Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 25, 2022

Tiny bits of plastic about the size of a sesame seed or smaller are everywhere. News headlines often show intact plastic bags, rings and bottles as the primary threats to the environment — and these are indeed harmful to marine life and more — but the smaller, more insidious microplastic bits may even be more harmful. A study from Great Britain found microplastics in 11 out of 13 patients’ lungs.

‘Fact Checkers’ Furious After Henry Kissinger Says Ukraine Should Cede Territory for Peace with Russia

By Zero Hedge, May 25, 2022

Veteran US statesman Henry Kissinger has urged the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, warning that it would have disastrous consequences for the long term stability of Europe.

On African Liberation Day, Biden’s Troop Deployment to Somalia Confirms Africa Is Not Free

By Black Alliance for Peace, May 26, 2022

The Biden Administration’s recent decision to return U.S. troops to Somalia represents another effort on the part of the U.S. to deny agency and independence to African people. On the 59th commemoration of African Liberation Day, the Black Alliance for Peace expresses its unequivocal opposition to this redeployment.

Introduction: Re-examining Asia-Pacific War Memories: Grief, Narratives, and Memorials

By Prof. Justin Aukema, Daniel Milne, and et al., May 26, 2022

A diverse, global team of thirteen authors highlights subjects across a wide geographical area spanning the Asia-Pacific region especially. In the process, articles question common assumptions and narratives surrounding Asia-Pacific War memories by highlighting crucial, in-between spaces and remembrances. These range from Japanese military cemeteries in Malaysia, to the experiences of Filipino residents living near a Japanese POW camp, and to Japanese veterans’ personal narratives of guilt, trauma, and heroism.

The 16 Biggest Lies the U.S. Government Tells America About the Ukraine War

By Richard Ochs, May 25, 2022

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky banned all opposition parties and banned the use of Russian as a second state language. Why did he violate his 2019 campaign promise to stop the genocidal killing of thousands in Donbas, even though they voted for him?

Is Russia to Blame for the Looming Global Food Crisis?

By Dr. Mathew Maavak, May 25, 2022

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is undoubtedly impacting global grain supplies as well as the means of growing crops around the world. But is the looming global food crisis solely Russia’s fault – as spun by the globalist media machinery? Only months earlier, COVID-19, lockdowns and climate change were repeatedly blamed for this scenario.

Former Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black: Ukraine, NATO Expansionism, US Proxy Wars in Ukraine, Syria, China May be Next

By Steven Sahiounie, May 25, 2022

Former Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black was recently interviewed by Mike Robinson.  In the video, Black discusses the conflict in Ukraine, his views on NATO expansionism, and draws parallels with the conflict in Syria. Black said the US has a strategic policy of using proxies to engage in war to overthrow existing governments.

Biden in Tokyo: Killing Strategic Ambiguity: The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, May 25, 2022

Biden was again flatly committing the US to a conflict over Taiwan should China deploy its forces.  He has done so on two previous occasions, showing either a degree of ignorance, or a willingness to throw caution to the wind.

US Four-Star General Tweets Video Game as Real Ukraine War Battle

By Free West Media, May 25, 2022

It is quite surprising that the high-ranking military officer did not verify the content he chose to spread on his social media account since it is not the first time the pro-Ukraine faction has published video game footage as genuine Ukraine victories.

Russia-Ukraine War: George Bush’s Admission of His Crimes in Iraq Was No ‘Gaffe’

By Jonathan Cook, May 25, 2022

It was apparently a “gaffe” of the kind we had forgotten since George W Bush stepped down from the US presidency in early 2009. During a speech in Dallas last week, he momentarily confused Russian President Vladimir Putin’s current war of aggression against Ukraine and his own war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living

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 Biden Administration’s recent decision to return U.S. troops to Somalia represents another effort on the part of the U.S. to deny agency and independence to African people. On the 59th commemoration of African Liberation Day, the Black Alliance for Peace expresses its unequivocal opposition to this redeployment. The 500 U.S. troops sent to Somalia are the latest to violate that nation’s sovereignty. As is the case with all US interventions, the underlying reasons are not only depraved but also indifferent to the constant suffering of African people caused by western-induced militarism and war.

The reintroduction of the U.S. military (AFRICOM) on the ground is related to a dispute between Somalia and the U.S. oil company, Coastline Exploration Ltd, over the validity of an oil exploration agreement. It is also a signal that the U.S. wants to both reassert its presence in the oil-rich and strategic region, and to directly target its long-time foe, Eritrea.

Netfa Freeman, BAP’s African Team Co-Coordinator states that this decision is “emblematic of the U.S. insistence on keeping Africa in perpetual turmoil and has nothing to do with enabling a more effective fight against al-Shabaab.” Biden’s advisors are certainly aware of various reports exposing that the billions Washington spends on counterterrorism programs, from Somalia to Nigeria, ostensibly to enhance security in Africa, is having the opposite effect.

While the U.S. continues its 30-year long series of interventions against Somalia, H.R. 7311 the “Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act” passed with the unanimous approval of every Democrat in Congress.

H.R. 7311 was introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman and Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) member Gregory Meeks and passed in the House on April 28, 2022. The bill calls for assessments of Russia’s influence on the African continent and states that the U.S. will “hold accountable” Russia and African governments who are “complicit in aiding such malign influence.” This is reminiscent of the era of the George W. Bush administration that declared that any country not with the U.S. is against the U.S.

Margaret Kimberley, BAP Africa Team Co-Coordinator said, “This bill is a racist affront to the right to self-determination of African people.”

H.R. 7311 is a reaction to African nations that refrained from condemning Russia’s military operation in Ukraine; and as a deterrent against African nations acting as Mali has done, by ending the French military presence and turning toward Russian private military company Wagner for assistance. On May 16th the Mali government announced that Wagner played a role in thwarting a failed coup attempt allegedly carried out by a group of local soldiers, foreign mercenaries, and units from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries.

