our Country Declines

By Philip Giraldi, May 31, 2022

So the United States of America has been a country, like its best friend Israel, that seems to be perpetually at war…so what else is new? What’s new is that under President Joe Biden there has been zero diplomacy and almost reflexive reliance on wielding the “big stick.” To quote another bon mot from one of my favorite authors Raymond Chandler, creator of private eye Philip Marlowe, “…when in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns.”

“The Criminalization of Russian Music”: The Exclusion of Russian Violinists from the International Competition of Gorizia

By Manlio Dinucci, May 31, 2022

The news mentioned in this episode is the exclusion of the Russian violinist Lidia Kocharian and two other Russian violinists from the 41st International Violin Competition organized by the Rodolfo Lipizer Music School of Gorizia. This decision was officially communicated to the violinist with these words: “following the European provisions deriving from the Russia-Ukraine war and following the example of other competitions in various disciplines”.

Pakistan’s Russian Wheat Import Deal: Business As Usual or Something Different this Time?

By Andrew Korybko, May 31, 2022

The new government’s latest deal with Russia could muddle the narrative from their opponents that they came to power to punish the former premier for his ties with that country, which is why it can’t be described as business as usual even if the terms are the same or very similar to the ones that had been agreed to in the past and not close to the 20% discount that Imran Khan was reportedly negotiating.

Global Food Security: Is America Illegally Importing Syrian Wheat, Smuggled Out of a War Zone

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 31, 2022

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzia, said on May 25 that US importers are significantly increasing their purchases of Syrian wheat, continuing the country’s strategy of maximizing imports from regions in crisis and conflict, such as Syria and Ukraine.

US Would be Maintaining Biolabs in Indonesia

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 31, 2022

For decades, a laboratory of the NAMRU-2 (Naval Medical Research Unit Two) project operated in Jakarta. This Navy military research program is dedicated to operating biomedical activities in several countries on the Asian continent and worked in Indonesia between 1970 and 2009, when it was finally closed after the country’s government declared the existence of this type of unit as a threat to national sovereignty.

If We Are to Survive We Must Learn to Ask the Right Questions

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 31, 2022

The phenomena of impertinence requires a polite, somewhat formal society in which privacy, self-control, and respect for others are requirements. Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.  Tell that to the NSA, CIA, FBI, Google, and all corporations who spy on Internet usage. 

Memorial Day 2022: America Remembers and Honors Those Who Died While Serving in the Military. For What Did They Die?

By Robert Gore, May 31, 2022

On Memorial Day, America remembers and honors those who died while serving in the military. It is altogether fitting and proper to ask: for what did they die? Do the rationales offered by the military and government officials who decide when and how the US will go to war, and embraced by the public, particularly those who lose loved ones, stand up to scrutiny and analysis?

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Don’t Trade Real Liberty for Phony Security

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A United States Congressional bill has already been approved by a wide margin that would target and punish African states that maintain political and economic relations with the Russian Federation.

The hostile action by the Congress which is dominated by the Democratic Party continues the efforts to isolate Moscow and intensify the war in Ukraine.

Labeled as the “Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act” (H.R. 7311) was passed on April 27 by the House of Representatives in a bipartisan 419-9 majority and will probably be approved by the Senate which is evenly split between the Democrats and the Republicans. This legislative measure is broadly worded enabling the State Department to monitor the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in Africa including military affairs and any effort which Washington deems as “malign influence.”

Russian military operations in Ukraine are in response to Washington and Wall Street’s efforts to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) deeper into Eastern Europe as a direct threat to the interests of the Russian Federation and its allies. Two other bills have recently been passed to maintain and expand Pentagon military bases around the world along with providing an additional $40 billion to supply weapons to the Ukrainian government which is bolstered by neo-Nazi militias integrated into the armed forces.

During the early phase of the Russian special operations in Ukraine, many African states abstained from two United Nations General Assembly resolutions motivated by Washington to condemn the Russian government for its intervention in Ukraine while completely ignoring the level of fascist infiltration of Kiev military forces and the necessity of reaching a diplomatic solution to the burgeoning conflict. African heads-of-state, such as President Cyril Ramaphosa of the Republic of South Africa, have consistently argued that the African National Congress (ANC) led government in Pretoria will not support the Ukraine war along with the draconian sanctions instigated by the Biden administration. Ramaphosa has demanded that the U.S. State Department and White House support negotiations between Kiev and Moscow, which have been routinely undermined by Biden and his cabinet members.

Long before the February 24 intervention by the Russian armed forces, the U.S. has engaged in repeated threats against President Vladimir Putin and the entire government based in Moscow demanding that it acquiesce to the expansion of NATO. Unprecedented sanctions with the stated aims of completely blocading Russia from the world economic system have largely failed to curtail the advances by Moscow in eastern Ukraine.

The only foreign policy towards Eastern Europe that has been devised by the Biden administration, which follows a neocon ideological orientation, is to announce additional sanctions and send in more weapons to the regime of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. The war policy towards Moscow is extended to the People’s Republic of China where Biden has also threatened military intervention in relation to the Taiwan situation. Even within the Western Hemisphere, Biden has sought to isolate the Republic of Cuba and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from a Summit of the Americas planned for June in Los Angeles.

A leading Nigerian newspaper, Premium, sought to provide a rationale for the legislation now moving through the Senate. The report issued on May 20 reads in part that:

“New York Democrat Gregory Meeks, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the bill was designed to thwart Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to ‘pilfer, manipulate and exploit resources in parts of Africa to evade sanctions and undermine U.S. interests,’ and to finance his war in Ukraine. Mr. Meeks also presented the bill as supportive of Africa, intended to protect ‘all innocent people who have been victimized by Putin’s mercenaries and agents credibly accused of gross violations of human rights in Africa, including in the Central African Republic and Mali.’ It is specifically in the Central African Republic (CAR) and Mali that Wagner has been accused of committing human rights violations to prop up dubious governments and thwart Western interests. Some African governments suspect there’s more at play than protecting ‘fragile states in Africa,’ as Mr. Meeks put it. ‘Why target Africa?’ one senior African government official asked. ‘They’re obviously unhappy with the way so many African countries voted in the General Assembly and their relatively non-aligned position.’”

‘Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism’

Yet within Congressman Meek’s comments there is no acknowledgement of the centuries-long enslavement and colonization of African people by the western feudal and capitalist states, including the U.S. In fact, there has never been any apology let alone gesture towards paying reparations to the African people on the continent and throughout the globe for the destruction caused by the plunders of involuntary servitude and political domination engendered by international finance capital.

The actual historical record reveals that Russia, even under monarchial rule prior to 1917, never participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade, colonization on the continent or the Western Hemisphere where hundreds of millions of Africans remain up until this day. Contrary to the posture of the U.S. and its NATO allies, the former Soviet Union as well as China and other socialist states supported the anti-colonial, national liberation and civil rights struggles waged by the African people from the period after World I up until the 21st century. It was successive administrations in Washington which gave military and economic solace to the colonial powers operating in Africa and throughout the world. All of the legitimate liberation movements and popular struggles against racism, capitalism, colonialism and imperialism were opposed by the U.S.

Africa and Russia Summit during 2019 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Since the advent of independent African states during the late 1950s, the U.S. has become the leading neo-colonial imperialist power on the continent and around the world. Neo-colonialism seeks to maintain economic, political and social control over independent states through the roles of transnational corporations and military apparatuses, with NATO as the leading alliance designed to maintain the global status-quo.

According to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, founder of modern Ghana and Africa, Neo-colonialism is the major threat to African unity and development since the 1960s. Nkrumah states in his book entitled “Neo-Colonialism: The Last State of Imperialism” (1965):

“Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism. Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world.”

Consequently, the U.S. Congress at the beckoning call of the Biden administration has no right to dictate what the relations between the Russian Federation and the African Union (AU) member-states should be. The AU governments and more so among the workers, women, farmers, youth and revolutionary intelligentsia, have nothing to gain from the U.S. attempts to prohibit sovereign states from engaging in trade deals and military alliances that Washington deems to be at variance with its own interests.

Moreover, the peace and antiwar movements in the U.S. should be outraged at all of these legislative and administrative measures which will not only harm the people of Africa and other geopolitical regions, these actions by the ruling elites in Washington are a detriment to the working class and oppressed within North America. As U.S. working families face the highest increases in fuel, food, housing and other costs in over four decades, it will not be long before the people understand that the alleviation of the impoverishment among the masses cannot be addressed absent of the elimination of the Pentagon budget and dismantling of military bases around the globe.

*

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: Central African Republic and Russia solidarity on billboard (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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As Boris Johnson’s government galvanises international action to take Russia to the International Criminal Court over Ukraine, his officials are escaping accountability for their own complicity in violations of international humanitarian law.

The UK government has announced that it has “galvanised allies to refer atrocities in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague”, and “expedite an ICC investigation, through state party referral.”

Russia, in its war in Ukraine, is far from exceptional in targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Sadly, such behaviour is par for the course in warfare today.

Violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – in particular the indiscriminate or even purposeful killing and maiming of civilians – have been a regular feature of armed conflicts in recent decades.

Impunity for violations of IHL and war crimes has become one of the most dire features of the international order, to the detriment of global stability and multilateralism. The violations are not just ignored but accepted and excused by some of the world’s most powerful countries, particularly those exporting arms to conflict zones.

Civilians in Syria, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Yemen have been suffering the full horrors of impunity for war crimes with weapons made in Russia, Europe and the US for countless years.

The UK, along with a number of other European countries, is complicit in violations of IHL in the war in Yemen, now in its eighth year, though currently with a temporary truce in place.

Despite warnings from the very early stages of the war that IHL violations were occuring, arms exports from the UK, Spain, Italy, France and Germany to the Saudi Arabian-led coalition, and especially to the Saudi regime itself, have continued.

Some of these states have limited arms export licences to the Coalition. But the UK stands out for its unrivalled determination to maintain arms exports in the face of multiple legal, political and moral challenges.

Since the war in Yemen began in 2015 the UK has exported over £23 billion worth of arms to the Saudi-led Coalition.

Going to court

In 2019 a coalition of European and Yemeni groups, including Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), made a submission to the International Criminal Court. We asked them to investigate European government officials and arms company executives for potentially aiding and abetting war crimes in Yemen.

The submission argues that the economic and political actors involved in the arms trade bear criminal responsibility if they have knowledge that violations of IHL and war crimes are likely to have taken place, and are aware that export licences they approve or carry out may contribute to these violations.

The arms company executives referenced in the submission include those of BAE Systems and Raytheon UK, as well as European government ministers and officials.

The former UN Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen as well as numerous Yemeni and foreign NGOs have documented hundreds of cases of specific attacks.

These have been against residential areas, schools, hospitals, agricultural facilities, market places, gatherings such as weddings and funerals, and civilian factories, many of which have killed dozens of civilians, and where no military target has been in evidence nearby.

The attacks are violations of International Humanitarian Law, and may constitute war crimes.

There is also a strong case that Saudi Arabia has also been using starvation as a weapon of war, which would also be a war crime. In the midst of this horrendous humanitarian crisis, UK aid to Yemen has been slashed by 63% since 2020, despite the fact that people are starving.

Prosecutions

There is no clear jurisdictional route to prosecuting the direct perpetrators of the potential war crimes committed by the Coalition at this point in time, as neither Yemen nor the Saudi coalition members are party to the ICC.

To date the ICC has never opened a case involving a western European state. Communications to the ICC against corporate actors are rare, let alone investigations into their activities.

Bringing European economic and political actors before the ICC to investigate their potential involvement in alleged war crimes is a new avenue in the quest for justice. National law enforcement agencies have refused or are unwilling to address the complicity of European actors in these crimes.

These exports in question were licensed by high-ranking government officials who were made aware there was a strong likelihood these arms could be used to commit violations of international humanitarian law that may amount to war crimes.

A state’s failure to enforce relevant arms export control laws does not exempt companies from their responsibility to respect human rights and international humanitarian law.

The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights call on companies to take additional steps to carry human rights due diligence over the effects of their activities, and in no sector is this more urgently needed than in arms production.

Against the law

Supplying weapons to the Yemen conflict is a flagrant example of non-compliance with international, regional and national export control law. These exports are contrary to provisions in the Arms Trade Treaty, the EU Common Position and UK domestic laws.

Pursuing accountability for crimes committed in Yemen will constitute a step towards closing this corporate impunity gap.

It’s important to highlight that the ICC is needed when national mechanisms – such as investigations and prosecutions – are not sufficient to achieve justice. CAAT first submitted an application for a judicial review of the government’s arms export licensing decisions in 2016.

The judgement by the Court of Appeal in June 2019 was a significant success. First, it forced the government to stop issuing new export licences.

Second, a UK court identified the government’s approach to deciding on export licences to Saudi Arabia as “irrational and therefore unlawful”, as it failed to properly assess the record of past violations of IHL by the Coalition.

The Court’s findings mean that UK arms companies were aware that the government was issuing licences unlawfully – yet they continued to export to the Coalition on existing licences unrestrained.

In July 2020, the government announced it had completed a review and found there were only a small number of “isolated incidents” of possible violations of IHL, and resumed new export licencing.

Many justified criticisms can be leveled at the ICC, including its limited resources and authority, and clear regional discrimination and political influence affecting which cases the Court opens investigations into.

However, in the face of so many atrocities globally we cannot be complacent about avenues for justice. CAAT’s legal case against the UK government shows that western governments will go to great lengths to ignore and deny their complicity in war crimes.

The ICC can offer some steps towards accountability for war crimes but its integrity rests on an equal pursuit of perpetrators, one which does not exclude the political allies of powerful Western states, or crucially, European states themselves.

*

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.

Katie Fallon is Parliamentary Coordinator at Campaign Against Arms Trade, with an advocacy focus on Yemen. She previously worked at Reporters Without Borders UK and for the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, in London and New York.

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

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

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

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

***

On Memorial Day, America remembers and honors those who died while serving in the military. It is altogether fitting and proper to ask: for what did they die? Do the rationales offered by the military and government officials who decide when and how the US will go to war, and embraced by the public, particularly those who lose loved ones, stand up to scrutiny and analysis? Some will recoil, claiming it inappropriate on a day devoted to honoring the dead. However, it is because war is a matter of life and death, for members of the military and inevitably civilians, that its putative justifications be subject to the strictest tests of truth and the most probing of analyses.

Millions have marched off to war believing they were defending the US, which implies the US was under attack. Yet, setting aside for a moment Pearl Harbor and 9/11, US territory hasn’t been invaded by a foreign power since the Mexican-American War (arguably—Mexico claimed the territory it “invaded” was part of Mexico), or, if the Confederacy is considered a foreign power, the Civil War. That war ended a century-and-a-half ago, yet every US military involvement since has been justified as a defense of the US. That has gradually attenuated, in a little noted slide, to a defense of US “interests,” which is something far different.

Only one of those involvements could, arguably, have been said to have forestalled not an invasion, but a possible threat of invasion: World War II. Watching newsreel graphics of Germany’s drives across Europe, Northern Africa, and the USSR, and Japan’s across Asia and the Pacific, it was perhaps understandable that Americans believed the Axis powers would eventually come for them, especially after Pearl Harbor. However, that was a one-off attack by the Japanese to disable the US’s Pacific Fleet. To launch an invasion of the US, Japan, a smaller, less populated nation whose economy depended on imports of vital raw materials, including oil, would have had to cross the Pacific and fight the US, and undoubtedly Canada, on their home territories. The Pearl Harbor attack, provoking America’s entry into the war, proved a strategic blunder for the Japanese. An invasion would have been ludicrous. Similarly, Germany, up to its eyeballs in a two-front war, couldn’t conquer Russian winters or Great Britain across the English Channel. How was it supposed to either cross the Atlantic, or the USSR and hostile guerrillas, then the Pacific, and attack the US? That, too, would have been ludicrous.

The 9/11 attack was also a one-off. A majority of the attackers came not from a US enemy but rather a supposed ally, Saudi Arabia. They received funding and other support from people in that country and perhaps its government. A conventional war against a “state sponsor of terrorism” might have required war against Saudi Arabia; it is still not clear how involved its government was. That option was never considered. Rather, the Bush administration performed metaphysical gymnastics and launched the first war in history against a tactic: terrorism. Although the jihadists who perpetrated 9/11 were self-evidently not the vanguard of an invasion, the terrorism they employed was deemed a threat to US interests in the Middle East, and to life and property in the US. However, none of our subsequent involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen have been necessary to maintain US citizens’ freedoms, the nation’s territorial integrity, or its lives and property.

There are undoubtedly many epitaphs on tombstones in this country to the effect: Here lies the deceased, who died defending America, and not one that reads: Here lies the deceased, who died defending American interests. However, the latter is in most cases more accurate than the former. Who decides the interests for which members of America’s military will die? Those considering entering the military today must look beyond the slogans, contemplate the risks of being killed, wounded, dismembered, paralyzed, or psychologically traumatized, and ask themselves: why and for whom are these risks being borne? You don’t fight for your country, you fight for your government. Is it worth risking one’s life for the US government?

In 1821, John Quincy Adams said America had not gone “abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” and while we wished those seeking liberty well, theirs was not our fight (see “In Search of Monsters,” SLL, 4/11/15). Since then, America has searched for monsters, found, and in some cases, destroyed them. However, as the poison of power has worked its evil on the minds and souls of those who possess it, the monsters have become more ethereal, apparitions conjured like creatures in the closet by children when they go to bed. The war on terrorism creates more terrorists, the monsters of choice since 9/11. The government still pays occasional lip service to “democratic values” and “civil liberties,” but allies itself with regimes which have no more fealty to those values and liberties than the “tyrants” the government opposes. “Defending America” and “Promoting Our Way of Life” have become transparent pretexts for American power and domination unbounded. As Adams so presciently warned, the search for monsters has turned the government itself into a monster, the biggest threat to Americans’ “inextinguishable rights of human nature.”

Those who have fought and died to defend America and its freedoms are noble beyond measure. Those who pay self-serving tribute to their valor, but make war and expend lives as means to corrupt ends are evil beyond redemption. Honor the former; expose and oppose the latter.

*

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 SLL

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Memorial Day 2022: America Remembers and Honors Those Who Died While Serving in the Military. For What Did They Die?
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

 

 

***

This video was first produced in June 2020 in the immediate wake of the March 11, 2020 lockdown.  

Michel Chossudovsky describes the economic and social consequences of the corona crisis.

This is the most serious global debt crisis in World History.

***

“V the Virus” is said to be responsible for the wave of bankruptcies and unemployment. That’s a lie. There is no causal relationship between the (microscopic) SARS-2 virus and economic variables.

It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (Worldwide) of the real economy.