Rep. Meeks and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) – the “Black misleadership class” –  are fully aligned with the Biden administration and Democratic Party leadership, defending every imperialist effort to exercise U.S. dominance in Africa. The U.S. bombed Somalia on February 22, two days before the Russian Federation began its military operations in Ukraine. Yet Somalia has not become a focus of concern of Meeks and the rest of the Black misleaders, despite years of constant drone bombings by the U.S. having caused an estimated 250,000 deaths and the displacement of 3 million people. Meanwhile, these same CBC members won’t address domestic problems, but will lob billions to wage a proxy war against Russia and to support Nazi groups in Ukraine. The U.S. Black misleadership class demonstrates over and over that they do not care about African people – neither on the continent nor at home.

BAP is firm in its anti-imperialist stance and again says, “U.S. Out of Africa!” “Shut Down AFRICOM!”

No Compromise! No Retreat!

*

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 US Air Force

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On African Liberation Day, Biden’s Troop Deployment to Somalia Confirms Africa Is Not Free
  • Tags: , ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: US Sees Anti-China Setback after Philippine Elections
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Introduction: Re-examining Asia-Pacific War Memories: Grief, Narratives, and Memorials

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 any war, the first casualty is truth. Here are the biggest lies:

1. “Ukraine is a democracy”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky banned all opposition parties and banned the use of Russian as a second state language. Why did he violate his 2019 campaign promise to stop the genocidal killing of thousands in Donbas, even though they voted for him? Did he lie because neo-Nazis threatened to kill him if he did not do what they wanted? [1] Or is he afraid of the CIA, which has assassinated other leaders, making him their puppet? Are we to trust the judgment of a man who demands a no-fly zone which could cause a global nuclear holocaust? Zelensky oversees torture and assassination of political dissenters.[2]

2. “National sovereignty is sacred”

When Idi Amin perpetrated genocide in Uganda, the UN violated Ugandan sovereignty to stop it. When Ukraine perpetrated genocide in Donbas and planned to escalate, Russia stopped it. [3] The U.S. violated Cuba’s sovereignty to take the planet to the edge of nuclear holocaust. The U.S. has violated lots of sovereignties in recent wars, killing millions. Given Ukraine’s genocide of a national minority, “should Ukraine’s sovereignty be respected”.

3. “Putin is a war criminal”

If he is a war criminal for causing the deaths of civilians, what do we call Ukraine killing 14,000 civilians in Donbas since 2014? [4] Is anyone calling Zelensky a war criminal? Millions killed by the U.S. in other recent wars is hundreds of times worse. Calling Putin a war criminal stops Biden from negotiating with him with the excuse “one cannot talk to war criminals.” That makes it very difficult to stop this war. Evidently, the U.S. wants this war to continue to the last Ukrainian. The plan of the Rand Corporation is to “quagmire” Russia just like the U.S. bankrupted the USSR by starting the al-Qaeda opposition in Afghanistan.

Source: wikipedia.org

4. “The world condemns Russia’s invasion”

Actually most of the world does not, including China, India, most of Africa, Israel, half of Latin America and many other countries. The two largest political parties in Russia do not oppose Russia’s intervention, the second largest party being the Communist Party.

5. “Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons”

Russia has the same policy as the U.S. On March 22, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia would only use nuclear weapons if its very existence were threatened, Tassnews agency reported. [5] Russia had a “no first use” policy until the U.S. refused to do the same, so Russia dropped it. U.S. presidents have threatened to use nuclear weapons several times since the end of WWII against countries not a threat to the U.S. [6]

6. “With his back against the wall, Putin will resort to chemical warfare, just like in Syria”

Russia did not use chemical weapons in Syria. Russia negotiated Syrian stockpiles to be destroyed or removed. The chemical attacks in Syria were done by rebels supported by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. [7] If anyone has their back against the wall, it is the Ukrainians and neo-Nazis who are trained in false-flag tactics by the CIA. Like in Syria, the U.S. media are falsely blaming the Russians with no evidence whatsoever. Like in Syria, any chemicals released in Ukraine will probably be the work of opponents of Russia to blame Russia.

The U.S. gave Iraq chemical weapons which were used to kill thousands of Kurds and Iranians in 1982-83 before stockpiles were destroyed by Iraq. The U.S. is the chemical killer, not Russia which prevented it. History is full of U.S. false flags. [8]

FACT CHECK: Did the Daily Mail Delete a Story Reporting the U.S. Planned to Blame Assad for 'False Flag' Chemical Attacks?

Source: snopes.com

7. “Putin may resort to biological warfare”

While this charge was propagated by media during the second week of March, since the embarrassing revelation that the Pentagon funded labs in Ukraine, nothing more has been said about it in the media. It was first reported by the U.S. that hazardous specimens had to be destroyed lest they fall into the hands of Russians; later, it was reported that specimens were not dangerous at all, so as not to incriminate the U.S. Which was it? Any false-flag release of pathogens by Ukraine to blame Russia is now probably precluded. The Pentagon is guilty of funding gain-of-function virus research in China after it was banned in the U.S., posing a possible lab release of COVID-19. The U.S. is the bio-killer using a U.S. Army strain of anthrax in October 2001, not Russia.

8. “Russia is targeting civilians in Ukraine”

According to Newsweek, “Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians…Over the course of almost four weeks, missiles fired at Kyiv have been scarce…The destruction is only a small fraction of what is possible.” [9] The alleged massacre of civilians in Bucha, prompting Biden to accuse Putin of war crimes, was perpetrated by Ukrainians who were “cleansing” the town of presumed collaborators after Russian troops had left days before. [10]

9. “Russia will make false-flag attacks”

There is no evidence that Russia attacked targets and blamed Ukraine. On the contrary, seven days prior to Russia’s incursion, the OSCE Monitoring Mission gave evidence of a Ukrainian false-flag attack on a kindergarten to blame Donbas separatists. [11] None were killed, but Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk increased 100-fold over the next four days, leading to Russia’s incursion to stop it. [12] The attacks on a maternity ward, apartments and concert hall may have been false-flag attacks, staged events, or situations where civilians were held hostage by combatants. It was reported that one maternity ward had Ukrainian snipers shooting from there. Residents of Mariupol who got out testified that Ukrainian combatants were preventing civilians from escaping through the humanitarian corridor in order to use them as human shields.[13]

10. “If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will attack NATO countries next”

That is patently ridiculous because Russia is already over-extended and not able to attack anyone else. Russia also does not want a nuclear war. Russia’s goal is to protect Donbas, get recognition of Crimea, de-Nazify Ukraine and prevent nuclear missiles close to Russia’s border. By exaggerating Putin’s goals instead of negotiating these goals, the U.S. is prolonging the war and provoking the destruction of Ukraine.

11. “Russia is threatening nuclear power plants”

Russian soldiers were ordered to “guard and control” these plants to prevent inadvertent or deliberate damage. Photos showed Ukrainians fired the first shot, destroying a Russian tank, whereupon a second tank returned fire. A training building was damaged in the exchange. The fires were not near the reactors. The electricity for cooling was never turned off.  But the hype was spun to scare the crap out of Europe so as to get their intervention into the Ukraine war.[14]

12. “Russia’s invasion threatens the whole world”

If Russia succeeds in keeping U.S. nuclear missiles from being positioned in Ukraine seven minutes’ flight to Moscow, Russia will be doing humanity a big favor. Just as U.S. ICBM fixed missiles are on hair-trigger alert with “launch them or lose them” orders with no cancellations after launch possible, missiles in Ukraine would increase the chance of accident or miscalculation with little warning time to verify. Doomsday would be on pins and needles. That should scare the crap out of everyone. India had an accidental missile launch in March that landed in nuclear-armed Pakistan with no warhead. [15] Putin warned in 2019 that any incoming missile would be presumed to be nuclear, requiring a retaliatory launch by Russia before the incoming missile hit so Russia’s deterrent force would not be destroyed. [16]

The U.S. and NATO are threatening the planet, not Russia. Here are the facts:

  1. President Reagan rejected President Gorbachev’s offer to give up deployment of a “Star Wars” missile defense system in space as a condition for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons.
  2. President Clinton refused President Putin’s offer to cut our massive nuclear arsenals to 1,500 bombs each, and to call on all of the other nuclear-armed states to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons, in exchange for the U.S. not placing missile sites in Romania.
  3. President George W. Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put a missile base in Romania. President Trump placed another missile base in Poland.
  4. President Bush in 2008 and President Obama in 2014 blocked any discussion of Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound UN Committee for Disarmament in Geneva.
  5. President Obama rejected President Putin’s offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyber war.
  6. President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
  7. From President Clinton through President Biden, the U.S. has never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, while Russia ratified it.

Click to access: “Nuclear Posture Review” by Veterans for Peace. (January 2022)

Should there be any question that it is the U.S., not Russia, that is not only threatening the world, but is threatening the entire human race for all eternity?

A picture containing sky, outdoor, shore, day Description automatically generated

U.S. naval facility in Redzikowo, Poland, where U.S. ballistic missiles that threaten Russia are stationed. [Source: wikipedia.org]

13. “The U.S. has a ‘free press’ while Russia’s news is controlled”

U.S. news outlets are owned by Wall Street billionaire oligarchs who give so-called journalists the script to report, making TV reporters paid actors who know where their bread is buttered. The U.S. media have proven to be more dangerous and warlike than the Pentagon, as shown in past U.S. wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Yemen, Afghanistan). Now these billionaires are censoring social media, so we are censored in doing personal research. The U.S. has shut down Russian media like Tass and Russia Today (RT) to prevent Americans from hearing the other side and making up our own minds who is lying and who is telling the truth. What is the U.S. afraid of if they are telling the truth? According to Carl Bernstein, Pulitzer Prize journalist, the CIA has captured The New York Times and The Washington Post.

14. “Russia is planning cyber attacks on the U.S.”

Russia remains open for dialogue and cooperation on information security with all states, and the United States is not an exception,” the Kremlin’s Andrey Krutskikh told Newsweek. “Moscow’s vision of such a multilateral cyber scheme includes a set of obligations not to use ICTs as a weapon.” A potentially key meeting was in April when Krutskikh sought to work with Washington in the digital realm. [17]

15. “Russia is killing children.”

The numbers are being exaggerated like all the other exaggerations by Ukraine to get NATO into the war. Any child deaths are accidental, not like the deliberate murder of children by the U.S. and Israel. When Madeleine Albright was asked if the half million children starved to death in Iraq from U.S. sanctions were worth it, she answered “yes.” [18]During Israel’s 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” Israeli military forces killed 2,200 Palestinians, more than 80% of whom were civilians, and nearly one-quarter of whom were children.[19]

16. “Russia may use tactical nuclear weapons.”

Russia could have flattened Kyiv with conventional explosives, but did not, so why would they use 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.

Richard Ochs is a board member of Maryland Peace Action. He has published articles in the Baltimore Sun, Baltimore Chronicle, and the website: www.freefromterror.net.