And there is ample evidence that the decision to close down more than 190 national economies (resulting in poverty and unemployment) will inevitably have an impact on patterns of morbidity and mortality. 

Since early February 2020, the Super Rich have cashed in on billions of dollars.

Amply documented it’s the largest redistribution of global wealth in World history, accompanied by a process of Worldwide impoverishment.” 

Michel Chossudovsky, November 2021

 

VIDEO (click Watch on Youtube to leave a comment)

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of twelve books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

If We Are to Survive We Must Learn to Ask the Right Questions

May 31st, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

Reading Ngaio Marsh’s Scales of Justice I realized that the word, “impertinence” has gone out of use.  Indeed, what was once an outrage is now so common that no one recognizes it as impertinence.  Impertinence has become accepted routine behavior and is no longer recognized when it occurs.  

The phenomena of impertinence requires a polite, somewhat formal society in which privacy, self-control, and respect for others are requirements. 

Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.  Tell that to the NSA, CIA, FBI, Google, and all corporations who spy on Internet usage. 

In England prior to 1950 it was impertinence for a male to go too far in his compliments to a woman.  When I was a student at Oxford University in the 1960s, it was an impertinence to telephone a person to whom you had not been introduced.  Today we live with constant telephone intrusions from telemarketers, robots, and scam artists.  A society in which impertinence is understood no longer exists. 

Consequently, civilized life has taken on a purely technological meaning.  Insouciant Silicon Valley nerds build more police state tools for Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984 and see this as civilization’s progress.

Another concept that has disappeared from use is ladies and gentlemen.  This term implies distinctions among people and cannot survive in a time when even gender differences are denied.  The ultimate impertinence would have been a male declaring himself a women and competing in women’s sports.  

We see the extermination of Western civilization in its politics. In America the fight between Democrats and Republicans is settled by which side’s lies are most convincing to the voters. 

Shame has lost its meaning. 

A recent Republican fundraiser asks if we “believe that Democrats in Congress are tough enough to stand up to China and Russia?” 

How is this question possible with the Biden regime threatening war with China, declaring its commitment to Russia’s defeat in Ukraine, pumping into Ukraine $40 billion, heavy weapons, diplomatic support, sanctions on Russia?  

The Democrats oppose parental rights and are able to make appeals to voters on this basis.  Florida Democrats are rallying against Gov. DeSantis because he supports parental rights. 

Really, this is true. Democrats expect to be elected, because they are against parental rights and the 1st, 2nd, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.  Censorship of free speech (contrary to the 1st Amendment) and imposition of discriminatory quota regimes ( contrary to the 14th Amendment) are mainstays of the Democrats’ agenda.

As I have emphasized in my writings, the United States is the Constitution. In the absence of the Constitution, the United States no longer exists.  Some other entity has taken its place. 

The disrespect for the Constitution is bi-partisan.  It was the George W. Bush regime that declared the power to suspend habeas corpus and hold citizens indefinitely without due process. 

It was the Obama regime that declared the president’s ability to execute citizens on suspicion alone without due process. 

It is the Democrats who discriminate against white males, declare white people “racists,” impose censorship, and attack the 2nd Amendment.  Law schools dissolve the Constitution into an ever-changing “living document” changed at will by judges and law professors. 

Western civilization has been replaced by a rootless tower of babel, a structure without strength.  The question Republicans and Democrats should be asking is how can a civilization as weak as the West go to war against Russia and China?

*

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.

Featured image is from Amazon

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on If We Are to Survive We Must Learn to Ask the Right Questions

US Would be Maintaining Biolabs in Indonesia

May 31st, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

After the Russian reports concerning biolabs in Ukraine, the topic of bioweapons research has gained global notoriety, resulting in great scrutiny. It did not take long to realize that Eastern Europe is not the only region on the planet chosen by the US to operate this type of clandestine activity. Now, evidence points to the existence of biolaboratories in Indonesia, increasing even more the concerns of the entire international society with this threat.

Before biological military research became commonplace in newspapers around the world, Indonesia was already a country that accumulated concerns about this topic. For decades, a laboratory of the NAMRU-2 (Naval Medical Research Unit Two) project operated in Jakarta. This Navy military research program is dedicated to operating biomedical activities in several countries on the Asian continent and worked in Indonesia between 1970 and 2009, when it was finally closed after the country’s government declared the existence of this type of unit as a threat to national sovereignty. The main problem is that there is evidence that, despite the official closure of the laboratory, US activities have not actually ended, with current biological research possibly going on in Indonesia without authorization from the local government.

Last month, the Indonesian newspaper Detik published an article denouncing the alleged continuity of operations, stating that at least since 2016, when US military activities in the region intensified due to Pacific Partnership drills, secret research has been maintained. Documents and photos from such drills allegedly obtained by local investigative journalists were exposed in the article, proving the existence of the research. At the time, aboard the hospital ship USS Mercy, three dogs infected with rabies and twenty-three Indonesian nationals were transferred from West Sumatra and navigated across the coast of Padang without prior authorization from the Indonesian Ministry of Health.

At first, the repercussion of the news was low, but the case gained credibility and visibility after recent statements by Fadila Supari, a renowned Indonesian cardiologist, with award-winning research at the WHO, and former minister of health of the country. According to her, although there are little documentary proofs, there is clear evidence that such activities actually continue to take place in Indonesia. She also believes that the events of the 2016 drills were not an isolated situation, but just an episode among several clandestine actions that would be taking place, even involving cooperation between the US military, international institutes and Indonesian universities.

“I think it’s true, the research activity still exists. I can’t prove it, but from what I’ve read and heard, research activities are still going on in various forms of cooperation with research institutes and universities in Indonesia. I think the government should be aware of this”, she said during an interview this week.

It is necessary to mention how experienced in this topic Dr. Supari is. She was one of those responsible for the investigations into the activities of NAMRU-2, which led to the conclusion that the unit represented risks to Indonesian biosecurity, motivating its closure in 2009 – the year in which Supari retired from the Ministry of Health. She conducted an extensive investigation, including surprise visits to the laboratory facility, which made her an adversary to US officials. Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks website in 2010 published leaked documents in which Supari’s name could be read as the main subject of meetings between US military and diplomats in Jakarta and Washington, as she was obstructing the laboratory’s activities – which were considered to be of maximum strategic interest to the US. Finally, in 2009, Supari formally wrote a letter to the US government in which she withdrew the Indonesian Ministry of Health from the international agreement that allowed the installation of the NAMRU biolaboratory in Jakarta, allowing for its subsequent closure in the same year.

It is interesting to note how she emphasizes she believes that international institutes are also involved in such activities – which is probably a conclusion she draws from concrete investigations and data that have not yet been made public. Previously the NAMRU project was openly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, which was committed to research related to diseases that affected the Asian continent. Today, with the data revealed by Moscow about Ukrainian biolabs, we know that several renowned institutes and companies are involved in the funding and operation of clandestine research in Eastern Europe – including big names in Big Pharma, such as Pfizer, for example. So, this may also be the case in Asia, as the existence of public (military) and private interests in the existence of these activities is evident.

Certainly, none of this data is new, but the subject was considered “controversial” until then. In 2009, the Indonesian government was heavily criticized for denouncing US activities as serious biological risks. For years, talking about the existence of biological research for military purposes was considered a conspiracy theory. Now, with the Ukrainian case, the matter has come to light and more and more information is revealed. It seems to be just the beginning of a big black box with many secrets yet to be discovered.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Once again, US irresponsible attitudes are threatening global food security. Recent reports point out that Washington is intensifying the smuggling of Syrian wheat, importing the product from regions illegally occupied by foreign troops and paramilitary militias. This situation is a strong affront to the Syrian sovereignty and has a negative impact on global efforts to reduce hunger and poverty.

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzia, said on May 25 that US importers are significantly increasing their purchases of Syrian wheat, continuing the country’s strategy of maximizing imports from regions in crisis and conflict, such as Syria and Ukraine. In addition to grain, oil is being imported on a large scale, taken from regions over which the legitimate Syrian government has no control.

These were some of his words:

“The United States continues to loot the natural and agricultural resources that belong to the Syrian people (…) [The US] expands its illegal trade in Syrian grain and oil and smuggles them outside the border (…), looting the Syrian wheat and oil, which are the basis for addressing the energy and food crisis”. In his speech, he also emphasized the current situation of those US-occupied areas from which oil and wheat are being imported, stating that “civilians in the areas occupied by the United States in Syria live under unacceptable humanitarian conditions and there is no accountability for crimes”.

This situation in Syria, although intensifying now as the world approaches a global supply crisis, began many years ago. For two decades, Syria was the only Arab country that was self-sufficient in wheat, also maintaining a high surplus that guaranteed it exporting capacity. In 2007, wheat plantations occupied crops totaling 1.7 million hectares and produced a total volume of more than four million tons of grain. The situation began to deteriorate as a result of the West-financed war against the legitimate government. In 2012, a year after the start of the conflict, Syria was for the first time forced to import wheat flour. And since then the country has become absolutely dependent on grain imports for its food security.

As the war escalated, the Syrian government lost control of some of the main wheat producing areas, which came under the control of paramilitary groups of the US-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). After the unauthorized US intervention, American troops were deployed in these zones and ensured the direct flow of goods out of Syria, causing the Syrian government to lose almost its entire production. In every region that rebel forces advanced, local farmers were prohibited from selling their grain to the government in regional agricultural markets. All production was confiscated by US and paramilitary forces and then immediately shipped abroad. A similar process happened with oil, whose producing areas were a special target of the American occupation.

Commenting on the case, Taleb Ibrahim, a Syrian political analyst and deputy director of the Damascus Center for Strategic Studies said:

“The US began the great organised robbery in Syria five years ago. The regions where they are stealing oil and grains are the most productive parts of Syria, as an example the eastern parts of Syria where the US established the illegal military bases are providing Syrian people with 90% of oil products and 80% of grain. At the same time the US has imposed heavy sanctions on Syria to prevent the Syrian government from importing the most important necessities for the Syrian people, which is a war crime, like what had happened in Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and other countries (…) The Western countries are taking the whole world for an international famine, they do not care about humanitarian considerations”.

It is important to note how these allegations come at a time of particular concern for the global food supply. The conflict in Ukraine damages world trade of grains and fertilizers, in addition to a series of sanctions imposed by the West that obstruct the flow of capital and goods. As the Ukrainian government, militarily defeated and economically bankrupt, insists on taking the fight forward, the situation becomes even more dangerous.

In this context, a true global race for food is on the rise, with countries looking to store grains to ensure food security in the long term. The West, in this sense, has acted in a rather complicated way, adhering to a predatory import of Ukrainian wheat grains in exchange for military aid in the conflict. Tons of Ukrainian wheat are being exported daily to the US and Europe, while the country’s population and the soldiers themselves suffer from growing hunger.

Nebenzia also commented on this issue in his speech:

“Grain are being carried out of Ukraine actively using railways and using barges on the Danube but where is this screen going? We have reason to suspect that this grain is not being used to feed the hungry in the Global South, but it’s being stored in grain storage of a number of different European countries”.

As the situation tends to get even worse in the coming months, it is urgent that the matter becomes an international concern and that the West is obliged by the UN to fit its methods of obtaining grain into the regulations applicable to each case. It is illegal for the US to import Syrian grain without authorization from the Syrian government, just as it is unlawful for Zelensky to sign agreements to arbitrarily export grain in exchange for weapons. Either international organizations take control of the situation, or their omission will generate global hunger.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Food Security: Is America Illegally Importing Syrian Wheat, Smuggled Out of a War Zone
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

The new government’s latest deal with Russia could muddle the narrative from their opponents that they came to power to punish the former premier for his ties with that country, which is why it can’t be described as business as usual even if the terms are the same or very similar to the ones that had been agreed to in the past and not close to the 20% discount that Imran Khan was reportedly negotiating.

The Express Tribune reported on Sunday that Pakistan’s Finance Ministry announced the day prior that “The [Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet] allowed import of two million metric tonnes of wheat on a government-to-government basis” from Russia. The outlet added that

“The Ministry of National Food Security had proposed that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Commerce should jointly explore the possibility of barter trade with Russia due to sanctions imposed by the West. However, there are no sanctions on the import of grains from Russia but the government would have to work out a mechanism to make the payments after Moscow has been thrown out of the global payments clearing system –the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (Swift).”

It remains unclear whether the price that was agreed upon comes close to the 20% discount that former Prime Minister Imran Khan earlier claimed that Russia had offered his country prior to his scandalous ouster, just like nobody knows the details of the alternative payment mechanism that’ll be employed. Observers should also note that it isn’t exceptional in and of itself that Pakistan is importing wheat from Russia since it’s done so before in the past. For this reason, one might be inclined to believe that this deal is business as usual and nothing all that important to pay attention to, yet the larger context in which it was announced indicates that there’s something different this time, even if it’s not the advantageous terms that Pakistan’s former premier was reportedly trying to negotiate with Russia.

He blamed his scandalous ouster on a US-orchestrated regime change plot to punish him for his independent foreign policy, particularly its Russian dimension, a charge that the US and the new government that replaced him both deny. The nearly two months since his removal through a no-confidence motion have seen the country slide into one of its worst political crises, which has in turn resulted in Pakistan sending very mixed signals to Russia that implied credence to the premier’s claims that his relations with that Eurasian Great Power had something to do with his removal from office. After all, one would assume that their reported discounted commodity talks would have remained on track and likely already led to the deals that the former premier mentioned had that not been the case.

This lack of progress over nearly the past two months came as Pakistan sunk into one of its worst-ever economic crises that’ll necessitate it seeking the reliable import of discounted food and fuel, which together consume 37.39% of the country’s total import bill, if it’s serious about cutting costs. It’s presumably for this pressing reason why the new US-friendly Pakistani government didn’t rule out such imports from Russia last week despite its traditional partner probably frowning upon Islamabad’s continued dealings with Moscow. Simply put, pragmatism might take precedence over politics in pursuit of “regime reinforcement” regardless of the speculative external pressure involved since former Prime Minister Khan’s successors’ priority is to not be removed from power through poverty-driven riots.

It might very well have been with this goal in mind instead of a desire to reaffirm its principled neutrality in the New Cold War that the Finance Ministry just announced that it allowed the import of two million metric tonnes of wheat from Russia.  So as not to be misunderstood, this deal will serve the objective interests of the Pakistani people even if it wasn’t agreed to on the advantageous terms that the former premier was reportedly negotiating since the country urgently needs to ensure its food security amidst the global crisis in this sphere, though there’s also no ignoring that it’s in the new government’s political interests as well for the earlier explained reason. Building upon the last-mentioned observation, it can be predicted that some of its supporters might spin the deal to refute the former premier’s claims.

For example, they could point to this agreement to cast doubt on his accusation that they came to power as part of a US-orchestrated regime change plot to punish him for his Russian-friendly foreign policy after they themselves just proved that they’re capable of reaching a deal with that multipolar Great Power in spite of actively trying to improve ties with its unipolar American rival. In possible response to that domestic politicization of this international deal, their opponents could retort that the terms might not have been as advantageous as what former Prime Minister Khan was reportedly trying to negotiate, the claim of which could be intended to erode the potential boost to the new government’s legitimacy and thus uphold the legitimacy of their critics’ allegations against them.

The new government’s latest deal with Russia could muddle the narrative from their opponents that they came to power to punish the former premier for his ties with that country, which is why it can’t be described as business as usual even if the terms are the same or very similar to the ones that had been agreed to in the past and not close to the 20% discount that Imran Khan was reportedly negotiating. Put another way, Pakistan’s relations with Russia have been at the center of the country’s latest political crisis but had hitherto been instrumentalized by the former government, though now the incumbents might have realized that they could spin the deal that they likely reached purely out of survival necessity and not for political pragmatic reasons in order to cast doubt on their critics’ accusations against them.

*

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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

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

***

This video opens a non-periodic series in which some news of Pangea Grandangolo is aired on Friday on Byoblu.

Click image to watch the video.

The news mentioned in this episode is the exclusion of the Russian violinist Lidia Kocharian and two other Russian violinists from the 41st International Violin Competition organized by the Rodolfo Lipizer Music School of Gorizia. This decision was officially communicated to the violinist with these words: “following the European provisions deriving from the Russia-Ukraine war and following the example of other competitions in various disciplines”.

Lidia Kocharian, interviewed by Berenice Galli, recounts this experience, confirming that it is not an isolated case but is part of a real anti-Russian campaign. M° Stefano Burbi, composer and conductor, after expressing his solidarity with Lidia and her colleagues, explains the extreme gravity decision to exclude from the international competition the three violinists because they are Russian. At the end of the program, Lidia Kocharian dedicates one of her pieces to the Byoblu audience.

*

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 in Italian on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Criminalization of Russian Music”: The Exclusion of Russian Violinists from the International Competition of Gorizia

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

One recalls that when war fever surged demanding intervention by Imperial Britain in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, a song became popular in the music halls which included “We don’t want to fight, But by Jingo if we do, We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too.” If the refrain sounds familiar, it should as the United States has been experiencing extreme “jingoism” since 2001. Any rejection of the “rules based international order” established and policed by “leader of the free world” Washington has resulted in immediate punishment by sanctions followed by threats of military intervention. In some cases, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the actual armed intervention seeking regime change has been the end result. And it is all done to spread “freedom” and “democracy,” a claim that might be disputed by the millions of dead mostly Muslims who have had to suffer the consequences.

So the United States of America has been a country, like its best friend Israel, that seems to be perpetually at war…so what else is new? What’s new is that under President Joe Biden there has been zero diplomacy and almost reflexive reliance on wielding the “big stick.” To quote another bon mot from one of my favorite authors Raymond Chandler, creator of private eye Philip Marlowe, “…when in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns.”

Don’t worry, Chandler’s two guys and many more like them are now in Ukraine under cover and in mufti training Ukrainians to use all the nifty Raytheon and Lockheed toys Uncle Joe has sent them. They are working together with the largely neocon advisers coaching Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is guarded by British and US special forces, on what to say and do during his increasingly strident international calls to widen the war. If they are successful and manage to sink another Russian ship or two using harpoon missiles, which Zelensky is threatening to do, the proxy US war with Russia could quickly become for real. Zelensky’s family meanwhile is reportedly safely ensconced in an $8 million villa in Israel. He also has a multi-million dollar villa property near Miami and another in Tuscany. Who would have thought that being president of the poorest country in Europe could bring such material rewards?

Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone, who has a huge worldwide audience, opines that Biden is possibly the worst US president ever, worse even that his consistently denigrated predecessor and media punching bag Donald Trump. Her recent article succinctly addresses what makes Biden’s egregious failure both different and incredibly dangerous. She writes

“Preventing nuclear war is a US president’s single most important job. It’s so important you shouldn’t even really have to talk about it, because it’s so self-evidently the number one priority. And this administration is just rolling the dice on nuclear conflict with increasing frequency every day. Even if humanity survives this standoff (and the one with China that’s next in line), Biden will still have been an unforgivably depraved president for allowing it to get this close. There’s no excuse whatsoever for just casually rolling the dice on all terrestrial life like this.”

Indeed, Joe Biden’s latest tricks include declaring that the US will go to war with China to protect Taiwan if Beijing should prove so bold as to want to take control of its wayward province. But the US established policy is to maintain “strategic ambiguity” about China/Taiwan, a diplomatic solution crafted in 1979 to help prevent any provocations by either party that would lead to the situation developing into a shooting war. Joe seems to have missed that point, if he ever understood it in the first place, and certainly his advisers appear to be no more savvy than he is, though the White House quickly issued a correction on the apparent gaffe in the form of a statement that automatic defense of Taiwan is not official policy. Yet.

But my favorite move by the Biden Administration, if one might be so bold as to suggest that it is actually capable of administering anything more kinetic than a hot dog stand, is the latest pander to Israel. The recent murder by military sharpshooter of Palestinian/American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh followed by a humiliating spectacle of police violence at the funeral as well as subsequently at a second Palestinian funeral, actually found some administration flunkies and congress critters calling for a full investigation by Israel. The Israeli government and army refused to do so and the White House has pretended that there is no longer anything to see or consider. Israeli Defense (sic) Minister Benny Gantz recently visited Washington but the issue of a murdered American was not even raised as top official tried to outdo each other in expressing both their love for and fealty to the Jewish state, which Biden will soon be visiting. The US president will ignore the fact that Israel is celebrating his visit with its greatest eviction of Palestinian residents in twenty years.

That the United States has been a major source of money, weapons and political cover for Israel since 1967 if not before is indisputable, the result of corruption of America’s government at all levels by the groups and billionaires euphemistically described as the “Israel Lobby.” War criminal Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu have boasted about their control over Congress and the White House as well as the media and every time Israel does something atrocious the only US response has been to give it more money. Israel would sorely love to have the United States fights its wars, most prominently by attacking Iran, but somehow that military intervention and regime change, apart from a number of assassinations, has not yet taken place.

But now all of that might be changing due to a combination of the Biden regime’s recklessness and Israel’s genuine contempt for the American people, who they have been parasitically feeding off of since their settler state was founded. The US has, for the first time, participated in a large-scale military exercise with Israel on May 18thwhich was designed to simulate an attack on Iran using American Air Force refueling planes to enhance the ability of Israel to keep its jets flying to maintain air superiority over the Persians. It was a war game in the most literal sense even though the tanker aircraft did not actually refuel any Israeli planes and it basically commits the United States to be a dedicated participant if the Israelis should throw the dice and chance on a military attack on Iran’s presumed nuclear and air defense sites.

I also smell a possible false flag if the exercise is repeated, as it surely will be. What if one of the US planes taking part in a future exercise were to be shot down in an incident staged by Israel that might plausibly be attributed to Iran? As the exercises will presumably take place over the Mediterranean Sea in the coastal waters part of which Israel has inter alia stolen from Gaza and controls, bringing Iran into the equation would be difficult but possible to manage with enough cleverness combined with hubris, which the Israelis have in plentiful supply. That Israel would without hesitation shed American blood if it were to advance its own perceived interests should not be doubted by anyone. Look only at the two Israel false flag attacks against the US, the Lavon bombing incident in 1954 and the bloody assault on the USS Liberty in 1967, which killed 34 American sailors and injured more than a hundred others in an attempt to sink the ship and kill all its crew. That is the Israel America has grown to love and nourish, a viper in one’s bosom, always willing to strike the body that feeds it.

But to return to Caitlin Johnstone’s observation, America is in deep trouble. Its economy is visibly sinking while standards of living are dropping and will decline further as military spending grows while both the increasingly “woke” educational system and industrial base are no longer competitive. We have a plausibly psychopathic government that is bringing us to the brink of war with several nuclear powers. What we Americans need is not another war, but rather an end to war, particular those wars that can somehow kill most or even all of us. Instead, help build pressure to wind down the Ukraine war through negotiations, stop feeding Zelensky with weapons and money. Leave China alone and stop being Israel’s patsy against Iran and inside Syria. Try to get along with competitors. It would indeed be a Brave New World, wouldn’t it? A country at peace with itself and working to benefit the American people – something that we have rarely seen since 1945.

*

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 The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

Don’t Trade Real Liberty for Phony Security

May 31st, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Authoritarian politicians wasted no time using the recent shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, to justify new infringements on liberty. Just days after the Buffalo shooting, the US House of Representatives passed a law creating new domestic terrorism offices in the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

This is a step toward achieving the longstanding goal of many progressives of focusing the national security state on “domestic terrorists” and “right-wing extremists.” Supporters of these efforts have used the Buffalo shooter’s mention of “replacement theory” in his “manifesto” to attack prominent conservative commentators, most notably Tucker Carlson. Carlson and others are accused of spreading the replacement conspiracy theory because they have pointed out that the Left has for years celebrated the coming “replacement” of the white majority population. The goal is to stigmatize, intimidate, and even criminalize those expressing views or facts that contradict the cultural Marxists or the Democrat party establishment.

Painting the Buffalo shooter as a conservative requires ignoring his self-description as an environmental-fascist and his disdain for “Fox News conservatism.” The mainstream media also ignores the shooter’s use of the same neo-Nazi symbol used by the Ukrainian Azov brigade. This may be because they do not want the American people to realize their tax dollars are supporting actual Nazis in Ukraine.

The push to use the police state against “right-wing extremists” is supported by many progressives who (correctly) oppose the national security state’s civil liberties abuses of Muslim and other minorities. Conversely, many conservatives who have defended all infringements on liberty done in the name of the “global war on terror,” (correctly) oppose federal crackdown on “right wing extremists.”

Both sides fail to realize that a violation of any individual’s liberty is a threat to everyone’s liberty.

The massacre of 19 school children and two teachers in Uvalde Texas was followed by calls for expanded gun controls from President Biden and other prominent politicians. Among the proposals floated are a renewed push for federal Red Flag laws. Red Flag laws allow law enforcement to take someone’s guns without due process based on a mere allegation that an individual poses a risk of violent behavior. Despite being unconstitutional, easily abused, and ineffective at stopping violent crime, Red Flag laws enjoy broad bipartisan support. For example, former President Donald Trump endorsed a policy of “take the gun first, worry about due process later.”

If Congress was serious about protecting liberty and security, they would pass Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie’s legislation repealing the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.” This poorly worded law leaves children defenseless against mass shooters who are not dissuaded from their evil intentions by “Gun-Free Zone” signs. Video showing the Uvalde police not only standing around outside the school, but tasering parents who were trying to protect their children reinforces the importance of allowing school personnel to protect themselves and their students by carrying firearms.

Expanding the police state to “monitor” right-wing extremism and giving the government new powers to deny law-abiding individuals access to firearms make us less safe and less free. Instead of allowing politicians to use mass shootings as an excuse to further expand their powers, we must insist they repeal all federal laws that trade real liberty for phony security starting with the USA FREEDOM Acts (previously known as the USA PATRIOT Act) and the so-called Safe and Gun Free Schools Act.

*

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 Abayomi Azikiwe

FDA Authorizes Pfizer Boosters for Kids 5 to 11

May 31st, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

The FDA has authorized the use of a booster COVID-19 shot in children ages 5 to 11; less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy

Effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children wanes rapidly; a CDC study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds, but this fell to just 28.9% by month two

There is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots as well as booster doses in adults

Artificially inflated antibodies triggered by booster shots signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health

COVID-19 shots are associated with liver injury, including liver failure that led to a liver transplant

Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and CDC data show that COVID-19 case rates among children who received two COVID-19 shots are now higher than rates in children who did not get the shots

*

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot to allow a booster dose for children ages 5 to 11.1 The FDA’s “evaluation of safety” for the booster dose in young children was based on a study of only about 400 children, and no meeting was held with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The booster shot is intended to be given at least five months after the primary two-dose series has been completed, but less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy.2

“[G]iven that these children have the lowest coronavirus vaccination rate of all eligible Americans, [as most parents have wisely avoided giving their child the jab,] public health experts are not expecting a rush for the booster,” The New York Times reported,3 and this is good news, since multiple red flags have risen regarding the use of these shots, particularly among children.

COVID Shots’ Dismal Effectiveness Wanes Rapidly

Booster shots are typically released because the initial shots aren’t working as planned. This is certainly the case with COVID-19 shots, which have been found to have dismally low effectiveness rates of 12%, according to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health.4 In their rationale for why a booster dose is now needed for children, Dr. Peter Marks, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said:5

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations.”

From December 13, 2021, to January 24, 2022, the New York State Department of Health researchers analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 years, who had received two doses of the shots. Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%.

Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.6 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.7

A CDC study also found that the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots against symptomatic COVID-19 infection “was modest and decreased rapidly” from December 2021 to February 2022.8 The study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds. This fell to just 28.9% by month 2.

A similar trend was seen among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. Vaccine effectiveness two to four weeks after the second dose of the shots was 59.5%, and this fell to 16.6% during month two.9Among adolescents who received a booster dose, effectiveness went back up to 71.1% two to 6.5 weeks later, but it’s not revealed what happened after that.

If data from adults are any indication, the boost in effectiveness from the booster will also be short-lived. Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19 decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.10

Children’s Booster Trial Didn’t Test Effectiveness

The FDA’s decision to allow a booster dose for children was based on an ongoing Pfizer trial — the same one that it used to authorize the first set of COVID-19 shots in the 5- to 11-year-old age group.

Antibody responses were evaluated in only 67 subjects who received a booster shot seven to nine months after the two-dose primary series of shots. “The antibody level against the SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after the booster dose was increased compared to before the booster dose,” the FDA noted.11

However, there is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots. The New York Times also reported:12

“In the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial, children showed a sixfold increase in antibody levels against the original version of the virus one month after receiving the booster, compared with one month after receiving a second dose …

Laboratory tests of blood samples from a tiny subgroup of 30 children also showed 36 times the level of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant compared with levels after only two doses. The study did not show how long the antibodies last or test effectiveness against Covid-19.”

High, Artificially Elevated Antibodies Come at a Cost

What’s more, the notion that increasing antibodies equates to disease protection and better health is misguided. Artificially inflated antibodies signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health.

Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.13 During normal infections, your cellular immune system produces high fever and temporary T-cell elevations, along with elevated antibodies to the infection, gradually dissipate.

Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, explained, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”14 This is a normal response and isn’t a measure of waning immunity.

On the contrary, repeatedly, artificially inflating antibodies with booster shots comes with a cost and can lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urges a retreat from the vaccination “death zone” before it’s too late.15

It’s known, for instance, that certain autoimmune diseases are seen alongside high levels of antibodies.16 Further, COVID-19 shots train your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein and cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. Speaking with Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural infection produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:17

“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.

Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine core platform technology,18 also stated, “When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and ignored natural immunity among children. Yet 81 research studies19 confirm that natural immunity to COVID is equal or superior to any ‘vaccine immunity.’”20

COVID Shots Cause Liver Failure, Other Serious Adverse Effects

A concerning number of case reports describe the development of immune-mediated and autoimmune hepatitis in the days and weeks following COVID-19 injections.21 A team of researchers collected date from such cases from 18 countries, identifying 87 patients with a median age of 48 years who developed autoimmune hepatitis-like liver injury after a COVID-19 shot.22

Typically, the liver injury was diagnosed 15 days after the shot. Most cases (59%) were attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot while 23% were linked to the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot and 18% to Moderna’s shot. All of the patients in the study recovered from the liver injury after treatment — except for one. That man developed liver failure and had to have a liver transplant. The researchers concluded:23

“SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be associated with liver injury. Corticosteroid therapy may be beneficial in those with immune-mediated features or severe hepatitis. Outcome was generally favorable, but vaccine associated liver injury led to fulminant liver failure in one patient.”

Young children are also developing severe hepatitis at an unusually high rate and nobody knows why.24 It’s unclear how many of the children have received COVID-19 shots, but researchers did suggest that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection could have left behind spike protein that’s acting as a “superantigen”25 and triggering the immune system to over-react to other viruses, such as adenovirus-41F, which is causing liver damage.26

If that’s the case, the spike protein that circulates in the body after COVID-19 shots could also be problematic, especially since “mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”27 Other concerning adverse events have also been reported.

One study published in Scientific Reports, for instance, revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.28

COVID-19 Case Rates Higher in Injected Children

Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, making the recommendations for COVID-19 shots, and now boosters, among this population highly questionable — even ludicrous.

“Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potential harm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID,” Malone stated.29

The CDC’s own data also show that COVID-19 case rates among children who have received two COVID-19 shots have been higher than rates in children who did not get the shots since February 2022.30

“That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021,” Malone said,31 and perhaps it’s harbinger of things to come. Adding a booster dose to the already dangerous, ineffective and flawed COVID-19 shot recommendations for children will only add more fuel to the fire.

*

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.

Notes

1, 5, 11 U.S. FDA May 17, 2022

2, 3, 12 The New York Times May 16, 2022

4 medRxiv February 28, 2022

6, 7 CNBC February 28, 2022

8 JAMA. Published online May 13, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7493

9 JAMA. Published online May 13, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7493, Key Points

10 The New York Times February 11, 2022

13 InformedHealth.org, How does the immune system work? April 23, 2020

14 NewsWise May 24, 2021

15 Marc Girardot, COVID Myth Buster News January 30, 2021

16 Science Daily July 12, 2016

17 The Blaze July 14, 2021

18 Trial Site News May 30, 2021

19 Children’s Health Defense October 19, 2021

20, 29, 31 Substack, Who is Robert Malone May 17, 2022

21 Journal of Hepatology October 4, 2021

22, 23 Hepatology. 2022 May 14. doi: 10.1002/hep.32572. Online ahead of print

24 NBC News April 15, 2022

25 The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology May 14, 2022

26 Reuters May 16, 2022

27 Food and Chemical Toxicology June 2022, Volume 164, 113008

28 Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6978 (2022)

30 CDC, Rates of COVID-19 Cases by Vaccination Status and Age Group, December 5, 2021-March 19, 2022

Featured image is from Mercola

Biden Is Fiddling as Jerusalem Burns

May 31st, 2022 by David Hearst

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Quietly and without a murmur, the Middle East policy of US President Joe Biden appears to be performing what stunt riders call a handbrake turn.

Biden is veering away from his signature policy, a nuclear deal with Iran, and lurching towards Saudi normalisation with Israel, which was the major piece of unfinished business of former President Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords.

After this stunt has been performed, Biden’s Middle East policy will be all but indistinguishable from Trump’s. Qatar will no longer be under siege but Iran will remain under maximum sanctions, and all US attention will be on growing Israel’s links with the region.

For all his naked mercantilist ambitions – backing illegitimate despots in return for his 30 pieces of silver – Trump’s legacy in the Middle East is enduring. Having denounced both its de facto ruler and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself as a “pariah” state, Biden seems to be only too willing to deal with pariahs. He is following sheep-like in Trump’s footsteps.

The clearest indication of this is what Biden has done to the draft agreement to reinstitute the Iran nuclear deal, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew four years ago. The product of 11 months of talks with two Iranian administrations, the US walked away at the end of March with what a State Department spokesman described as a “small number” of outstanding issues.

Since then, lead American negotiator Rob Malley has been denounced in the US media as too dovish on Iran. His proposal to remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) has been overruled by Biden, and the whole deal seems to be heading for the sands.

Malley’s latest public assessment is that the chances of striking a deal are “at best tenuous”. Privately, Malley is frustrated – and by no means is all of that frustration directed at Iran.

Contradictory signals

On the Iranian side, there is bemusement that the FTO issue is the deal-breaker. This declaration is almost entirely rhetorical, and lifting it would not affect the US Treasury sanctions on the IRGC, which would continue. But this is not the only issue. The American side has also been wavering, or sending contradictory signals, on the two issues that are key to this deal: verification and sanctions relief.

Let us be clear: Iran, under this deal, would have agreed to almost all of its 60-percent-enriched uranium being shipped out of the country in return for Russian yellowcake.

Suddenly, everyone has stopped talking about this. No one is talking about the ability of Iran to reach “nuclear breakout”, which we were told could be only a matter of days away. If the genuine aim was to stop Iran from having the capacity to get a bomb, here is the US walking away from a deal that verifiably deprives Tehran of that capacity.

If the US and Israel were as concerned as they claim to be about the prospect of Iran manufacturing a bomb, and the ensuing nuclear proliferation in the Gulf, then why is one party walking away and the other applauding it for doing so?

Coincidentally, the well-informed Barak Ravid reports that one of Israel’s most senior defence officers, retired Brigadier General Dror Shalom, told State Department officials on a recent visit that the US made a mistake by exiting the Iran deal in 2018. Shalom argued that the exit brought Iran closer to a nuclear weapon.

If you follow that logic, why would you not want to sign the deal as it now exists?

Of course, the Iranians could say that their nuclear enrichment programme was always used by the West as a pretext for sanctions. The real aim of sanctions was to bring about regime change in Iran – and I don’t think, on this evidence, they are wrong.

Two uninhabited islands

But the shelved deal with Iran is not the only sign of Biden’s shift. His officials have alighted on the outstanding issue of the transfer of two strategically placed but uninhabited islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia.

When Egypt decided five years ago to transfer two disputed islands in the Red Sea, Tiran and Sanafir, to Saudi Arabia, protests broke out in Cairo. The move enraged Egyptians, who saw the deal as a concession to the kingdom in exchange for continued financial support for President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s bankrupt regime.

Initially, the Americans were not involved. Now they are, and not just any Americans, but one official in particular: Brett McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, who in the words of the people who know and work with him, “torches the house and then shows up with a fire hose”. McGurk is reportedly spearheading secret talks between Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt over the transfer of the islands.

Tiran Sanafir map

Tiran and Sanafir control the Straits of Tiran, a sensitive passage of water to the ports of Aqaba in Jordan and Eilat in Israel. The islands were demilitarised as part of the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, which gives Israel a say on the continuing work of a multinational force of observers who patrol the islands and ensure the passage remains open.

Israel reportedly has its own conditions. It wants Saudi Arabia to allow Israeli airlines to use Saudi airspace to shorten its flights to India, Thailand and China, along with direct flights from Israel to Saudi Arabia for Muslims on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina.

All of this is pushing rapidly in the direction of Saudi normalisation with Israel, the jewel still missing in the crown of the Abraham Accords.