Notes

  1. Trying to de-Nazify Ukraine, Zelensky knows the biggest threat against him—and from what had always been prohibiting him from complying with the Minsk II accords. “The Nazis had always made clear that they’d kill him if he did any such thing.”
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-did-vladimir-putin-probably-save-volodymyr-zelenskys-life/5773835 

  2. https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/17/traitor-zelensky-assassination-kidnapping-arrest-political-opposition/ 
  3. “In recent days, the number and intensity of shelling on the territory of the Republics by the Ukrainian army has sharply increased. The units of the People’s Militia are forced to constantly suppress the firing points of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in order to prevent the death of the civilian population.” Published on February 21, 2022.https://ugetube.com/watch/firefight-ukraine-army-039-s-plan-to-attack-donbass_wmIf7NNHXvOCqNV.html?msclkid=f3d55ab0ab2a11ec9d8c68334c4999d6 
  4. The map below shows two-thirds of Donbas was occupied by Kyiv forces before the Russian rescue mission on February 24, 2022. The line of conflict between the blue and brown areas indicates a third of the population of Donbas was in the target zone, suffering 10,000 civilian casualties. 
  5. President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s nuclear forces to be put on high alert. U.S. nuclear missiles have been on hair-trigger for decades. In line with the order, Russia’s defense ministry said on February 28 that its nuclear missile forces and Northern and Pacific fleets had been placed on enhanced combat duty, the Interfax news agency reported. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on March 14: “The prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, is now back within the realm of possibility.” Since most Americans seem to have been oblivious to this existential threat, perhaps Putin did us a favor to remind us of the need for universal nuclear disarmament, which the U.S., not Russia, has been sabotaging. 
  6. The United States threatened to use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, China, Russia and Afghanistan after dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    when did US consider using nuclear weaons? – Search (bing.com) 
  7. Weapons inspector refutes U.S. Syria chemical claimsWeapons Inspector Refutes U.S. Syria Chemical Claims – Consortium News 
  8. History of U.S. false flags for war:
    1. Sinking of U.S. battleship Maine in 1898 to start war against Spain for Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and genocide in Philippines.
    2. Deliberately sending the Lusitania to be sunk in war zone despite warnings, creating a preext for the U.S. entry into WWI.
    3. “Operation Northwoods” conspiracy proposed by U.S. Joint Chiefs to JFK to crash U.S. plane and blame Cuba.
    4. Assassination of JFK by deep state cabal, blaming alleged communist despite evidence of the real gunman.
    5. Since 9/11, tons of evidence suggest it was an inside job by Dick Cheney and Saudi Royal Bandar bin Sultan.
    6. One month after 9/11, anthrax from a U.S. Army lab with letter falsely blaming Islamic zealot stampeded war. 
  9. Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine but He’s Holding Back. Here’s why – Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/putins-bombers-could-devastate-ukraine-hes-holding-back-heres-why-1690494?fbclid=IwAR1eVGkFmmNgnDLzkUdLXj0BAJpoHDUmqIvegtv2-fFmLVUIgdE24G_q0sE 
  10. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/04/questions-abound-about-bucha-massacre/https://standpointzero.com/2022/04/07/the-anatomy-of-a-russian-massacre/ 
  11. Ukraine attacked a kindergarten, blaming Donbas separatists.Report of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)The Monitoring Mission’s report on the kindergarten incident:
    “On 17 February, the Mission followed up on reports of damage to a working kindergarten in the north-western part of Stanytsia Luhanska (government-controlled, 16km north-east of Luhansk), located about 4.5km north-west of the north-western edge of the disengagement area near Stanytsia Luhanska.”

    Comment by munitions expert:

    “So the kindergarten was 4.5 kilometers inside Ukrainian-held territory. The monitors were denied access to the site by Ukrainian authorities and were only able to see it from a distance (very suspicious).  Also suspicious is that the mission was told that “20 children had been in the kindergarten at the time of the incident but reported no injuries.”  Really?  An artillery shell bursts through a classroom wall, and no one was injured?  More likely, they had been warned to get out ahead of time and evacuated before the shell was fired.

    “But there is no doubt whatsoever about how far away the tank (or artillery piece) was. The impact was dead on, and not from a descending shell. And the surrounding buildings mean that whoever fired at the kindergarten was situated in that very small open space right next to it.  And we know it was a dummy shell, because of the unbroken windows.  If there had been an explosion, they would have been shattered.  Someone took deliberate aim from only a few hundred yards away and carefully fired a single shot on a flat trajectory. They probably weren’t interested in causing “collateral damage,” but just wanted a propaganda photo. How convenient that the damage was to a kindergarten and not to one or another of the anonymous buildings surrounding it.” 

  12. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
    reports each day on the security situation with daily reports:
    https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reportsWed., Feb. 16  number of explosions: 5 in Donetsk and 71 in Luhansk = 76

    Thurs., Feb. 17  Kindergarten hit by Ukraine’s false-flag attack

    Thurs., Feb. 17 number of explosions: 128 in Donetsk and 188 in Luhansk = 316

    Fri., Feb. 18      number of explosions: 135 in Donetsk and 519 in Luhansk = 654

    Sat., Feb. 19     number of explosions: 553 in Donetsk and 860 in Luhansk = 1,413

    (An increase in Kyiv’s shelling of Donbas by a factor of 20 within four days of kindergarten false flag) 

  13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/28/ukraine-kyiv-russia-civilians/ Increasingly, Ukrainians are confronting an uncomfortable truth: The military’s understandable impulse to defend against Russian attacks could be putting civilians in the crosshairs. Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses. “If there is military equipment there and [the Russians] are saying we are launching at this military equipment, it undermines an assertion that they are attacking intentionally civilian objects and civilians,” said Richard Weir, a researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis and conflict division, who is working in Ukraine. 

    “Over the past month, Washington Post journalists have witnessed Ukrainian antitank rockets, antiaircraft guns and armored personnel carriers placed near apartment buildings. . . Every day, it’s like this,” said Lubov Bura, 73, standing outside the apartment building where she lived that was destroyed two weeks ago.”

    The Ukrainian military has “a responsibility under international law” to remove their forces and equipment from civilian-populated areas, and if that is not possible, to move civilians out of those areas, Weir said. “If they don’t do that, that is a violation of the laws of war,” he added. “Because what they are doing is they are putting civilians at risk. Because all that military equipment are legitimate targets. 

    “Ukraine cannot use civilian neighborhoods as ‘human shields,’” said Schabas, adding that he was not suggesting this is what is happening.

    “In other militarized neighborhoods, residents also expressed concern about hearing outgoing rockets and artillery. “It’s scary,” said Ludmila Kramerenko. “It happens three or four times a day.” 

  14. The caption under the third photo in the link below says that Ukraine forces fired the first shot. Russians retaliated only after one of their tanks was destroyed. Hence, Ukraine forces started a battle at the nuclear power plant, which was not very smart. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/1085427380/ukraine-nuclear-power-plant-zaporizhzhia?utm_campaign=wp_the_daily_202&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202 
  15. https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-curious-case-of-the-accidental-indian-missile-launch/ 
  16. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-warns-incoming-missile-nuclear-72232054?msclkid=8fd1c9b6b1e911ecad991b729498b410 
  17. See “As Biden Puts U.S. on Alert, Russia Seeks Talks to Help Prevent Cyber War” in Newsweek Magazine. Vladimir Putin had drawn up a four-point proposal for cooperation on cybersecurity in September 2020, one that in many ways echoed the arms control treaties of the Cold War era.
    The main tenets of the plan involved creating a “full-scale bilateral and regular interagency dialogue on key questions” of cybersecurity, communicating through existing bodies dealing with nuclear and computer readiness. It also included the establishment of new rules of the road mirroring U.S.-Soviet agreements on avoiding maritime incidents while securing mutual “guarantees of non-intervention into internal affairs of each other.” By Tom O’Connor, March 22, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/biden-puts-us-alert-russia-seeks-talks-help-prevent-cyber-war-1690673 
  18. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children.
    https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/ 
  19. Israel’s 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” when Israeli military forces killed 2,200 Palestinians, nearly one-quarter of them children and more than 80 percent civilians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War 

Is Russia to Blame for the Looming Global Food Crisis?

May 25th, 2022 by Dr. Mathew Maavak

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 ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is undoubtedly impacting global grain supplies as well as the means of growing crops around the world. But is the looming global food crisis solely Russia’s fault – as spun by the globalist media machinery? Only months earlier, COVID-19, lockdowns and climate change were repeatedly blamed for this scenario.

A recent White House Joint Statement by US President Joe Biden and EU President Ursula von der Leyen clearly singled out the new culprit:

“We are deeply concerned by how Putin’s war in Ukraine has caused major disruptions to international food and agriculture supply chains, and the threat it poses to global food security. We recognize that many countries around the world have relied on imported food staples and fertilizer inputs from Ukraine and Russia, with Putin’s aggression disrupting that trade.”

The concept of global food security these days appear as fleeting as Biden’s mnemonic prowess. It has been 12 years since the world was shaken by a hunger-fuelled Arab Spring which was marked by violent uprisings and yet-unresolved civil wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria. Big Tech, Western officials and influencers fuelled this mayhem in the name of “freedom and democracy” but never proffered any concrete solutions to prevent another episode. Instead, global hunger grew unabated with its root causes explicated through the lens of “climate change” and “global governance”.

In the meantime, right at the doorsteps of Big Tech, the streets of San Francisco were increasingly strewn with the homeless, human faeces and discarded needles from drug abuse. Even a new urban art genre emerged in the form of poop graffiti! Nothing better represents the disconnect between the lofty promises and septic realities of Silicon Valley.

Here is something else for the reader to ponder: Contact-tracing technologies that were used to lock down societies were never trialled to connect the poor to nearby farmers markets, food banks and soup kitchens. A rational person cannot be blamed for suspecting that the intention all along was to eviscerate small-scale farmers, grocers and traders during lockdowns and thereby render citizens prostrate before governments and Big Business. As for technocrats who lap up the smarmy fantasies of the World Economic Forum (WEF), what lessons have they learnt since the fateful Arab Spring?

Here we look at two inexpiable failings of the purveyors of global governance. These are linked to the very issues which Biden and von der Leyen are using to scapegoat Russia.

National Granaries

The Arab Spring and its bloody aftermath should have informed governments on the criticality of establishing new national granaries. Well-maintained granaries can store wheat and corn, amongst others, for more than 10 years. Individuals can extend this shelf-life to a whopping 31 years under proper conditions.

Grain stats worldwide also raise questions over government commitments to food security. Global wheat production, for instance, steadily increased during the last decade. According to a Statista.com brief on Jan 27: “The global production volume of wheat came to about over 772 million metric tons in the marketing year of 2020/21. This was an increase of about ten million tons compared to the previous year. Wheat stocks is (sic) also estimated to increase to about 294 million metric tons worldwide by 2021.”

Although these figures are constantly updated as newer data pour in, there was indeed record wheat output in the face of relentless global lockdowns. However, most governments did little to build or expand their food stockpiles.

Granaries were an indispensable feature of ancient civilizations. The Bible recounts how Joseph had guided Egypt through seven years of famine by establishing imperial granaries during seven years of abundance.  Thousands of years later, our modern-day sages are mesmerized by the WEF mantra of “you’ll will own nothing and you’ll be happy” by 2030. Does that include ownership of real food? I ask this because the WEF is currently promoting synthetic meat and insect gourmet as one of the wonders of the Great Reset.

If your government had failed to set up a strategic food stockpile in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, do not blame Russia (or Ukraine) when the proverbial hits the fan.

Fertilizer Stockpiles

Unfortunately, our Gosplan-styled world is overly-centralized, bringing with it attendant risks to the global supply chain. An acute fertilizer shortage is now one of them. Sanctions, and the freezing of $300 billion in Russian assets worldwide, led to export bottlenecks on grain and fertilizers. The escalating energy war between Russia and Europe is also pushing the price of natural gas and essential downstream products through the roof.