Palestinians sidelined

As is by now well known, the crown prince and future king of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), has set normalisation with Israel as his primary foreign policy goal.

Chumming up to then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in clandestine meetings was the young prince’s path to getting his name recognised by the White House and to building a relationship with the Trump dynasty.

But his father, King Salman, still retains ownership of and pride in Saudi Arabia’s brokerage of the Arab Peace Initiative two decades ago, which promised Arab recognition of Israel only once it reached a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

This was the last serious opportunity for a regional peace deal, and at the time it was ignored by Israel. The Abraham Accords have reversed this principle by sidelining the Palestinians, whose fate is irrelevant to the deals being made between the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, Morocco and Israel.

Biden, whose administration started by echoing King Salman’s concerns about the Abraham Accords, is now falling increasingly into an unholy embrace with his son. It’s unlikely to work. Saudi Arabia is still insisting on keeping Russia as co-chair of Opec+. But MBS will revel in the opportunity to keep Biden dangling.

Of course, Biden on his forthcoming visit to Israel and the Gulf will perform the related rituals, and meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who refuses to retire or to allow Palestinians to hold free elections.

But the real meat of this visit is not to maintain the fiction that talks can be restarted between a defunct Palestinian leadership and an Israeli political establishment that refuses to contemplate a Palestinian state being set up in the midst of a Jewish state that controls the area from the river to the sea.

It is to push for Saudi normalisation with Israel.

Widening gap

Never before has the gap between this sort of statecraft and the reality on the ground been as wide. No Saudi, Palestinian or Egyptian is being given a say in the deals being hatched over their heads, which will have a profound impact on their lives – because if they were, their leaders would meet the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi. They would face a lynch mob.

In recent months, 14 Israelis have been killed by lone attackers with no affiliation to Palestinian militant groups and little to each other. That is more than who died by the rockets fired by Hamas after Israel’s strikes on Gaza last year.

The reality for a new generation of Palestinians is not which leader they are going to vote for, or what hopes they have that this leader will secure a Palestinian state.

The placement of a senior Fatah official, such as Hussein al-Sheikh, as a likely successor to Abbas means nothing to them. Sheikh’s very credentials to power – that he was the minister in charge of security coordination with Israel – are the very reasons why he could never secure the trust of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

The only choice left for them is what form of resistance they will take against the occupation. They have no hope of attaining liberation by any other means. So their choice is this: to die now quickly in attacks on Israeli settlers, soldiers or civilians, or to die slowly under occupation.

Neither Israel, nor the US, nor any Arab state has an answer for them. To report on the conflict, as Shireen Abu Akleh did for Al Jazeera, is to court a targeted Israel sniper attack, which Al Jazeera is now bringing to the International Criminal Court as a war crime.

To bury her body is to court the blows and bullets of Israeli police. To fly a Palestinian flag is apparently now license for lethal force from those who get heavy police escorts to parade Israeli flags all around Palestinian quarters.

Asked specifically to condemn the police attacks on the coffin-bearers, Biden gave a Trump-like response: “I don’t know all the detail, but I know it has to be investigated.”

A more potent bomb

When Trump was confronted by evidence that his protege MBS had ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, he said something similar: “It could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t! We may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi.”

Both US presidents deliberately and persistently look the other way to foster an alliance between the two least stable forces in the Middle East: Israel and Saudi Arabia. How much longer Biden can look away on events about to unfold in Jerusalem is another matter.

On Sunday, a mighty parade of Israeli flags will be pushed right through the Muslim quarter of the Old City, in what is known as the Jerusalem Day Flag March. The same parade last year sparked a war with Gaza and clashes between armed vigilante gangs of settlers and Palestinians in mixed cities all over Israel, with 232 Palestinians, including 54 minors and 38 women, killed in the ensuing firestorm.

Jerusalem has a track record in starting wars, the Crusades and the Crimean War being just two. The Judaisation of occupied East Jerusalem, the now-weekly police raids on al-Aqsa Mosque, the calls for the Dome of the Rock to be dismantled, the attacks on Palestinians waving their national flag  – all make this city a far more potent bomb than the Iranian nuclear enrichment programme.

Trump’s decision to move the US embassy there, followed by a Biden administration that refuses to move on its promise to reopen its consulate for Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem, leaves Washington incapable of applying a brake on Israel’s plans for the city.

US foreign policy has been taken by surprise on too many occasions in the last three decades. The US was surprised by the results of its invasion of Iraq. It was surprised by the sudden collapse of Kabul after so much time and money had been spent propping it up. It was surprised by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

But few in their right mind could claim to be surprised by the outbreak of a third intifada over Jerusalem. Least of all the Biden administration.

It took just 16 months for Biden to morph into Trump in the Middle East. If Nero had been alive today, he would be smiling at the sight of Biden fiddling while Jerusalem burns.

*

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.

David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

Featured image: Thousands of Muslims praying at Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Source: Liberation News)

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

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

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

***

More than two weeks have passed since Israeli soldiers shot and killed Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh and, much to Israel’s chagrin, the issue is not fading into the background, as it usually does when Palestinians die at Israel’s hands. 

Had Shireen been killed by the military of any other country, a thorough, transparent, and honest investigation would be virtually automatic. She was a Palestinian citizen of the United States. Yet, as we have seen in the past, the odds are against the U.S. undertaking an investigation let alone carrying one out that is independent and impartial.

But now, CNN and the Associated Press—neither of which has ever demonstrated any “anti-Israel bias,” despite occasional, baseless accusations from far-right Israeli figures and supporters—have both conducted impartial investigations that support the very strong eyewitness testimony and video evidence that we already have, and refute Israel’s counter-claims. This will add to the growing pressure on the Biden administration to launch an investigation.

That pressure has taken an unusual form: a congressional letter calling for the State Department and the FBI to investigate Shireen’s death. That letter is not just another message from the few members of Congress that speak out occasionally for Palestinian rights. It was signed by 57 members of the House of Representatives, more than one fourth of the House Democratic caucus and includes names that surely raised a few eyebrows.

While we might expect Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar and Barbara Lee to call for a U.S. investigation into the death of a U.S. citizen at Israel’s hands, this letter was signed by some members who generally try to avoid voting against Israel. Seth Moulton, Tom Malinowski, Eric Swalwell, and others tend to support bland statements about a two-state solution but avoid controversial issues. And this is certainly controversial.

The letter was spearheaded by Andre Carson (D-IN), one of only three Muslim members of Congress, and Lou Correa (D-CA). Carson has worked with and been endorsed by J Street, which, along with Americans for Peace Now, have been supporting this bill. He is among the House members who tends to be more critical of Israel.

Correa, by contrast, has been endorsed by such groups as AIPAC and Pro-Israel America, and has been hawkish on Israel, even voting to condemn Barack Obama’s lone abstention at the United Nations on a bill criticizing Israeli settlements in 2016. That Correa would not only support a bill calling for an investigation of Israel’s involvement in what would be a war crime but take the lead on it is quite stunning.

While the letter steers notably clear of accusing Israel of Abu Akleh’s killing, it does state that Israel’s defense against the charges has been called into question. It says that

“The Israeli military claimed that the victims were caught between gunfire between (sic) Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces. However…Shaza Hanaysheh, another Palestinian journalist…said there were no clashes or shootings in the immediate area.”

The letter noted other testimony stating flatly that there were no Palestinian fighters in the immediate area.

That’s far from a direct accusation, but in Congress it’s nearly blasphemy to even hint that Israel might have committed a war crime, as the deliberate killing of a journalist would be. But this letter was more than enough to draw a sharp response from Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Herzog.

Herzog complained that the Carson-Correa letter didn’t acknowledge Israel’s call for a joint investigation with the Palestinian Authority, a call which the Palestinians flatly and sensibly rejected. He accuses the congressmembers of omitting “significant evidence” that has either been debunked or Israel has not presented at all.

The Israeli ambassador’s hyperbolic reaction is an indication of how badly Israel is losing the fight for public opinion. While the scene at Shireen’s funeral certainly didn’t help, the real problem is that all the evidence that has been made public and every investigation that has not been led by the very military that stands accused have all pointed to Israel’s guilt.

Nevertheless, it remains unlikely that the Biden administration will launch any kind of investigation. That should be a wake up call for every American citizen. As a matter of course, the State Department should, as part of its obligation to protect American citizens abroad, investigate what was, in any case, a wrongful and violent killing of an American citizen. But many supporters of Palestinian rights in the United States will surely wonder if it is worth pursuing such an investigation.

There would be a huge amount of skepticism about any U.S. investigation based on the U.S.’ long history of covering for and defending Israeli behavior. But that should not imply that the U.S. government is absolved of its responsibilities to its citizens. If a citizen of any country is killed abroad, that country should make certain that all the facts of that death are known, and accountability, if any is called for, is meted out.

But the United States routinely accepts Israel’s explanations for the deaths of Americans. The most infamous example of this is Rachel Corrie who, in 2003, was crushed to death under and Israeli bulldozer as she tried to protect a Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip from being demolished. Back then, many of us were active in pressing for a U.S. investigation, but to no avail. The United States accepted Israel’s claim of accidental death, and Rachel’s family fought for years in U.S. and Israeli courts but received no justice.

In January of this year, Omar Asaad, a 78 year old Palestinian American, Omar Asaad, was killed at an Israeli checkpoint when soldiers pulled him from his car, marched him to a construction site and left him bound and gagged for over an hour, causing a heart attack. The soldiers who did it were lightly reprimanded and transferred. The State Department said they were “continuing to discuss the case” with Israel, but the matter has simply dropped off the radar, much as Israel is hoping Shireen’s death will do in due course.

State and the FBI are probably the best options among U.S. agencies for conducting a legitimate investigation of Shireen’s death. But it’s hard to imagine a U.S. investigation that ended with blame falling squarely on Israel, even if all the evidence indicates that’s where it belongs, as, so far, it does.

An international investigation would stand a better chance of being fair and transparent. But we can be certain that Israel, which consistently claims that the United Nations and every international institution is bent on its destruction, would refuse to cooperate, and will reject any findings short of absolute exoneration as biased and antisemitic. That was proven quite clearly in 2009, when Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African judge who was one of the most respected international jurists in the world, was Jewish and was not only a Zionist, but had deep ties to Israel, was tapped to investigate Israel’s assault on Gaza earlier that year.

He was pilloried personally and ostracized from his community. The report itself was rejected by Israel and the United States and, while it remains part of the historical record, it had no material impact on Israel’s behavior, as subsequent assaults on Gaza have demonstrated.

Yet as grim as this outlook is, there would be one significant and tangible benefit to a State Department/FBI investigation into Israel’s killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. It would be a step—a small one, but a step—toward eroding Israeli impunity. Even a less than convincing U.S. investigation is progress from no investigations at all.

The case against Israel in Shireen Abu Akleh’s killing is strong. Israel dismissed CNN’s damning investigation as “baseless” but offered no refutation of the considerable evidence presented in CNN’s report. Their inability to substantively respond to the evidence presented beyond name-calling and far-fetched conspiracy theories that depend on eyewitnesses all lying and maintaining perfect coordination between their “lies” and the video evidence, shows how thin their defense is.

A U.S. investigation would have a tough time supporting such a thin defense. If they tried, and they likely would, it would only look more like a cover-up. It’s worthwhile to try to push the U.S. into that position. Raising the costs of covering for Israel in that way is a potentially sound strategy.

*

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.

Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is the co-author, with Marc Lamont Hill, of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics. Mitchell’s previous positions include vice president at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Director of the US Office of B’Tselem, and Co-Director of Jewish Voice for Peace. You can find him on Twitter @MJPlitnick.

Featured image: JOE BIDEN SPEAKING AT THE 2019 IOWA FEDERATION OF LABOR CONVENTION. (PHOTO: FLICKR/GAGE SKIDMORE)

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The European Union’s REPowerEU seeks to reduce the European Union’s dependency on Russian fossil fuels and accelerate the transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The European Commission’s cost estimate, however, may fall short as Rystad Energy analysis suggests the plan will require at least €1 trillion in investment to meet the core objective of increasing renewable generation from 40% to 45% of total energy supply by 2030. Additional investment will be required to meet targets, including grid and battery storage developments to ensure a stable supply of energy as the whole European power system will need to be restructured. While the plan defines different angles to tackle the current crisis, the most detailed section outlines the roadmap for solar PV. The strategy aims to bring 320 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV online by 2025 and almost 600 GW by 2030, aiming to displace 9 billion cubic meters (Bcm) of gas demand. Europe currently has around 189 GW of installed solar PV capacity, meaning 131 GW need to be installed by the middle of the decade, or an equivalent of 44 GW per year. This would mean almost doubling the installation rate, which was 24 GW in 2021 and is expected to be 29 GW this year. To reach the targeted 600 GW by 2030, around 56 GW of new solar PV capacity would need to be installed during the following five years.

Assuming an average cost for solar PV of €1.1 million per megawatt (MW) of installed capacity, installing 411 GW between now and 2030 would represent an investment of €452 billion. Reaching 45% renewable energy supply by 2030 additionally requires significant investments in wind capacity – for which the plan does not have a lot of detail. Rystad Energy’s estimates suggest another 450-490 GW of wind capacity would need to be installed by 2030 to reach the target of 45% renewable energy supply, requiring an additional €820 billion in investments.

Such a transition will require huge investments but thus far the European Commission has been unclear about the total amounts allocated to achieve its goals. Recent announcements and communications mention that €225 billion is already available in loans and that an additional investment of €300 billion could be needed by 2030. Regardless of the total amount being assigned to new renewable energy developments, the figures seem to fall considerably below the required additional investment needed in power transmission, storage, gas infrastructure, and hydrogen production. Furthermore, such a large demand for new capacity will put additional pressure on the supply chain for solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing and could lead to a further increase in costs for these technologies.

“The ambition of the REPowerEU plan is huge. Power companies and energy markets will be looking for details on investments and infrastructure. While the targets are achievable, it will require wartime-like planning, levels of investment, construction, and production to meet goals by 2030,” says Carlos Torres Diaz, head of power research at Rystad Energy.

Targets breakdown

The EU has identified six key areas to reach REPowerEU targets:

  • Smart investment
  • Tackle slow and complex permitting for major renewable projects
  • Saving energy
    • Increase binding energy efficiency targets from 9% to 13%
    • Cut gas and oil demand by 5% through behavioral changes
  • Diversifying fossil fuels supplies
    • Develop a joint purchasing mechanism to negotiate gas purchases
    • Develop major hydrogen corridors in the Mediterranean and the North Sea
  • Accelerating the rollout of renewable energy
    • Increase the target for renewables from 40% to 45% of total energy supply by 2030
    • Double solar PV capacity by 2025 and reach 600 GW of installed capacity by 2030
    • Double the rate of heat pump deployment
    • Eliminate red tape for renewable energy project permitting
    • Produce 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen and import an additional 10 million tonnes by 2030
  • Reducing fossil fuel consumption in industry and transport
    • Reduce natural gas consumption from the industrial sector by an additional 35 Bcm by 2030 by using renewable hydrogen, biogas, and biomethane

Reducing red tape

REPowerEU acknowledged the need to address the bottlenecks in the permitting process. Currently, a wind energy permit could take up to nine years. To address this issue, the Commission put forward a new legislative proposal on renewables permitting based on three things:

  1. It will declare that renewables are presumed to be in “overriding public interest”. That would ensure renewable energy projects are prioritized, especially in the current scenario and until climate neutrality is reached.
  2. The proposal also urges nations to create so-called, “go-to” areas. These areas are to be set following an environment assessment (declaring that renewables projects are not a direct threat to the environment). Projects in these areas would need to be permitted within one year.
  3. The Commission also plans to keep existing permitting deadlines (i.e., two years) for the normal new projects and one year for repowered projects.

Speeding up the permitting process is crucial for the European Union to be able to meet its ambitious targets.

*

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 ft.com

Ukraine Is a Millstone Around Europe’s Neck

May 31st, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The fallout of the war in Ukraine over Europe is largely seen in terms of the uncertainties over the continent’s heavy dependence on Russian energy and the impact of it on the economies of the 27 EU member countries. Imposing restrictions on Russian oil has proven a much more complicated task than imagined previously.

Countries that are highly dependent on Russian fossil fuels are concerned about the implications of such measures for their own economies. Hungary, for example, is apparently asking for financial support of between $16 billion and $19 billion to move away from Russian energy. It also refuses to discuss the matter at the upcoming Extraordinary European summit on Monday/Tuesday in Brussels. Prime Minister Viktor Orban asked in a letter to the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, that the oil embargo be removed from the topics of discussion at the summit.

Equally, there is much of debris falling on Europe on other fronts. The UN says that as of May 24, 6.6 million refugees have left Ukraine for neighbouring countries. They are entitled to social welfare payments and access to housing, medical treatment and schools. But this coincides with a cost of living crisis in Europe. A confluence of economic shocks continues to threaten the outlook for the EU bloc. The CEOs of several European blue chip companies told CNBC recently that they see a significant recession coming down the pike in Europe. 

But what is by far most crucial for Europe is the endgame in Ukraine, which Russia cannot afford to lose. Such wars usually end with a dirty diplomatic settlement. Clearly, the initial blue-and-yellow flag-waving phase of the war is steadily giving way to a sombre mood as the slow, grinding phase of the Russian advance in the Donbass and the stunning success in Mariupol bring in grim realities.

Henry Kissinger has come out in the open at the World Economic Forum at Davos to argue that Europe needs to have its own independent, and clear-headed definition of its strategic goals. In a conversation with WEF founder Klaus Schwab on Monday, Kissinger made three important points. He said,  

“Parties should be brought to peace talks within the next two months. Ukraine should’ve been a bridge between Europe and Russia, but now, as the relationships are reshaped, we may enter a space where the dividing line is redrawn and Russia is entirely isolated.”

Kissinger estimated that European interests would be best served by a normalisation of relations and increased cooperation right across the European continent, including Russia and Ukraine. This is the first point. Second, Kissinger’s prognosis is that the conflict in Ukraine can permanently restructure the global order. In his words,

“We are facing a situation now where Russia could alienate itself completely from Europe and seek a permanent alliance elsewhere. This may lead to Cold War-like diplomatic distances, which will set us back decades. We should strive for long-term peace.” 

A highly nuanced hint here is that both Europe and Russia’s interests vis-a-vis China’s rise are congruent and if the Atlanticist politicians in Brussels and their assorted Russophobic allies in Eastern Europe and their mentors in Washington, DC keep pushing the dated Cold War ideology over the long-term political and economic interests of European citizens, the most likely scenario will be even greater Russian rapprochement with China.