Fertilizers are primarily made from nitrogen, phosphorus and/or potassium. Nitrogen and ammonia (another fertilizer compound consisting of nitrogen and hydrogen) are extracted from natural gas. Our food security therefore is inextricably linked to fossil fuel production. This is an immutable reality which eco-warriors love to forget.

As the military operation in Ukraine drags on, few dare speculate the end game. Bloomberg warns that for the “first time ever, farmers the world over — all at the same time — are testing the limits of how little chemical fertilizer they can apply without devastating their yields come harvest time.” Global agricultural output is therefore expected to plummet – in both qualitative and quantitative terms – over the coming months.

Astrophysicist David Friedberg paints a more alarming picture. The ongoing West-Russia standoff may likely result in the starvation of hundreds of millions of additional people — over and above the 800 million people who already face daily hunger. Our centralized Just-in-Time (JIT) global production system only allows for a 90-day food supply for the planet. More ominously, fertilizer-producing factories worldwide number in the paltry hundreds. The ongoing baby-formula shortage in the US is directly linked to the pitfalls of centralized JIT production.

Could this catastrophe have been avoided? The West and Russia were on a collision course since Moscow’s reincorporation of Crimea in 2014. The world has had eight-long years to game out any escalation of the new West-Russia cold war. As Russia steadily built its gold reserves, the West could have likewise studied, identified and stored up items it needed from Russia in the event of a geopolitical escalation. Right on top of that list should have been fertilizers and storable food. Instead, the West treated the world to a Pussy Riot show and an unremitting Woke saturnalia.

At the end of the day, there are absolutely no excuses for the criminal lack of foresight among governments. For those who wonder about the longevity of stored fertilizer, here are some facts from a gardening website: Liquid chemical fertilizers can be stored for a decade while liquid organic fertilizers have a shelf-life of 5-8 years. Dry granular or crystalized fertilizer can be stored indefinitely.

Where are the fertilizer storage facilities that could have buffered our farms for years?

Replacing Chemical Fertilizers

Over the coming months, Europe may be tempted to substitute Russian-origin chemical fertilizers with human waste sludge. However, as a recent Mongabay article cautions, “human waste — including pharmaceuticals and microplastics contained in faeces and urine — is a major public health hazard, causing disease outbreaks, and putting biodiversity at risk.” They contain a variety of contaminants and hazardous pathogens that may affect the entire food chain. Contaminants like nanoplastics cannot be filtered out using conventional means.

Despite the evident risks, the UK reportedly imported 27,500 tonnes of Dutch sewage sludge for its agricultural needs in 2020.  European farms, by extension, have now become the biggest global reservoir of microplastics due to its use of sewage sludge.  The degradation of European farmland may exacerbate as the Russia-Ukraine conflict drags on.

Whether famine will ravage the world by Christmas is anyone’s guess. But make no mistake: it will be poorer societies — primarily in Africa, Middle East and South Asia — that will suffer first and foremost. Even if Russia and Ukraine sign a truce tomorrow and normality returns to the region, many parts of China are facing unprecedented lockdowns. The nuts and bolts of the global economy are now bobbing aimlessly inside countless vessels along the coastlines of China. These include items essential to agriculture. The WHO slammed China’s zero-Covid policy as being “unsustainable” which was a marked departure from earlier praises heaped on New Zealand for doing the same thing.

In this cauldron of madness, our collective future was summed up this way: “The whole planet is a pot, and we’re all frogs.” The tiny few who stir the pot are the ones who will ultimately benefit from the Great Reset.

*

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 RT.com.

Dr. Mathew Maavak is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Devastated by a Typhoon, Community Foresters in the Philippines Find Little Support

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 Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black was recently interviewed by Mike Robinson.  In the video, Black discusses the conflict in Ukraine, his views on NATO expansionism, and draws parallels with the conflict in Syria. Black said the US has a strategic policy of using proxies to engage in war to overthrow existing governments.  He said the decision for war in Ukraine was made in Washington, DC.

Black said that Ukraine is meaningless to Americans, and yet American lives are affected by paying billions of dollars for weapons for Ukraine.  A similar case in Syria, where Radical Islamic terrorists were used for a proposed regime change, failed. According to Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar, the US-sponsored regime change project in Syria cost billions of dollars and was administered by the US through the CIA office in Turkey.

“NATO’s arrogance prevents a serious response to Russia’s reasonable request that Ukraine never is accepted into the alliance,” said Black.

On Feb 19, Black urged Washington to seriously consider Russia’s call not to expand NATO. He said, “NATO and the United States refused to respond in the affirmative to Russia’s request to abandon a further expansion of the alliance and withdraw foreign troops from countries adjacent to Russia.”  He noted that this proposal deserved serious consideration, and refusal to negotiate could put Russia in a national security crisis.

Earlier, Black told Sputnik that the recognition of the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics (LPR, DPR) by Russian President Vladimir Putin is an indication that he intends to take further action in the east of Ukraine while expressing hope that the United States and the European Union will work to resolve the crisis peacefully.

“By signing the decree, President Putin has made clear his seriousness and willingness to take further action,” Black said. “Hopefully this will cause the US and European powers to work toward resolving matters in a way that avoids bloodshed for both Russians and Ukrainians.”

Black was not surprised by the Russian lower house’s recognition of the breakaway republics in the Donbas region, and said that it was “morally justified because Ukraine had abrogated its responsibilities under the Minsk agreements, conducted artillery shelling of the region, and imposed an economic blockade on the population.”

“Until now, they have been dismissive of Russia’s genuine apprehensions,” he stressed. “The US had 200 Florida National Guard troops deployed inside of Ukraine, and Canada had its troops deployed there too. Actions such as those were an unacceptable threat to Russia. That should have been obvious to anyone. Yet until now, politicians have seemed oblivious to the danger that NATO’s reckless eastward advance caused for both Russia and even Western nations too.”