To quote Kissinger,

“Looked at from a long-term point of view, Russia has been, for 400 years, an essential part of Europe, and European policy over that period of time has been affected, fundamentally, by its European assessment of the role of Russia. Sometimes in an observing way, but on a number of occasions as the guarantor, or the instrument, by which the European balance could be re-established. Current policy should keep in mind the restoration of this role is important to develop, so that Russia is not driven into a permanent alliance with China. But European relations with it are not the only key element of this…”

What Kissinger didn’t say explicitly is that in such a scenario, the EU is destined to suffer a loss of clout and a subaltern role to Washington’s, with less strategic autonomy than it would and could have enjoyed, had it not subordinated all of its interests to Washington and had instead maintained a more independent and balanced position. 

Third, Kissinger argues that realpolitik dictates that the European efforts should concentrate on the resolution of the territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine: “Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante. Pursuing the war beyond that point will not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.” By status quo ante, he was of course referring to Kiev’s acceptance of Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk remaining under Russia’s control.

In a very refreshing perspective, Kissinger all but hinted that an EU-Ukraine-Russia axis would be competitive with Beijing and Washington on the global playing field. He visualised that China and United States “in the next years have to come to some definition of how to conduct the long-term relationship of countries, it depends on their strategic capacities, but also on their interpretation of these capacities… The challenge is whether this adversarial aspect can be mitigated and progressively eased by the diplomacy that both sides conduct and it cannot be done unilaterally by one side. So, both sides have to come to the conviction that some easing of the political relationship is essential…”

Given Kissinger’s formidable foreign-policy legacy as a diplomatist and statesman, his remarks are bound to influence the European statesmen about the endgame in Ukraine. The telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Saturday can be seen against the above backdrop. 

The conversation took place on the eve of the European summit in Brussels. But Washington has let it be known on Saturday already through a media leak that the Biden Administration is considering the transfer of long-range rocket systems to Ukraine as soon as the coming week. Now, that would be seen as provocation by Russia. All indications are that the Biden administration will not mind a prolonged war in Ukraine and may see advantages in it.

The former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich has warned that Ukraine risks not only losing vast territories in its south and east  but also a “complete destruction” of its sovereignty. He said the US never really saw Ukraine as an independent country but as a mere “territory from which a total weakening of Russia should begin.” Indeed, Zelensky himself reminds us increasingly of the Christian legend of the Wandering Jew who, as a consequence of rejecting Jesus, is condemned never to die, but to wander homeless through the world.  

About a month ago, in a rare statement, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) accused Washington and Warsaw of plotting to restore Polish control over part of western Ukraine, which Poland had ruled at different times in the past, most recently between the two world wars. The territories include the city of Lviv, which were absorbed into the Soviet Union at the end of World War II.

The SVR said the US was discussing with Poland a plan under which Polish “peacekeeping” forces without a NATO mandate would enter parts of western Ukraine where the chance of a confrontation with Russian forces was low. The SVR’s intelligence scoop presumably triggered an expulsion of 45 Russian diplomats in Poland and a physical attack on the Russian Ambassador at a public function at Warsaw.

Curiously, soon afterward, on May 24, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced “joint customs control” on Ukraine’s border with Poland, which he described as “also the beginning of our integration into the common customs space of the European Union… (and) a truly historic process.” Zelensky said Ukraine-Poland relations are “finally completely free of quarrels and the legacy of old conflicts. I would like the brotherhood between Ukrainians and Poles to last forever… our unity of Ukrainians and Poles is a constant that no one will break.” Two days before that, Polish President Andrzej Duda had visited Kiev. 

To be sure, Zelensky and Duda acted with US approval. In effect, Ukraine’s sovereignty over its western regions bordering Poland is eroded. Kiev has also announced plans to grant special legal status to Polish citizens. Plainly put, a de facto “merger” is under way.

A reclamation of lost territories in western Ukraine (estimated to be 178000 sq. kms) would make Poland much larger than Germany — exceeding 500,000 sq. kms as against Germany’s 357, 588 sq. kms. The geopolitical implications are far too profound to be overstated — to name a few, EU’s future, Germany’s rise, Europe’s autonomy, German-Russian relations, Russia’s security.

*

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: “Brotherly friends”: Ukrainian President Zelensky (R) and visiting Polish President Andrzej Duda, Kiev, May 22, 2022

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine Is a Millstone Around Europe’s Neck
  • Tags: ,

COVID-1984: Orwell’s Vision, Our Reality?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 30, 2022

“Is it just me, or does it feel like someone out there is using Orwell’s work, not as a warning, but as an owner’s manual?” GBNews host Neil Oliver asked in a May 7, 2022 monologue. He summarized a scene from George Orwell’s book, “Animal Farm,” in which the farm animals discover that the pigs are taking all the apples and milk for themselves.

Pakistan on the Verge of Inflationary Collapse – Pleads for Larger IMF Bailout

By Zero Hedge, May 31, 2022

With an official inflation rate of over 13.37% (double the official CPI to get a more accurate picture of true price inflation), the 2nd fastest rising rate in Asia, Pakistan has sought relief from foreign debt obligations and an IMF bailout deal.

Armed Jewish Extremists May Ignite a Regional War

By Steven Sahiounie, May 31, 2022

Yesterday, thousands of Israelis have pushed through the Muslim quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem in a Flag March, marking its occupation by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

CDC Plans to Stop Reporting Suspected COVID Cases to Ease Burden

By Riley Griffin and Drew Armstrong, May 30, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plans to simplify the Covid-19 hospital data it collects as the demands of the pandemic evolve and some assembled information has become outdated or redundant.

Mark Esper’s Tell-some Reveals US Plans for War and Terror Against Venezuela

By Alan MacLeod, May 30, 2022

A new book from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has revealed shocking new details about the Trump administration’s war on Venezuela. “A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times” admits that the Trump administration plotted to invade Venezuela and discussed assassinating President Nicolas Maduro, carrying out a wave of terrorist attacks on civilian infrastructure, and raising a mercenary army to start a Contra-style terror war.

Video: Russian Military Wins Battle for Liman. Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) Pockets in Donbass Diminishing

By South Front, May 30, 2022

In recent days, the main military development on the Donbass front lines was the storming of the town of Liman in the north of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Krasny Liman is one of the first cities that were captured by the Ukrainian Army with heavy fighting in June 2014.

The Extradition Hearing of Julian Assange. The Power of Lies

By Craig Murray, May 30, 2022

The comments on Peter Oborne’s excellent article on Julian Assange in the Guardian last week are a damning indictment of the media’s ability to instil near universal acceptance of “facts” which are easily proven lies.

Yes, the Government Really Does Stash Billions of Pounds of Cheese in Missouri Caves

By Emily Baron Cadloff, May 30, 2022

It’s not as wacky as it sounds. The USDA has a large presence in Kansas City, Missouri, and when it found itself with millions of pounds of surplus dairy and needed a safe, climate-controlled place to put it all, it started to search locally. A set of caves along Interstate 435 offered a convenient cold-storage option.

Looks Like Latin America Is Boycotting ‘Bad Neighbor’ Uncle Sam

By Walt Zlotow, May 30, 2022

U.S. plans to host a Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles in June have been upended by several countries dropping out. Why? They are boycotting our mean spirited decision to not invite Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Seems these poor, small countries don’t bend to America’s demanding they kowtow to U.S. unipolar dominance of the world, especially in America’s backyard.

Listen to Kissinger and CIA’s William Burns and Compare with Populist Political Platitudes

By Jan Oberg, May 30, 2022

This short article aims to merely illustrate – not prove – the difference between security political intellectualism and ignorance. It does not focus on peace – theories, ideas, concept or policies – simply because none of the personalities appearing below are in the business of peace.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: COVID-1984: Orwell’s Vision, Our Reality?
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan on the Verge of Inflationary Collapse – Pleads for Larger IMF Bailout
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Election Gambit: Australia, Sri Lanka and Politicising Refugees

Ukraine and Poland Nearer Confederation

May 31st, 2022 by Uriel Araujo

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced he will submit a draft bill to parliament giving special status to Poles in Ukraine. It mirrors and reciprocates a similar bill recently endorsed by Poland. The unprecedented bill grants Ukrainians almost the same rights as Polish citizens, regarding social benefits, education, residence, and so on. Zelensky’s announcement was made during the Polish President Andrzej Duda’s visit to the Ukrainian Parliament on May 22.

In his speech, Zelensky also announced plans for bilateral agreements pertaining to joint border and customs control. Interestingly, he had this to say about Poland:

“Our nations are also brothers (…) and there should be no borders or barriers between us.” He added: “The unity of our nations must last forever”. Given the complex Warsaw-Kiev history, these dramatic statements have certainly raised eyebrows. Andrzej Duda in turn said in his own speech that “the Polish–Ukrainian border should unite, not divide.”

On May 3, Duda had already stated that he hopes one day “there will be no border” between the two countries.

Considering these statements and previous Russian intelligence reports, it is no wonder Maria Zakharova, official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has described Zelensky’s plan as “legalizing the Polish takeover of Ukraine.”

Since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine in February, Polish authorities in Warsaw have been providing Kiev with support and there has been a lot of cooperation. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has projected Poland – NATO’s largest state member in Eastern Europe – as a strategic player in the region, as it is no stranger to great-power confrontations.

It is thus not far-fetched at all to interpret the initiatives discussed and the rhetoric employed by the two leaders as a kind of first step towards a future Ukrainian-Polish confederation. Such a “merging” scenario, in a very creative way, could thereby “hack” the long process of bringing Kiev into the EU and the Western bloc, a goal which the West clearly pursues by whatever means necessary – as has been indicated by Macron’s recent proposal to create a new and more inclusive European political organization, for instance.

Interestingly, this possible future development would accomplish the same thing a military “annexation” would – and even so might also pave the way for a future Polish peace mission. On April 28, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service’s director claimed Poland was secretly planning to employ its troops to partly take over Western Ukraine, with American support. The justification for that would be “to defend” the neighboring country from “Russian aggression”. According to Russian intelligence, in late April, this so-called peace mission was being discussed with Biden’s officials and was still under preliminary agreements.

Moreover, Polish officials were supposedly negotiating with members of the Ukrainian elite to change Kiev’s policies by making them more “democratic” and pro-Warsaw, so as to counterbalance its nationalist elements. These data have been reported by the Russian press and such coverage has often been labeled as Russian “propaganda” and “disinformation” by Western media. The Russian intelligence also worried that such a development, if it came to fruition, would actually pave the way for a kind of future “reunification”.

Historically, Western Ukraine was ruled by Poland a number of times, including after the 1921 Riga peace treaty, and anti-Polish feelings are part of Ukrainian nationalism today. While Warsaw has been supporting Kiev in key strategic issues since the 2014 Maidan revolution, the very way both countries perceive and politicize 20 century history has hampered their bilateral relations. During World War II, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) cooperated with the Nazi Waffen-SS and several war crimes were commited against Poles. Today’s post-Maidan Ukraine glorifies UPA leader Stepan Bandera and this fact is not well received in Poland.

Here, some older history is relevant. A large part of today’s Ukraine was once dominated by the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After 1349, then Ruthenia, which largely corresponds to today’s Western Ukraine, was subjected to foreign domination. By 1569, most of it became Polish territory. The pressures for Polonization, which included converting to Roman Catholicism, the ongoing enserfment of the peasantry by Poland, and the persecution of the Orthodox Church alienated peasants and Cossacks. In 1648, the Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky led an uprising against the Polish King, founded the Cossack Hetmanate, and was hailed a liberator of the people. In 1654, with the  Pereyaslav agreement, this new Cossack state pledged its loyalty to the Russian Tsar. To this day, Khmelnytsky is hailed by some as a Ukrainian national hero and a precursor of  nationalism because of his fight against Polish domination – even though some criticize him for his alliance with the Tsar.

Dmytro Yarosh, adviser to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhny, stated in an interview on May 27, 2019 that  Zelensky would “lose his life” and “hang on a tree on Khreshchatyk” if he “betrayed” Ukrainian nationalists by negotiating an end to the civil war in Donbass. Yarosh is a co-founder of the Right Sector and former commander of the far-right Ukrainian Volunteer Army. Therefore, considering Kiev’s persistent problem with extremist violence and the blatant neo-Nazism of its key Azov battalion, not to mention the complicated Polish-Ukrainian relations historically, one can conclude that Zelensky and Duda’s plans will face some challenges, and could escalate internal tensions dramatically.

*

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Armed Jewish Extremists May Ignite a Regional War

May 31st, 2022 by Steven Sahiounie

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Yesterday, thousands of Israelis have pushed through the Muslim quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem in a Flag March, marking its occupation by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.  The march was organized by Jewish settler groups who demanded to perform religious rites in the Al Aqsa Mosque, which had been prohibited by an agreement in place since 1967 allowing non-Muslims onto the site during visiting hours, but they were barred from praying there.

“Death to the Arabs…we will demolish Al-Aqsa” was chanted by the Jewish settlers in the Flag March yesterday.

According to the Palestinian Red Crescent, 112 Palestinians were injured by Israeli occupation forces in Occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank in the aftermath of the Flag March.

A Jewish settler pointed a gun at a photojournalist covering the event on Sunday.  In Oreef, south of Nablus, Jewish settlers attacked a secondary school, and Palestinians there, while Israeli forces observed the violence, but took no action.  At a checkpoint near Nablus, Israeli forces shot and injured a young Palestinian man.

In Shu’fat camp Yusif Hamdi Diab, age 7, was injured when Israeli forces attacked Palestinians. In Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood in occupied Jerusalem, Jewish settlers attacked a young Palestinian man and attacked vehicles owned by Palestinians there.

Since 2003, Israel has allowed settlers into the Al Aqsa compound almost daily. The Flag March last year sparked a war with Gaza and clashes between armed Jewish gangs of settlers and Palestinians in mixed cities all over Israel, with 232 Palestinians, including 54 children and 38 women, killed in the ensuing violence. Previous marches have included Israeli chants of “Death to Arabs” and attacks on Palestinian homes and shops in the Old City. Israeli police prevent any Palestinian, or foreign tourist, from waving a Palestinian flag in Jerusalem.

The recent funeral in Jerusalem for the American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, murdered by Israeli forces, was marred by Israeli forces who violently beat mourners who waved Palestinian flags.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is located inside the Old City and is one of the holiest sites in Islam.  Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and annexed the entire city in 1980, which the international community has never recognized.

Israeli government domestic policy calls for the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.  For decades, the Jews have displaced Palestinians in Jerusalem and their goal is to dismantle the Al Aqsa Mosque compound and create a new Jewish temple in its place.  This plan has made the Middle East tense and set the stage for a potential regional war.

On May 26, an Israeli court overturned a ruling on a longstanding ban on non-Muslim prayer at the Al Aqsa Mosque compound. Magistrate Court Judge Zion Saharai ruled in favor of three Jewish appellants who had been banned from the Old City by police for 15 days for praying at the site.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas issued a statement calling the ruling “a grave assault against the historic status quo … and a flagrant challenge to international law”.

The Palestinian Ministry of Waqf and Religious Affairs reported that a total of 34,562 Israeli settlers stormed the Al Aqsa Mosque compound in 2021.  A tense status quo has been maintained at Al Aqsa; however, Israeli police repeatedly raided the compound during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan in April of this year, which coincided with the Jewish Passover festival, to protect settler visits. Hundreds of Palestinians were wounded and arrested.

The US, Egypt, and Jordan have all warned against any violent attacks on the Al Aqsa Mosque and have called for the status quo to be respected and maintained.

Jordan’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Haitham Abu Al-Foul said that the decision is null and void, which “lacks legal status under international law that does not recognize Israeli jurisdiction on territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem.”

Abu Al-Foul stressed that the decision is considered a blatant breach of international legitimacy resolutions related to Jerusalem, including the UN Security Council resolutions that urge all to maintain the status quo of the holy city, while adding that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is “a place of worship for Muslims only,” and the Jordan-run Department of the Jerusalem Awqaf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs is the only institution for administering the affairs of the mosque.

Christians as well as their Islamic brethren have been oppressed under the brutal Israeli military occupation, and have suffered from ethnic cleansing.  In 1948, the Christian community of Palestine was about 20% of the population, but today is less than 2% as the result of the ethnic cleansing campaign.

Father Manuel Musallem, a member of the Islamic-Christian Committee in Support of Jerusalem and its Sanctuaries, has called for civil disobedience in occupied Jerusalem today to protect Al-Aqsa Mosque from illegal Jewish settlers.

“O Palestinians,” said Father Musallam, “block Jerusalem with your bodies, let a million Palestinians ascend to it, and let the people sit in the squares, roads, and doors. Do not leave a space so that not even a Zionist ant can enter Jerusalem.”

Musallam stressed the need to prevent settlers from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque and desecrating the Holy Land. “Jerusalem Day is a day that belongs to the homeland and its people. We will sacrifice our blood for the sake of Jerusalem; if it lives, we live, and if it perishes, we perish with it.”

The current Israeli government is led by Nephtali Bennett, who is opposed to any peace plan with the Palestinians, and opposed to the two-state solution which is the foundation of the US and UN resolutions and policies.

Bennett is currently facing a domestic political crisis, and his government might fall. He and his allies may use the Al Aqsa Mosque flag parade as a source of nationalistic pride and religious fervor.  Bennett supports the illegal settler groups, who are mainly American citizens who are well armed and have a long history of violence against Palestinians, and ethnic hatred of all groups who are not Jews.

According to the Geneva Convention, armed resistance to occupation is justified.  The Palestinians, and those committed to the end of the occupation of Palestine, will retaliate with more resistance and confrontation to rein in Israel’s plans to remove, kill or imprison all non-Jewish people.

In recent months, 14 Israelis have been killed by lone attackers who were not members of any Palestinian militant groups, and not part of a formal network.

According to news reports after the Flag March, 22 Israelis were injured in the last 48 hours in Jerusalem and the West Bank by Palestinian resistance.

Palestinians see no hope of obtaining freedom or human rights by any means other than resistance against the occupation.  They are choosing between a quick death in a resistance operation, or a slow death under brutal military occupation.

The famous American Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image: Head band of figure in the poster says “Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades”

COVID-1984: Orwell’s Vision, Our Reality?

May 30th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

“Science” has been used to strip us of medical rights and personal freedoms for the last two years. Now, “science” is touted as the justification for not eating real beef and getting used to insects and lab-grown protein alternatives instead. “Science” is also being weaponized to cajole us into accepting rolling blackouts and energy deprivation

Mirroring George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984,” the Biden administration has been telling us the economy is good, the GDP is strong and inflation is transitory, even though data clearly tell a different story

Biden has even insisted that borrowing (read: printing) more money will reduce prices while not affecting the value of the dollar. It’s basic economics that increasing money supply results in inflation, but even inflation is being redefined at whim

At the end of April 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security even created an actual “ministry of truth,” the Disinformation Governance Board, in blatant violation of the First Amendment. Government has basically “memory-holed” the Constitution and pretends it doesn’t exist, hoping you’ll pretend along with them

Is government gaslighting the public? Gaslighting is a form of emotional manipulation and abuse where the abuser creates a false narrative and makes the victim question their sanity. Rewriting history is a key hallmark, as is refuting what is obvious fact

*

“Is it just me, or does it feel like someone out there is using Orwell’s work, not as a warning, but as an owner’s manual?” GBNews host Neil Oliver asked in a May 7, 2022 monologue. He summarized a scene from George Orwell’s book, “Animal Farm,” in which the farm animals discover that the pigs are taking all the apples and milk for themselves.

When their selfish behavior is revealed, the pigs defend it saying it has been scientifically proven that pigs alone require milk and apples for good health. There’s nothing self-serving about their taking all the apples and milk for themselves. “Many of us don’t even like apples.”

Who’s Actually Following the Science?

This term, “science” has been repeatedly thrown in our faces and shoved down our throats over the past two years, while unfairly and irrationally separating the superiors from the plebs. “Science” has been used to strip us of medical rights and personal freedoms.

Now, “science” is touted as the justification for not eating real beef and getting used to insects, grubs and lab-grown protein alternatives instead. “Science” is also being weaponized to cajole us into accepting rolling blackouts and energy deprivation.

“Energy giant E.On recently sent pairs of polyester socks to customers with the message, ‘Energy down. CO2 down.’ Those literally in control of the power are telling people to wear more clothes to fend off the cold rather than have heating in their homes,” Oliver said.

‘1984’ — A Manual for Totalitarianism

In Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” we find both a Ministry of Plenty and a Ministry of Truth. Both names are the opposite of their true function. The Ministry of Plenty’s job is to maintain a consistent level of poverty while publishing fabricated production numbers for items that were never actually made, and the task of the Ministry of Truth is to memory-hole inconvenient facts and rewrite history daily to fit the political narrative.

In the U.S., the Biden administration has been telling us the economy is good, the GDP is strong1 and inflation is transitory,2 even though data clearly tell a different story. The first quarter of 2022 actually had a negative growth rate,3 consumer debt soared $52 billion in March,4 and inflation over the past year has been the fastest in four decades,5 with no end in sight.

Biden has even insisted that borrowing (read: printing) more money will reduce prices while not affecting the value of the dollar. To quote The Hill contributor Chris Talgo,6 “That is called, to borrow a Biden-ism, malarkey,” because “when the government prints or borrows trillions of dollars, the value of the dollar declines, and prices rise. That is called inflation.” It’s basic economics, but even that is being redefined at whim.

As if that weren’t Orwellian enough, at the end of April 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created an actual “ministry of truth,” the Disinformation Governance Board, in blatant violation of the First Amendment (free speech).

The DHS is basically pretending as though the Constitution doesn’t exist anymore, yet no one can recall it being formally abolished. It should still be there — the supreme law of the land. But government is acting as though it’s been memory-holed, and no doubt hope you’ll just go along with it. It’s nothing short of insane-making, and perhaps that’s the intention.

Government Gaslighting

It’s very reminiscent of gaslighting,7 a form of emotional manipulation and abuse where the abuser creates a false narrative and step by step makes the victim question their sanity. Rewriting history is a key hallmark, as is refuting what is obvious fact. Silly examples might be commenting on your “black shirt” when the shirt you’re wearing is white, or insist you arrived an hour late when clearly, you were right on time, judging by every clock in the house.

While the victim may wonder if they’re losing their mind, it’s actually the people who do the gaslighting who typically have a mental health disorder. They tend to be pathological liars with strong narcissistic tendencies.

To protect yourself, psychologists recommend you get some distance from the perpetrator, save all evidence (so you can confirm the facts when you get unsure), and set firm boundaries for what you will tolerate and what you won’t. Lastly, you need to sever the relationship — something to keep in mind.

In his monologue, Oliver laments the poor turnout in the local elections, noting that most people are simply worn out by the abuse. Exhausted by the lies. Fatigued beyond care by the hypocrisy. Let this be a lesson to Americans — do not fall into apathy.

The answer is to replace the abusive leadership by voting in record-setting numbers. Get more involved, not less. You could volunteer as a poll worker, for example. It’s true, we’re being hit with phenomenally powerful psychological warfare, but remaining focused on the truth and refusing to get side tracked is your best defense.

Enemies of Freedom

Aldous Huxley was a contemporary and mentor of Orwell. In the 1958 interview above, Huxley discussed a series of essays he’d written called “Enemies of Freedom.” The series outlines “impersonal forces” that are “pushing in the direction of progressively less freedom,” and “technological devices” that can be used to accelerate the process by imposing ever greater control of the population.

With the advent of television, Huxley foresaw how an authoritarian leadership could become a source of ‘a one-pointed drumming’ of a single idea, effectively brainwashing the public. Beyond that, he predicted the technological capability to ‘bypass the rational side of man’ and manipulate behavior by influencing people on a subconscious level. This is precisely what we’re faced with today.

Huxley pointed out that as technology becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly necessary to form more elaborate hierarchal organizations to manage it all. Technology also allows for more effective propaganda machines that can be managed through those same control hierarchies.

Huxley cited the success of Hitler, noting that aside from Hitler’s effective use of terror and brute force, “he also used a very efficient form of propaganda. He had the radio, which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people.”

With the advent of television, Huxley foresaw how an authoritarian leadership could become a source of “a one-pointed drumming” of a single idea, effectively brainwashing the public. Beyond that, he predicted the technological capability to “bypass the rational side of man” and manipulate behavior by influencing people on a subconscious level. This is precisely what we’re faced with today.

Google and Facebook have both been collecting data on you for nearly two decades. They have created massive server farms that are capable of analyzing this data with deep learning and artificial intelligence software to mine information and generate incredibly precise details on just what type of propaganda and narrative is required to surreptitiously manipulate your beliefs and behavior.

Centralization Is the Engine of Huxley’s Dystopia

Huxley argued that to create the dystopian future presented in his books, you would have to centralize wealth, power and control, which is precisely what the technocratic and transhumanist-inspired globalist cabal have been doing. Their control grid is nearly complete.

One of the final nails in our collective coffin will be the rollout of a global digital identity system, as this will give them more or less total control over every human being on the planet. The World Health Organization is working on one. The European Union just announced the rollout of digital ID, and the U.K. government is drawing up legislation to make digital ID services more secure.8

While sold as the ultimate in speed and convenience, digital ID “poses one of the gravest risks to human rights of any technology that we have encountered.” The Expose warns:9

“Ultimately, social credit systems, such as those that are currently being developed in China, will be based on digital ID, thereby enabling or disabling our full and free participation in society.

By developing facial recognition and AI and machine learning technologies in parallel with systems for a Digital ID, we are not simply establishing an identity to access basic social services. Digital IDs will become necessary to function in a connected digital world …

Digital ID systems, as they are being developed today, are ripe for exploitation and abuse, to the detriment of our freedoms and democracies. You may be thinking that this would never happen in the West and it is only unique to China. But they already enforced it here without you realizing it, through COVID-19 Vaccine Passports.

Mandatory COVID passports have almost nothing to do with public health and everything to do with social control. Why? Because the COVID-19 injections do not prevent infection or transmission … Vaccine Passports make absolutely zero sense from a Public Health perspective. But they make perfect sense for enforcing a Digital ID and Social Credit system …

You’ll have to use your Digital ID to buy certain things, be granted access to places, and most probably to even access the mainstream internet. But, if you haven’t done what the Government has decided makes you a ‘good citizen,’ and kept up a good social credit score, you won’t be able to do any of those things.

Once Digital IDs have been normalized, they will be one of the greatest tools that Governments have ever had in their arsenal to both control and manipulate the public and remain in power, thanks to the huge amount of personal data they will generate.”

Decentralization Protects Freedom

If centralization is the prerequisite for Huxley’s dystopia, then decentralization is the way to protect against it. Today, the wisdom of this is on full display. I believe decentralization of the internet will be required to prevent censorship and manipulation in the future.

This means that websites and platforms are not stored in one central place that can easily be controlled and manipulated but, rather, widely distributed to thousands, if not millions, of computers all over the world. Because there is no central storage it can’t be removed.

Decentralized platforms allow the majority of power to reside with the individual. Technologies that can be easily misused to control the public narrative must also remain largely decentralized, so that no one person or agency ends up with too much power to manipulate and influence the public. Our modern-day social media monopolies are a perfect example of what Huxley warned us about.

The same goes for our food system and our economic institutions too. Today, we can see how the role of the central bank (in the U.S. known as the Federal Reserve) — a privately-owned entity with the power to break entire countries apart for profit — is forcing us toward a new global economic system that will impoverish and quite literally enslave everyone, with the exception of the cabal members themselves.

Like the ruling pigs in “Animal Farm,” they may insist they’re “building back better” and working toward a “fairer and more equitable” society, but if they get their way, they will be the only ones dining on apples and milk in the farmhouse, while the rest of us own nothing and subsist on rationed grubs.

*

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.

See original source for notes.

Featured image is from Red Voice Media

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

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

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

***

“Near entire planet is closed down for two years due to unprecedented threat etc., draconian rules imposed at numerous levels – then, bingo, suddenly not even worth reporting” Felicity Arbuthnot

See excerpts from this  Bloomberg Report

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention plans to simplify the Covid-19 hospital data it collects as the demands of the pandemic evolve and some assembled information has become outdated or redundant.

The agency is likely to stop collecting data from hospitals on suspected Covid cases that haven’t been confirmed by tests, …

Early in the pandemic, when Covid tests were sparse and it could take days to confirm cases, the US encouraged hospitals to report all likely infections. But since most hospitals now test all patients on admission, suspect cases can be confirmed or ruled out within hours, making the data not particularly useful.

 

The agency is also suggesting that the US stop collecting Covid vaccination data from hospitals because it isn’t required to be reported, isn’t widely used and hospital workers are required to report their vaccine status via a different mechanism.

Health officials are also considering whether or not to decrease the cadence in which hospitals report data, such as collecting data only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, or collecting it once weekly.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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 NaturalNews.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CDC Plans to Stop Reporting Suspected COVID Cases to Ease Burden
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

The liberal NAbg. Gerald Hauser caused Health Minister Johannes Rauch (Greens) a lot of trouble with his questions about the WHO Pandemic Treaty. As is so often the case, the minister failed to provide any real answers to most of the parliamentary questions. This is nothing new in itself, because the parliament, which is supposed to represent our people, hasn’t mattered to the government since turquoise-green, just like the people themselves. However, despite all the hustling and extensive silence, Rauch admitted that health policy competencies are being handed over to the mostly private WHO – a clear abolition of our parliamentary democracy. When asked by the Wochenblick, Hauser was shocked by the minister’s callousness.

WHO as the new world government

As Wochenblick reported, the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA, World Health Assembly) took place this week. In the course of this meeting, the WHO wanted to be made a potential world government. According to the plans of the elite around Bill Gates, the national constitutions are to be overturned. A few weeks ago, Gerald Hauser made a parliamentary question about these scandalous events, which mean the end of our democracy in terms of health policy. But he hardly got any answers.

“I’m really shocked at how casually the answers were passed over and my questions weren’t specifically addressed at all,” explains Gerald Hauser in an interview with Wochenblick. The whole thing reminds him of the 137 resolutions in the first few weeks after the lockdown, where Parliament was passed without an assessment, the East Tyrolean describes indignantly. In addition, Hauser does not believe that it is up to the government to outsource our health policy to the WHO: “In my view, the government has no mandate to negotiate this. Who gave them legitimacy to negotiate the ceding of our rights, our state, to the WHO? And thus to a supranational institution that was not elected by the people!”

Negotiated past Parliament: MPs know nothing about the pandemic contract

The specific questions from the Freedom Party brought the Minister of Health, who is already the third Green in this position, into such distress that he simply refused many answers. Nevertheless, he admits that the handover of our democracy (so far limited to our health policy) to the largely private organization WHO will first be negotiated internationally and then taken over “according to our constitution”. As is well known, the judgment of the Constitutional Court on pandemic legislation showed that absolutely everything is now constitutional as soon as it is advertised by a “government expert”. Gerald Hauser is shocked that the Pandemic Treaty plays no role at all in Parliament, that there is no discussion about it.

“We are in the middle of negotiations without Parliament even remotely involved – the strategy seems to be that the government presents us with a fait accompli. Formally, this is not only a circumvention of the parliament but an undermining of parliamentary democracy!” – Gerald Hauser, shocked by the abolition of our democracy

The liberal people’s representative has the impression that many MPs know nothing about it:

“This state of affairs is untenable, you only find out about what’s going on here through alternative media such as Wochenblick and AUF1. Parliament was never informed! If we didn’t make any inquiries, we wouldn’t know anything anyway. And these inquiries are only answered sloppily, if at all, anyway.”

But in the response to the question, Rauch at least admits that in the end, Parliament will be faced with a fait accompli:

As with any international instrument, the domestic procedure will follow the Austrian Federal Constitution. Only when the legal nature of the WHO convention to be drawn up and negotiated by the INB, a treaty or another international instrument is certain, a decision on the domestic procedure in accordance with the Federal Constitution can be made. – Health Minister Johannes Rauch to Gerald Hauser

Resistance works!

However, the broad resistance against the planned disenfranchisement of the nation states has already had an effect, as Wochenblick reported. Because some points from the pandemic treaty, which would have brought the individual states into total WHO bondage in the event of a “health emergency”, have already been defused. A stage victory of the loud resistance!

Bill Gates almost 20%, Freemason advance equal to EU

The never-ending questions from the liberal deputy Hauser are also to be understood as part of this resistance. The “reactions” from the Ministry of Health, which can actually only be described as non-answers, speak volumes. Hauser researched for his bestseller “Raus aus dem Corona-Chaos”, which he wrote together with Dr. Hannes Strasser revealed who owns the WHO and who finances it (page 16 of the book). Most of these are the USA (14.67 percent) and Bill Gates with GAVI (18.15%), followed only then by Great Britain (7.79%), Germany (5.68%), the UN (5.09%) , EU (3.3%) and so on. The World Bank (3.42%) and Rotary International (3.3%) are also on the list. The fact that Rotary International – the association is considered to be the preliminary organization of international Freemasonry – “sponsors” as much as the EU is particularly explosive. That such sponsoring takes place without expecting anything in return is something that only the most inexperienced in politics would believe.

Therefore, the free parliamentarian Hauser, who was uncomfortable with those in power, wanted to know how the minister assesses that the WHO is basically sponsored by foundations, NGOs and private financiers and could therefore possibly act in their interests.

The first, snotty non-answer from the minister:

“The decision-making bodies are made up of the Member States. Only these are entitled to vote. In accordance with Article 56 of the WHO statutes, the WHA examines and approves the budget proposal and divides the expenditure among the members according to a key to be determined by the WHO. The key to be determined is based on the rating scale of the United Nations.”

So Rauch doesn’t even begin to answer the question of the parliamentarian Mag. Hauser, who was elected by the people! As we know, for example, the self-proclaimed philanthropist and world vaccinator Bill Gates is one of the main sponsors of the WHO and is probably pulling some strings in the background, but Rauch apparently doesn’t care or he just ignores it.

Scandalous non-response to the parliamentary question

The Minister of Health does not even begin to answer other very specific questions from the FPÖ MP. What is the government’s position on the pandemic contract? Blank answer full of letters. Rauch ignores the fact that Austria could cede its sovereignty to the WHO through this infamous agreement, as well as the question of how the government stands on the fact that a non-democratically legitimate body could possibly decide on future pandemic measures in Austria in the future. What comes out of the Ministry of Health is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Hauser reacted like this: “I think it’s pathetic. One does not have the courage to admit that one is part of these international elites of the World Economic Forum, which are successively taking over the powers. Just not answering very specific questions tells me: Something is up!”

Hauser’s call to the government for immediate involvement

Gerald Hauser calls for the immediate involvement of Parliament in the legislative process:

I call for the immediate involvement of Parliament, for immediate decision-making as to whether Parliament even wants the WHO to decide on our health policy in the future. We at the FPÖ do not want this, this systematic undermining of the National Council as a legislative body. We want to retain national sovereignty and we don’t want Bill Gates and Co. to decide on health policy and measures in Austria in the future and the representative, parliamentary democracy in Austria to be undermined for this. The legislative body must remain the Austrian Parliament! And it is supposed to represent the Austrians. The sovereign should decide. We want to get through the next pandemic, as defined by the WHO, with common sense and a sense of proportion, without lockdowns and without collateral damage to society. I don’t want unequal treatment of the unvaccinated. The law emanates from the people and is represented by the elected institutions.

As evidence here the scandalous majority non-response to the parliamentary question with the meaningful admission.

*

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

A new book from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has revealed shocking new details about the Trump administration’s war on Venezuela. “A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times” admits that the Trump administration plotted to invade Venezuela and discussed assassinating President Nicolas Maduro, carrying out a wave of terrorist attacks on civilian infrastructure, and raising a mercenary army to start a Contra-style terror war. Esper also all but confirms Washington’s involvement in Operation Gideon – a botched military invasion of the country, and a 2018 attempt on Maduro’s life.

While barely covered in Western media, Esper’s confessions have caused a storm of commotion in the South American nation. However, Diego Sequera, a Caracas-based investigative journalist, told MintPress that few were taken aback by the news. “It is, in a way, shocking. But on the other hand, it is pretty much usual for us here,” he said, adding: “The news is not surprising at all; we in Venezuela are used to it. Since 2004, when the first Colombian paramilitary unit with a plan to assassinate President [Hugo] Chavez was arrested, there have been a lot of exposés of this nature.”

“Really part of the United States”

Donald Trump invited self-declared Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó to be the guest of honor at his State Of The Union address in 2020, where Guaidó was described as “the true and legitimate president” and received a standing ovation from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Trump and Guaidó’s post-SOTU meeting was reported in the press at the time as “focused on actions to achieve democracy and liberty.” Esper’s account, however, reveals that the conversation revolved around an American invasion of the country. Trump, who Esper says had been “fixated on Venezuela since the early days of his administration,” asked Guaidó directly, “What if the U.S. military went down there and got rid of Maduro?” The offer was music to the ears of the Venezuelan, who replied, “Of course we would always welcome U.S. assistance.” Guaidó had attempted four coups already, each time calling on the people and the military to rebel and join his side, but had received a less than enthusiastic response.

Esper’s account aligns with that of a previous tell-all book from National Security Advisor John Bolton. In “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” Bolton claims Trump said that it would be “cool” to invade Venezuela because it is “really part of the United States.”