Black believes that an independent non-aligned Ukraine would provide stability in the region. “Ideally, Ukraine would be treated as Austria was during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union permitted it to become a sovereign, non-aligned, demilitarized buffer between East and West,” he explained recalling the 1955 Austrian Declaration of Neutrality incorporated into its constitution.

Who is Senator Black?

Richard H. Black is a Republican, and he served as a member of the Virginia State Senate, from 2012 to 2020, retiring at the end of his term. Previously he served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates from 1998 to 2006.

Black was a career military officer, having served in both the US Marines and in the US Army JAG Corps. He served a total of 31 years active and reserve, rising from the rank of private to full colonel. He was a pilot in the US Marines during the Vietnam War, earning the Purple Heart medal, while flying 269 combat helicopter missions.

Black has faced criticism from mainstream media in the US because he offers views that are divergent from the institutionalized biased media, which has covered the war in Syria by glorifying the rebels and demonizing the Syrian government.  The media fails to report that the so-called rebels are following the same Radical Islam political ideology that ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood expound.

Black on Syria

In April 2014, Black sent a letter to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad thanking “the Syrian Arab Army for its heroic rescue of Christians in the Qalamoun Mountain Range”, and for “treating with respect all Christians and the small community of Jews in Damascus.”  Black stated it was obvious that the rebel side of the war was largely being fought by “vicious war criminals linked to Al Qaeda.”

In 2015 ISIS included Black in a list of its enemies, calling him “The American Crusader.”  ISIS quoted the following statement by Black, “One thing is clear, if Damascus falls, the dreaded black and white flag of ISIS will fly over Damascus. … Within a period of months after the fall of Damascus, Jordan will fall and Lebanon will fall. … I think you will automatically see a beginning of a historic push of Islam towards Europe and I think, ultimately, Europe will be conquered.”

On April 27, 2016, Black began a three-day trip to Syria and explained his trip in a series of Twitter exchanges with The Washington Post.  Black wrote that the US was “allied with two of the most vile nations on earth, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are intent on imposing a [Wahhabi] fundamentalist government on the Syrian people.”

On April 28, 2016, while visiting a hospital in Damascus treating soldiers who had lost limbs fighting terrorists, Black expressed concern over the US sanctions which had prevented Syrian hospitals from importing the materials to manufacture artificial limbs, and to provide other medical care. He described the US sanctions as a crime against humanity, in a country that had provided free medical to all in public hospitals. He said, “We should stop this dirty war and lift the economic siege.”

Black viewed the Syrian conflict as a plot by foreign powers to destroy the country and utilize false news in mainstream media.

Senator John McCain’s trip to Syria

While Black entered Syria legally, the Republican Senator from Arizona, John McCain, entered Syria in May 2013 illegally, without any visa or border controls. Illegal entry by foreigners into Arizona was a major issue to McCain domestically, but he broke the law himself deliberately.  McCain entered Idlib illegally from Turkey and was hosted by the terrorists employed by the US.  McCain was later accused of meeting with terrorists in the US media after one of the men he posed with in a photo op there was identified as an international kidnapper.  Another man in the photo was identified by some as the future leader of ISIS, Baghdadi, who was later killed in Idlib, where the McCain photo was taken.

In 2017 President Trump shut down the CIA program which supported the terrorists in Syria.

Poll in the US about Ukraine

“There was a time when an international crisis would unite the country behind both the federal government’s response as well as its leaders,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. “That time is gone.”

Only 18 percent of Republicans surveyed by Monmouth approve of Biden’s handling of the Ukraine crisis as compared to 77 percent of Democrats. 69 percent of those surveyed for the Monmouth University poll released on May 11 support sending more US military troops to Eastern Europe to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from further stepping up the conflict, but only 41 percent support putting American military boots on Ukrainian soil.

Biden on Taiwan

The Taiwanese are following US army basic training videos online as they practice drills preparing for a possible war against China. The US has warned Taiwan for decades of the possible threat from China.  The recent conflict in Ukraine has been used by the US to ratchet up fear in Taiwan.

Beijing claims Taiwan as a Chinese province and has sworn to “unify” it. Taiwan has spent billions on weapons purchases from the US, and last week the defense minister ordered a return to a full year of conscription for young Taiwanese men and ended a non-military public service alternative.

Admiral Lee Hsi-ming, the former navy chief and chief of the general staff, has called for a government-backed territorial defense force. Lee’s proposal was written with Michael Hunzeker, a military expert at George Mason University.

While speaking in Japan recently, US President Joe Biden has warned China is “flirting with danger” over Taiwan, vowed to intervene militarily to protect the island if it is attacked, and drew a parallel between Taiwan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is the second time in recent months he has unequivocally stated the US would defend Taiwan if China attacked.

When the press asked if the US would defend Taiwan militarily, even though the US has not done so in the invasion of Ukraine, he responded, “Yes… that’s the commitment we made.”

During the term of Clinton, there was the US-NATO attack on Yugoslavia, under Bush there was the US attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, under Obama there was the US-NATO attack on Libya and Syria, and all of those projects were for regime change. Now there is Biden at the helm, and he has started a proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia.  The Ukrainian conflict is only a few months old and Biden is already threatening an attack on 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.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Former Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black: Ukraine, NATO Expansionism, US Proxy Wars in Ukraine, Syria, China May be Next
  • 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 US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, who’s globally renowned for his realpolitik during the Old Cold War, strongly advised his country not to let Taiwan become the core of its relations with China. He warned that doing so risks a “World War I-type situation … where people slide into a conflict.” His wisdom about this issue of global concern should be seriously considered by US strategists, especially in the aftermath of US President Joe Biden’s provocative comments.