The invasion had some vociferous backers in the room, including Mauricio Claver-Carone, senior director of the National Security Council, and Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor. Esper felt Claver-Carone’s judgment was clouded by his personal investment in undermining Latin American socialism, being as he was, a member of the virulently anti-communist Miami-Cuban community. Often called “the capital of Latin America,” Miami is full of emigres who push Washington for a more hawkish stance on Cuba, Venezuela, and Latin America more generally. Bolton’s book also paints Claver-Carone and O’Brien as hawks.

Esper, however, was alarmed by the prospect of a military quagmire and suspected that Guaidó was far less powerful than he made out to be. As Esper told Trump, the Venezuelan opposition would only “fight to the last American.” When he asked Guaidó directly whether “his people” would be willing to organize, train and fight, the response amounted to “It would be so much easier and quicker if the U.S. would do this for us.”

Operation Gideon

Instead, Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley suggested raising an army of mercenaries to carry out a terror war against the Venezuelan population, along the lines of what the U.S. did with the Contras in Nicaragua. As Esper wrote:

General Milley also thought we should look at irregular warfare options, such as the U.S. training and arming of Venezuelan expatriates [REDACTED]. The United States had a long history with these types of operations. It was an idea worth developing. Milley and I had discussed this several times before.”

However, Guaidó’s team was more interested in discussing secret plans of which even Esper was unaware. At one point, one of Guaidó’s colleagues leaned forward and said, “We have some plans you [the U.S. government] know we are working on; they’re just not ready yet,” made a quick reference to Florida, and shared a smile, a nod and a knowing look with Claver-Carone.

At the time, Esper claims to have been nonplussed by this comment. However, he later understood it as a reference to Operation Gideon, an attempt by a semi-private Florida mercenary firm to mount an amphibious invasion of Venezuela, shoot their way to the presidential palace, capture, detain, or “remove” Maduro, and install Guaidó as “president.”

Operation Gideon was attempted just a few weeks after the meeting, but failed spectacularly as the heavily armed mercenaries were overpowered even before they reached land, when disgruntled lobstermen from the local fishing collective disarmed them with nothing more than fishing knives and old revolvers. The event has since been christened Trump’s “Bay of Piglets.”

While the operation was carried out with extraordinary incompetence, the seriousness of the event should not go understated. Guaidó himself signed a contract with SilverCorp USA, a Trump-linked mercenary firm, that stated the group would become his personal death squad after the insurrection, with the power to murder and assassinate all people resisting the new government. For this service, Guaidó promised to pay SilverCorp an initial fee of around a quarter of a billion dollars. The deal was signed at Trump’s Mar a Lago resort in Florida. The U.S. servicemen who participated in the botched operation were sentenced to 20 years in a Venezuelan prison.

“I wasn’t at all surprised by Mark Esper’s revelations, given the U.S.’s long and sordid history of destabilization of governments that are not to its liking,” said Steve Ellner, a retired professor of economic history and political science at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela.

Ellner, an American who has lived in Venezuela for over 40 years and closely studied the rise in tensions between the two nations, added:

Esper’s revelations lead to nothing less than the conclusion that Washington was involved in the abortive drone strike in August 2018 that exploded at a public event that was meant to kill Maduro, his wife Celia Flores and various top military commanders. It also leads to the conclusion that Washington was involved in the Operation Gideon of 2020 that had as its goal the kidnapping of Maduro.”

Bolton’s book also hints at U.S. involvement in the 2018 assassination attempt, which he describes as “hilarious.” Shortly after the attempt, Trump demanded that Bolton “get it done” – “it” meaning the removal of Maduro. “This is the fifth time I’ve asked for it,” he added.

Terror Squad

Esper’s memoir also reveals that senior U.S. officials often spoke frankly and candidly about carrying out waves of terror attacks on Venezuelan civilian infrastructure, a disclosure that sheds new light on a number of highly suspicious explosions, fires, blackouts and other mishaps inside Venezuela – events that the Maduro administration has long blamed on the United States. Western media, however, routinely dismissed these allegations as conspiracy theories.

Esper alleges that on June 9, 2020, O’Brien proposed a military strike on a coastal port that handled much of the country’s oil imports and exports. “The means could be either an air strike or the use of Navy SEALs,” he said. The effect would be to “further disrupt their energy supplies and provoke more unrest.” According to Esper, the group rejected the plan in favor of a coordinated cyberattack on critical Venezuelan infrastructure instead.

However, ten days later, the U.S. government (including Esper himself) agreed to what he called the development of “kinetic and nonkinetic options, both overt and [REDACTED], that could disrupt Venezuela’s oil and arms shipments. Options would need to include actions that would have a material impact on key industrial and other high-value targets.”

Just weeks after this decision, former U.S. Marine and CIA agent Matthew Heath was arrested outside Venezuela’s largest oil refining complex. When apprehended, Heath was carrying a submachine gun, a grenade launcher, four blocks of C4 explosives, a satellite phone, stacks of U.S. dollars and detailed information about the complex. Both the U.S. government and U.S. media have largely ignored Heath’s trial for terrorism and arms trafficking, strongly suggesting that he was indeed caught in the act while on “official business.”

The Beto O’Rourke of Venezuela

While Trump was publicly singing Guaidó’s praises, endorsing him as the true leader of a free Venezuela, behind closed doors, he said exactly the opposite. According to Esper, Trump thought Guaidó was a remarkably “weak” politician, especially compared to the “strong” and “tough” Maduro.

Trump commented on the fact that Guaidó’s wife, Fabiana Rosales, did not even wear a wedding ring, another sign of weakness, according to the president. In fact, Esper says, “Trump seemed more impressed by Rosales than her husband,” always making time to speak to her rather than him, and treating her very warmly. The 73-year-old president commented that the 27-year-old Rosales looked “very young” and attractive.

Bolton’s book also mentions that Trump quickly soured on Guaidó but remained intensely interested in his wife. After multiple failed coups, Trump reportedly took to calling him “the Beto O’Rourke of Venezuela” – suggesting that he saw Guaidó as someone who talked a good game but had no substance or support behind him.

Trump’s judgment appears to have been better than that of those around him. After a series of failed coups and embezzlement scandals, what support Guaidó had appears to have withered away, with some polls showing only 4% of the Venezuelan public backing him. As the population suffers, Guaidó continues to live a life of extreme luxury, mostly from Venezuelan funds confiscated by the U.S. “At this point, Juan Guaidó is nothing other than a joke in Venezuela,” Ellner told MintPress, adding:

I say that not only because he is totally discredited among the Venezuelan people, but because leaders of the hard-line faction of the opposition have distanced themselves from him, and of course even more so in the case of the other half of the organized opposition, which favors dialogue with Maduro.”

Sequera agreed, calling Guaidó the “frontman of a criminal operation that is stealing our own goods.”

Financial Terrorism and Invading Africa

The Trump administration also tightened the noose around Venezuela’s economy by intensifying the Obama administration’s sanctions. Companies found to be in breach of the U.S. economic blockade could be shut down, fined, and their executives threatened with decades in prison. The result was a collapse in the Venezuelan economy and huge shortages of goods. A United Nations Special Rapporteur who visited the country likened the Trump administration’s actions to a medieval siege, estimated that over 100,000 Venezuelans had been killed as a result, and recommended the UN investigate the U.S. for crimes against humanity.

Esper claims that as Venezuela and Iran tried to find ways of trading with each other to prevent their economies collapsing and to prevent mass deaths, his team “looked for ways to shut those activities down.” One of these methods was to arrest and kidnap Venezuelan businessman and diplomat Alex Saab, who was traveling between the two countries to secure a trade deal. On U.S. orders, Saab was arrested after his plane stopped off in Cabo Verde, an island nation off the west coast of Africa. Saab was detained and is now being held hostage in Florida. In November, MintPress traveled to Caracas to speak to Saab’s wife Camila.

The detention of Saab – who was traveling on official business using a diplomatic passport – was a major violation of international law. Esper reveals that the Trump administration was paranoid that Russia, a Venezuelan ally, would stage a special operations mission to rescue Saab. As a precaution, the Department of Defense immediately ordered the U.S. fleet in the Mediterranean Sea be deployed to Cabo Verde – including thousands of marines.

Thus, the U.S. would be effectively invading Cabo Verde under the pretext that Russia might try to free the diplomat they had kidnapped. Esper and others put a stop to this plan at the 11th hour, but the U.S. continues to hold Saab captive to this day.

By the time of the Saab affair, Bolton had been kicked out of the White House. But his account of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela tells a similar story (although he uses much more sadistic language than does Esper). In Bolton’s view, “we had Maduro by the windpipe and needed to constrict it.” “We began devising steps to take immediately against Maduro’s regime, and also Cuba,” he explained, “Oil sanctions were a natural choice, but why not declare Venezuela a ‘state sponsor of terrorism,’ something I first suggested on October 1, 2018, and also return Cuba to the list after Obama had removed it?” he asked, thereby inadvertently conceding that the State Sponsors of Terrorism list has nothing to do with terrorism and is merely a list of governments the U.S. wants to overthrow.

As Bolton – a much more openly cold-blooded person than Esper – states, sanctions are not about justice, but about “using America’s massive economic power to advance our national interests.”

What Comes after ‘Sociopath’?

Throughout his account, Esper portrays himself as a long-suffering but loyal bureaucrat who was trying to do the best thing for his country while surrounded by fools and loose cannons. While he considered quitting in protest, even knowing he would be treated as a “hero” for doing so, he decided to persevere as “it was the right thing to do for our country.” “My soldiers don’t get to quit when the going gets tough, so I won’t either,” he added. Indeed, at some points, Esper presents himself as a veritable saint, claiming that, “[o]n more than one occasion, Leah would say to me, ‘As your wife, please quit. As an American citizen, please stay.’”

Despite his best intentions, Esper still comes off as a sociopath attempting to intimidate the world into submission. Throughout the book, he reveals how he had to constantly quash Trump’s desire to end endless wars and pursue peace with adversaries.

Trump himself proposed a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and South Korea, nations where U.S. forces have been stationed for nearly 20 and 70 years respectively. This, for Esper, was “outlandish.” He explained to Trump that, “[w]ithout [the U.S. occupation], we would squander the leverage that a continued U.S. military presence and the threat of force gave us.”

Esper was also “disgusted” by Trump’s proposition to meet with the Taliban for peace talks that could have ended the war. According to Esper, the entire team was against ending the occupation, stating:

​​As the president went around the room, we each tried to dissuade him in different ways. I recommended against it, reminding him that ‘the Taliban have the blood of American service members on their hands, not to mention their role in the death of nearly three thousand civilians killed on our own soil on 9/11.’”

Esper refrained from noting that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghans and most came from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

Trump was also reportedly highly skeptical of the need to flood Ukraine with weapons, questioning why the United States had to support such a corrupt administration as Zelensky’s and asking why Germany or other European nations could not do so if it were so imperative. To Esper’s relief, the hawks in the room were able to win the day on that issue as well.

MintPress also spoke with Joe Emersberger, co-author of the book “Extraordinary Threat: The U.S. Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela.” In Emersberger’s opinion, there is “absolutely no basis for doubting the truth of the excerpts from Esper that have been so widely cited.” As he explained:

Esper is not ‘confessing’ to anything that could bring legal trouble for himself or other U.S. officials. The U.S. has imposed murderous and utterly criminal sanctions on Venezuela in broad daylight, flaunting its extreme impunity. Esper speaks with [the] calm candor of a hitman who has already cut a rock-solid deal with prosecutors and fears nothing.”

Trump was far from an anti-war activist, however, and was committed to regime change in Venezuela, whatever the cost. The billionaire president reportedly saw it as a massive money-spinner and was obsessed with gaining control over Venezuela’s vast oil fields, something Esper saw as gauche. Esper was also committed to overthrowing Maduro, but only in “the right way, the smart way.”

According to Emersberger,

Trump ignorantly assumed the Maduro government would be an easy target, something a bully like Trump could not resist, especially the prospect of direct looting of its oil. By the time he realized otherwise, he and his gang were locked into a cycle of escalation that Biden has essentially maintained, backtracking only slightly due to fallout from the war in Ukraine.”

While Esper was no dove, others in Trump’s inner circle appear to have delighted in cruelty. Esper claims that the president’s senior policy advisor, Stephen Miller, argued that U.S. forces in the Middle East should cut off the heads of enemy forces, smear them in pig’s blood (which Muslims consider to be unholy), and display them in public as a means of psychological warfare.

Yesper

Esper’s new book also makes a number of other sensational claims about what went on in the White House behind closed doors. Among them is that Trump was furious at the George Floyd protests in Washington, asking General Milley why he would not simply shoot them all in the legs as he had asked. Trump demanded 10,000 troops in the streets of the nation’s capital in order to “restore order.”

Trump also reportedly discussed sending 250,000 troops to the Mexican border and firing missiles into Mexico in order to destroy cartel-run drug labs. “We could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the labs quietly…no one would know it was us,” he insisted.

Trump, for his part, has rejected the comments about shooting protesters in the leg, although he refused to comment on the Mexico missiles idea. “Mark Esper was a stiff who was desperate not to lose his job,” Trump retorted. “He was a lightweight and a figurehead, and I realized it very early on.” Trump went on to say that Esper was a “RINO [Republican in name only] incapable of leading” and that he called him “Yesper” – a nickname suggesting that he saw him as a spineless yes man.

While the revelations about Mexico and the George Floyd Protests have received significant attention in corporate media, such is the bipartisan consensus in Washington on Venezuela that carrying out wars, regime-change operations, terrorist attacks and assassination attempts against an elected foreign head of state has been ignored. When it comes to the U.S. empire, everyone, it seems, is on the same page.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image is from Amazon

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Reactionary Succession in Australia: Peter Dutton, New Opposition Leader

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Read the English version:

The WHO as a “Proxy World Government”? Abolition of the Nation State? Say NO to “Global Tyranny”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel and Peter Koenig, May 28, 2022


Im Schatten des Ukraine-Krieges bereitet die WHO – von der Öffentlichkeit unbemerkt – ein völkerrechtlich verbindliches „internationales Abkommen zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Pandemien“ vor. Die Verhandlungen in Genf haben bereits begonnen. Ursprünglich war die „Machtübergabe“ für den 1. Mai 2022 geplant, das heißt alle 194 Mitgliedsstaaten der WHO wären dann gezwungen, die von der WHO beschlossenen Maßnahmen wie Lockdowns oder allgemeine Impfpflicht umzusetzen.

Ein neues Memorandum des Concilium Europa vom 3. März 2022 hat den Prozess jedoch erheblich verzögert. In der Zwischenzeit soll ein Arbeitsentwurf dieses neuen WHO-„Weltregierungsabkommens“ für weitere interne Verhandlungen am 1. August 2022 fertig sein. Wenn eine Pandemie ausbricht, sind alle gefährdet.

Der Rat gibt grünes Licht für die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen über ein internationales Pandemieabkommen

Am 3. März 2022 nahm der Rat einen Beschluss an, um die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen über ein internationales Abkommen über die Prävention, Vorsorge und Reaktion auf Pandemien zu genehmigen.

Das zwischenstaatliche Verhandlungsgremium, das mit der Ausarbeitung und Aushandlung dieses internationalen Instruments beauftragt ist, wird seine nächste Sitzung am 1. August 2022 abhalten, um die Fortschritte bei einem Arbeitsentwurf zu erörtern . Anschließend wird sie der 76. Weltgesundheitsversammlung im Jahr 2023 einen Fortschrittsbericht vorlegen, mit dem Ziel , das Instrument bis 2024 zu verabschieden.

Offizielle Begründung für dieses von der WHO für notwendig erachtete Unterfangen ist laut „Rat der Europäischen Union“ der Vorwand, die internationale Gemeinschaft müsse noch besser auf mögliche künftige Pandemien und deren koordinierte Bekämpfung vorbereitet sein (2). Laut „Epochtimes“ vom 5. März scheinen die EU sowie private Akteure wie die Rockefeller Foundation und Bill Gates Ideengeber zu sein (3). Angesichts der Pandemieerfahrungen der vergangenen zwei Jahre ist dies ein Hinweis darauf, was die Welt zu erwarten hat.

Grundlage der Vereinbarung ist Artikel 19 der WHO-Satzung. Diese besagt, dass die Generalversammlung der WHO mit Zweidrittelmehrheit Vereinbarungen annehmen kann, die für alle Mitgliedstaaten verbindlich sind. Nationalstaaten können dann nicht mehr souverän entscheiden, welche Pandemie-Bekämpfungsmaßnahmen sie einführen wollen.

Die Abschaffung des Nationalstaates bedeutet zugleich den Verlust von Grund- und Bürgerrechten.

Davor hat schon der renommierte deutsch-britische Soziologe, Publizist und Politiker Ralf Dahrendorf gewarnt:

„Wer den Nationalstaat aufgibt, verliert damit die bisher einzige wirksame Garantie seiner Grundrechte. Wer heute den Nationalstaat für entbehrlich hält, erklärt damit – wenn auch unbeabsichtigt – Bürgerrechte für entbehrlich.“ (4)

Bei einer so weitreichenden Frage muss jedoch das Volk das letzte Wort haben: Alle wahlberechtigten Bürger eines Landes müssen das Recht und die Möglichkeit erhalten, ihre Meinung in einem Referendum zu äußern.

Vorschlag eines Sachverständigen an alle Landesregierungen

Dr. Stuckelberger, der seit über 20 Jahren für die WHO arbeitet, machte laut „greatreject.org“ folgenden Vorschlag:

  • Jedes Land sollte einen öffentlichen Protestbrief an die WHO senden.
  • Die „Regierungen“ sollten einen Brief schreiben, in dem sie erklären, dass die Menschen nicht akzeptieren, dass die Unterschrift des Gesundheitsministers ohne Referendum über das Schicksal von Millionen von Menschen entscheiden kann. Es ist sehr wichtig, diesen Brief von jedem Land an die WHO in Genf zu senden.
  • Die WHO fordert alle Länder auf, die Maßnahmen bis Mai 2022 umzusetzen [diese Forderung wurde inzwischen auf 2024 verschoben, siehe hier ].
  • Bisher hatten nur die Russen einen solchen Absagebrief verschickt (5).

Das Völkerrecht lässt keine UN-Regelung zu, die über der Verfassung einzelner Länder steht.

Das gilt auch für die WHO – eine UN-Organisation.

*

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.

Translated by Helmut Muellers Klartext.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Rektor i.R., Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe. Er schreibt regelmäßig Beiträge für Global Research.

Peter Koenig  ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger Senior Economist bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er seit über 30 Jahren weltweit im Bereich Wasser und Umwelt tätig ist. Er lehrt an Universitäten in den USA, Europa und Südamerika. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Online-Journale und ist Autor von  Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; und  Co-Autorin von Cynthia McKinneys Buch „When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis“ (Clarity Press – 1. November 2020)Er ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Center for Research on Globalization (CRG). Er ist außerdem nichtansässiger Senior Fellow des Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Noten

(1) [Aktualisierte englische Version]

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

(2) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

(3) https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/ausland/globaler-pandemievertrag-der-who-kann-nationale-verfassungen-aushebeln-a3744145.html

(4) https://weltwoche.ch/daily/im-schatten-des-uktaine-krieges-werkelt…ns-sollen-zum-neuen-instrument-der-internationalen-politik-werden/

(5) https://greatreject.org/who-is-world-government-power-grab/

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Die WHO als „Stellvertreter-Weltregierung“? Abschaffung des Nationalstaates? Sag NEIN zur „globalen Tyrannei“. Die WHO greift nach Macht über das Land und die Welt

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In recent days, the main military development on the Donbass front lines was the storming of the town of Liman in the north of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Krasny Liman is one of the first cities that were captured by the Ukrainian Army with heavy fighting in June 2014.

The clashes in the area resumed weeks ago, when the Russian military approached the nearby villages and took control of Yampol. Amid fierce resistance of the Ukrainian units, Russian-led forces entered Liman from the north on May 23rd. During the fighting, two bridges across the Seversky Donets River were destroyed. As a result, Ukrainian servicemen left their positions.

On May 26th, the Russian military claimed control over Liman. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) acknowledged the loss. Mop up operations continue in the villages and forests to the south of the town.

The further offensive of Russian troops in this area is hampered by the need to cross the Seversky Donets River, where the threat of the attacks by Ukrainian forces on Russian units is high. Thus, it is expected that the Russian command will not continue active offensive operations in the region, but will concentrate forces for operations in the Severodonetsk-Lisichansk area, where the Ukrainian grouping of about 10,000 servicemen remains cut off from the main supply routes and risks being caught in a strategic encirclement in the near future.

Fighting continues on the outskirts of Severodonetsk. Russian-led forces attack the AFU positions in the city but have avoided entering the street fighting so far. Fierce clashes reached the bus station in the eastern district of Severodonetsk. Russian forces storm the town of Borovskoe to the south of the city. Chechen units claimed that they had entered the city of Lisichansk. Fighting likely reached the city’s outskirts.

One of the main battlefields in the Donbass is the front along the Seversk-Soledar-Bakhmut-Toretsk line. The joint Russian, DPR and LPR forces are advancing from the east. They have already cut off the road between Bakhmut and Lisichansk in Belogorovka and Nahornoe. The last Ukrainian stronghold in the east in Zolotoe is almost surrounded.

On the Donetsk front lines, fierce fighting for Avdeevka continues. The front lines in the region have remained almost unchanged since 2015.

The DPR battalion Somalia and other units supported by Russian forces are advancing to the eastern outskirts of Avdeevka from Novoselkovki-2 and Novobakhmutovka. So far, the DPR units have managed to secure a foothold along the route to Konstantinovka.

At the same time, joint forces are advancing from the south-eastern direction, from the village of Spartak. Clashes reached the industrial zone, which has been the scene of heavy clashes for 8 years.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Russian Military Wins Battle for Liman. Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) Pockets in Donbass Diminishing
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

The comments on Peter Oborne’s excellent article on Julian Assange in the Guardian last week are a damning indictment of the media’s ability to instil near universal acceptance of “facts” which are easily proven lies.

The Guardian chose as its “Guardian pick” to head the section a comment full of these entirely untrue assertions.

If you look through all the comments, they repeat again and again that Wikileaks published unredacted documents, including names of US agents, which put lives at risk. The entire basis of most of the comments is simply untrue – and none of the readers seems to have any information to contradict them.

Julian Assange has never said that governments should have no secrets. That would be a ridiculous position and clearly some information held by government is rightly confidential. He has said that governments should be very much more open to the public, and that most government secrecy is unjustified.

Nor has Wikileaks ever dumped data unread and unedited on to the internet. The commenter is correct to say that Wikileaks has shared editing responsibilities with organisations including the Guardian and the New York Times. This is precisely because the material needs to be edited to avoid revealing inappropriate material, and to make journalistic decisions on what to write stories about.

The notion that Assange was “lazy” because he did not read all the material and do all the editing himself is self-evidently ridiculous. The US diplomatic cables and Iraq and Afghan war logs alone constituted over 600,000 documents. It was simply impossible for Assange to read it all personally. He was the editor of Wikileaks. This is tantamount to criticising Katherine Viner for not writing every single article in the Guardian personally.

The extradition hearing of Julian Assange heard numerous highly professional and respected journalists testify to the rigorous nature of Wikileaks’ editing process to remove names. Here is one extract from my reporting of the trial:

John Goetz was the first witness this morning. Senior Investigations Editor at NDR since 2011, he was at Der Spiegel from 2007-11. He had published a series of articles on German involvement in the Afghan War, including one on a bombing raid on Kunduz which massacred civilians, for which he had won Germany’s highest journalism award. In June 2010 he went to London to meet with Wikileaks and the Guardian to work on the Afghan War Logs.

In a series of meetings in “the bunker” at the Guardian with the NYT and the other major media partners, the partnership was formed whereby all would pool effort in researching the Afghan War Logs but each party would choose and publish his own stories. This cooperative venture between five major news organisations – normally rivals – was unique at the time.

Goetz had been struck by what seemed to him Julian Assange’s obsession with the security of the material. He insisted everything was encrypted and strict protocols were in place for handling the material. This had been new territory for the journalists. The New York Times was tasked with liaison with the White House, the Department of Defence and State Department on questions of handling the material.

Asked by Mark Summers to characterise the Afghan War Logs, Goetz said that they were fascinating first-hand material giving low level reports on actual operations. This was eye witness material which sometimes lacked the larger view. There was abundant first-hand evidence of war crimes. He had worked with Nick Davies of the Guardian on the Task Force 373 story.

Julian Assange had been most concerned to find the names in the papers. He spent a lot of time working out technical ways to identify names in the tens of thousands of documents. Mark Summers asked f he had been looking for the names for the purpose of redaction, and Goetz confirmed it was for redaction. He had interviewed Assange on the harm minimisation programme of the operation.

On behalf of the group Eric Schmitt of the NYT had been speaking to the White House and he had sent an email identifying 15,000 documents the White House did not want published to prevent harm to individuals or to American interests. It was agreed not to publish these documents and they were not published. Summers asked Goetz if he was aware of any names that slipped through, and he replied not.

Goetz was not so involved for family reasons when the consortium went through the same process with the Iraq war logs. But he knew that when a large number of these were released in the USA under a FOIA request, it was seen that Wikileaks had redacted those they released more heavily than the Department of Defense did. Goetz recalled an email from David Leigh of the Guardian stating that publication of some stories was delayed because of the amount of time Wikileaks were devoting to the redaction process to get rid of the “bad stuff”.

Further very detailed evidence on this point was given by Professor John Sloboda, by Nicky Hager and by Professor Christian Grothoff.

Yet there is no public awareness that this careful editing and redaction process took at all. That is plain from those comments under the Guardian article. This is because people are simply regurgitating the propaganda that the media has given them. My blog was effectively the only source for detailed reporting of the Assange hearings, which were almost ignored by the mainstream media.

This was deliberate choice – the information was freely available to the mainstream media. This is what the Reuters News Agency, to which they all subscribe, produced on Dr Goetz’s evidence, for example:

WikiLeaks’ Assange was careful to protect informants, court hears
By Reuters Staff

LONDON, Sept 16 (Reuters) – WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange was careful to ensure that the names of informants in hundreds of thousands of leaked secret U.S. government documents were never published, his London extradition hearing was told on Wednesday.

Australian-born Assange, 49, is fighting against being sent to the United States, where he is charged with conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law over the release of confidential cables by WikiLeaks in 2010-2011.

A lawyer for the United States told the court last week that it was requesting Assange’s extradition over the publication of informants’ names, and not for handling leaked documents.

John Goetz, an investigative reporter who worked for Germany’s Spiegel magazine on the first publication of the documents, said the U.S. State Department had been involved in a conference call suggesting redactions, and WikiLeaks had agreed to hold back about 15,000 documents for publication.

“There was sensitivity and it was one of the things that was talked about all the time,” Goetz told the court. Assange was concerned that the media should take measures “so no one would be harmed”, he said.

Goetz said WikiLeaks was later frustrated when a password that allowed access to the full, unredacted material was published in a book by Guardian reporters in February 2011.

Assange made international headlines in 2010 when WikiLeaks published a U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff.

I can find no evidence that any mainstream media used this report from Reuters, or indeed any of Reuters’ daily news feed that covered the major points for the defence. The BBC managed to report prominently the false claim that has entered public consciousness:

But could not find space for any of the witnesses who contradicted this claim.

It is of course a very delicate subject for the Guardian, whose journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding were in fact responsible for the dumping of unredacted material on the net. The court heard evidence of this from numerous witnesses, of whom Professor Christian Grothoff gave the most detail:

Summers then asked Professor Grothoff whether David Leigh released the password. Grothoff replied that yes, Luke Harding and David Leigh had revealed the encryption key in their book on Wikileaks published February 2011. They had used it as a chapter heading, and the text explicitly set out what it was. The copies of the encrypted file on some mirrors were useless until David Leigh posted that key.
Summers So once David Leigh released the encryption key, was it in Wikileaks’ power to take down the mirrors?
Grothoff No.
Summers Could they change the encryption key on those copies?
Grothoff No.
Summers Was there anything they could do?
Grothoff Nothing but distract and delay.

Grothoff continued to explain that on 25 August 2011 the magazine Der Freitag had published the story explaining what had happened. It did not itself give out the password or location of the cache, but it made plain to people that it could be done, particularly to those who had already identified either the key or a copy of the file. The next link in the chain of events was that nigelparry.com published a blog article which identified the location of a copy of the encrypted file. With the key being in David Leigh’s book, the material was now effectively out. This resulted within hours in the creation of torrents and then publication of the full archive, unencrypted and unredacted, on Cryptome.org.

Summers asked whether Cryptome was a minor website. Grothoff replied not at all, it was a long established platform for leaked or confidential material and was especially used by journalists.

It is telling that in the Guardian itself, scores of commenters on Peter Oborne’s article reference the release of unredacted files, but nobody seems to know that it was the Guardian that was actually responsible, or rather, massively irresponsible. The gulf between public perception and the truth is deeply troubling.

In a related matter, the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal has published an article with that attribution, about the “russiagate” hoax around the 2016 election, which is stunning:

“The Russia-Trump narrative that Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three year investigation to nowhere. Putin never came close to doing as much disinformation damage.”

The problem is the Wall Street Journal has one thing wrong. The press is not humiliated – like Boris Johnson it is entirely brazen and has no capacity for humiliation. The press has not been found out, because most of the country still believes the lies they were told and have not seen corrected.

Hillary’s 2016 campaign manager has stated “Russiagate” was a lie knowingly planted by Hillary. Mueller could find no firm evidence of Russian hacking, and the CEO of Crowdstrike, the Clinton appointed firm who made the original claim, testified to congress there was “no hard evidence”. The FBI nor Mueller ever even inspected the DNC servers. The Christopher Steele “peegate” dossier has fallen apart and is now a thing of ridicule. Roger Stone was jailed for false evidence to the FBI – which consisted of him inventing a Wikileaks-Trump link for purposes of self-aggrandisement. The Manafort/Assange story was the most egregious press fabrication since the Zinoviev letter.

But the media who pushed all these false narratives have never backed away from them.

My favourite example ever of almost entirely unreported news was the dismissal by New York federal judge John Koeltl of the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against Trump and the state of Russia over the 2016 elections. Judge Koeltl rules that nothing whatsoever had been produced which met the bar of evidence.

There is plainly a crisis in western neo-liberal societies. The wealth gap between rich and poor has become so extreme as to be insupportable, and even in the wealthiest countries in the world, people in employment are struggling to achieve decent accommodation, heating and food. The billionaire controlled state and media systems contrived to neuter both Corbyn and Sanders, who sought to restore some social justice.

In consequence, inevitable public discontent has been channelled into populist courses – Brexit, Trump, Johnson – which themselves alarm the establishment, though less than Sanders and Corbyn did. There is a space for comforting fiction to explain the social shock. Therefore the populist wave is explained, not as a result of popular discontent at the extreme economic imbalance of modern neo-liberalism, but by the Deus Ex Machina of hacking or Cambridge Analytica, all of which is then itself sourced back to the designated devil Putin.

Modern society is not really much more rational than the Middle Ages. Myth is still extremely potent; only the means of myth dissemination are more sophisticated.

*

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 Lawyers for Assange

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a recent editorial, I discussed a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 1, 2022, by Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).

The proposed AUMF, if passed, would allow President Biden to deploy American forces to restore “the territorial integrity of Ukraine” in the event that Russia uses chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Thankfully, as Antiwar.com news editor Dave DeCamp writes, Kinzinger’s AUMF has failed to gain traction. This may seem like a bright spot in an otherwise apocalyptically bad news cycle, but not to worry! Antiwar.com Opinion Editor Kyle Anzalone noted in his recent interview of me, Kinzinger’s proposed AUMF will likely sit on the House Floor until the necessary political capital appears.

It probably will when Russia (or anyone really) uses the above-described weapons.

Although Kinzinger’s proposed AUMF asserts the moral high ground by threatening war against Russia, it can claim none. The United States itself has deployed all three types of weapons against its enemies—in the recent past, if not sooner.

As for nuclear weapons—the United States is the only country in world history to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy during wartime. Their use is even more abhorrent considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki held no strategic military value and the ordinance overwhelmingly killed civilians.

As if obliterating two major Japanese cities wasn’t enough, the Manhattan Project’s test detonations in the New Mexico desert exposed nearby farmers and their families to dangerous levels of radiation. Although the family members did not exhibit external symptoms, much of their livestock died.

In tune with their character, between 1945 and 1947 Manhattan Project scientists purposely injected30 Americans with plutonium just to see what would happen. These injections were administered without the subjects’ knowledge or consent.

As for biological warfare, the United States’ military has tested biological weapons against its own citizens on several occasions.

In 1949, the Army Chemical Corps secretly released a harmless bacteria into the Pentagon’s air conditioning system to see how it spread through the building.

In April of 1950 and September of 1950, the Army Chemical Corps sprayed the coasts of Norfolk, Virginia and San Francisco, California, respectively, with two types of bacteria.

The types of bacteria that were released, Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcesens were believed to be harmless at the time. However,

Bacillus globigii is now [considered] to be a pathogen, causes food poisoning, and can hurt anyone with a weak immune system. As for Serratia marcesens, 11 people were admitted to a hospital with serious bacterial infections after the San Francisco test. One of them–Edward Nevin–died three weeks later.

In a previous editorial, I wrote about how the U.S. Army Chemical Corps sprayed several cities in the United States and Canada with zinc cadmium sulfide. At the time, zinc cadmium sulfide was considered to be harmless, but a large class of victims brought a federal lawsuit claiming the exposure caused myriad ailments. The lawsuit was dismissed, in part because the U.S. Government cannot be sued without its consent.

In the 1980s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided Iraq with pathogens, which were ostensibly used against Iran in the Iraq-Iran War. In fact, the United States supported both sides of the war.

In September 2002, West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd entered the CDC’s own documents into the Congressional Record during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. The documents showed that

the CDC and a biological sample company, American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene…Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

A few years later, the United States invaded Iraq under the pretext of destroying the above weapons. In the largest battle of said invasion, the Second Battle of Fallujah, the United States used white phosphorous against insurgents.

img 1365

White phosphorous is a chemical compound that burns intensely when exposed to oxygen. When it contacts the human body, it burns to the bone, causing horrific injuries.

Although the legality of using white phosphorous against combatants is debatable, and beyond the scope of this piece, the use of white phosphorus against civilians is a war crime.

There is evidence that the United States’ use of white phosphorous in Fallujah harmed civilians. It is also confirmed that the United States used white phosphorous in Iraq and Syria in its ostensible fight against the Islamic State. Human Rights Watch could not confirm several allegations that the white phosphorous harmed civilians, but it noted that the allegations exist and are supported by at least some evidence.

U.S. partners Israel and Turkey have been accused of using white phosphorous. Israel admitted it.

One of the most grievous and well-documented cases of the United States’ use of chemical weapons occurred during the Vietnam War.

While working on solutions to its counterinsurgency problem in Vietnam, the Pentagon, through ARPA, created a defoliant that gained international notoriety under the name “Agent Orange.”

Agent Orange was supposed to combat the Vietcong insurgency by denying it “protective cover from the jungle canopy.” Its second purpose was to starve the enemy “by poisoning their primary food crop, a jungle root called manioc.” Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Security Advisor Walt Rostow called the defoliant program “a type of chemical warfare.”

By the end of the war, the United States had sprayed 19 million gallons of Agent Orange on Vietnam’s jungles. “A 2012 congressional report determined that over the course of the war, between 2.1 million and 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed[.]”

In addition to destroying its natural resources, Agent Orange caused abhorrent health defects in the Vietnamese population.

Ninety-eight refugees who had been exposed to chemical sprays in South Vietnam were interviewed in Hanoi. Most reported effects on eyes and skin and gastrointestinal upsets. Ninety-two percent suffered fatigue, prolonged or indefinite in 17 percent of cases. Reports of abortions and monstrous births in sprayed humans and animals and of substantial numbers of deaths among fish, fowl, and pigs were also given.

A 2006 meta-analysis found a very high correlation between exposure to Agent Orange and birth defects:

Results In total, 22 studies including 13 Vietnamese and nine non-Vietnamese studies were identified. The summary relative risk (RR) of birth defects associated with exposure to Agent Orange was 1.95 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.59–2.39], with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Vietnamese studies showed a higher summary RR (RR = 3.00; 95% CI 2.19–4.12) than non-Vietnamese studies (RR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.04–1.59). Sub-group analyses found that the magnitude of association tended to increase with greater degrees of exposure to Agent Orange, rated on intensity and duration of exposure and dioxin concentrations measured in affected populations. Conclusion Parental exposure to Agent Orange appears to be associated with an increased risk of birth defects.

The United States constantly grandstands about enforcing the “international rules-based order,” but what does that order stand for? If its own conduct is the measure, then the United States should have no quarrel with Russia for using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

*

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.

Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews. His work has appeared on antiwar.com and Zerohedge. He may be reached at [email protected]

All images in this article are from TLI

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Pot, Meet Kettle”: America’s Use of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Weapons
  • Tags: ,