The American leader said during a press conference that his country will get involved militarily if China is resorts to forceful means for reunifying with Taiwan. The White House later walked back the same comments that the president spent a couple sentences elaborating on but the damage was already done. The US’ so-called “strategic ambiguity” towards that scenario, which was already in and of itself a violation of its One China policy, has now been clarified from the perspective of many observers.

In the event of a military conflict between those two parts of the People’s Republic, the US will most likely replicate the Ukrainian model of waging a proxy war on that major country via the emergency dispatch of unprecedented amounts of military, financial, and other forms of aid. Put another way, one can conceptualize the NATO-led proxy war on Russia through Ukraine as being the testing ground for waging an AUKUS-led proxy war on China through its Taiwan region sometime in the future.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley told West Point graduates over the weekend that they must prepare for countering what he claimed were China’s attempts to change the post-World War II international order. Biden’s first trip to the Republic of Korea and Japan as president is meant to solidify the US’ existing treaty alliances in Northeast Asia in possible preparation of the scenario that he scandalously discussed.

All of this very strongly suggests that a disaster of epic proportions is slowly in the making, one which many feel powerless to stop since it appears as though the grand strategic inertia is irreversibly moving in that direction. That’s why Kissinger’s wise comments are so important for US strategists to pay attention to. It’s only by preventing Taiwan from becoming the core of Chinese-American relations can the worst-case scenario of those two clashing over that region possibly be averted.

The US cannot claim to support a so-called “rules-based order” when it’s de facto violating its own One China policy and going against its official recognition of Taiwan as an integral part of the People’s Republic. America’s facilitation of approximately $20 billion in arms sales to Taiwan since 2017, as revealed by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his testimony before the Senate late last month, shows that the Pentagon is preparing for a proxy war against China exactly as Biden hinted.

This is occurring in parallel with Japan’s increasingly destabilizing role in the Asia-Pacific as a result of its illegal militarization in contravention of that country’s pacifist constitution that’s being carried out under the unconvincing pretext of bolstering its so-called “Self-Defense Forces”. Coupled with AUKUS, it’s clear that America is creating an “Asian NATO” whose undeclared purpose is to “contain” China and most likely militarily support Taiwan in the event of a future conflict between those two.

Kissinger is correct in assessing that the grand strategic trajectory is dangerously moving towards a “World War I-type situation”, but it’s not too late to stop it. The American economy is being crushed by a combination of the consequences stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden’s disastrous policies, and blowback from the US-led West’s unprecedented sanctions against Russia. The US objectively has a much more pressing interest in refocusing its efforts towards the home front than against China.

“Containing” China only generates profits for the US’ powerful military-industrial complex within which many political figures are speculated to have invested. It doesn’t benefit the American people, those in the Asia-Pacific, nor anyone across the world for that matter. To the contrary, it risks sparking another world war by miscalculation exactly as Kissinger fears. The first step towards preemptively averting that worst-case scenario is for the US to return to sincerely practicing its One China policy.

This entails suspending arms shipments to the island and associated training of its forces as well as no longer agitating for Taiwan to be treated separately from China at international fora like the World Health Organization (WHO). Those steps would signal to Beijing that Washington is sincere in avoiding a conflict with it over that region. Only then can those two return to talks for improving their troubled relations and exploring opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation that would stabilize the world.

*

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

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.

***

Could it have been just another case of bumbling poor judgment, the mind softened as the mouth opened?  A question was put to US President Joe Biden, visiting Tokyo and standing beside Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida: “You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons.  Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”  The answer: “Yes.  That’s a commitment we made.”

Biden was again flatly committing the US to a conflict over Taiwan should China deploy its forces.  He has done so on two previous occasions, showing either a degree of ignorance, or a willingness to throw caution to the wind.  The first took place during an interview with ABC News in August, when he equated Taiwan’s status to those of other allies such as South Korea.  The second, in a CNN town hall, took place in October, when he stated that the US had “a commitment to do that”.

In doing so a third time, he was helping no one in particular, and taking the hammer to the strategic ambiguity that has marked US-Taiwan policy for decades.  The only thing that could have been taken away from it is a reminder to Beijing that they are not facing a cautious superpower steered by a sage, but a government not unwilling to shed blood over Taiwan.

Biden has expressed this view before, and grates against a policy Washington has had for 43 years.  It is a policy characterised by two key understandings.  The first is the One China policy, which the Biden administration affirmed in Tokyo.  Beijing, accordingly, remains the sole legitimate authority representing China.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 is the other pillar that guides US policy towards Taiwan.  The Act declares it the policy of the United States “to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan, as well as the people of the China mainland and all other people in the Western Pacific area.”

The Act facilitates the provision of arms to Taiwan “of a defensive character” and maintains “the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.”  It does not impose an obligation on the US to intervene militarily in the event of an attack, or to compel the use of forces in defence of the island.

The first pertinent question was whether an actual change had been heralded in Tokyo.  The National Review certainly thought so.  “Biden’s remarks signal a big shift in US foreign policy regarding Taiwan.”  The New York Times also suggested that, unlike his previous, seemingly incautious remarks on the subject, this could not be treated as a simple gaffe.  Sebastian Smith, White House correspondent for Agence France-Presse, thought that Biden’s response “really raised the adrenaline levels in that palace briefing room”.

Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was overjoyed, expressing “sincere welcome and gratitude to President Biden of the United States for reiterating its rock solid commitment to Taiwan.”

For his part, Biden was having a bit each way, suggesting that strategic ambiguity was still being retained in some modest form.  “We agree with the One China policy and all the attendant agreements we made.  But the idea that it can be taken by force, would just not be appropriate.”  His Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin was even more adamant that there had been no change to speak of on the part of the president.  “As the president said, our One China policy has not changed,” he stated at the Pentagon.  “He reiterated that policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  He also highlighted our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to help provide Taiwan the means to defend itself.  So, again, our policy has not changed.”

On being asked by a journalist what potential risks would rise as part of a US military defence of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was unwilling to elucidate.  A “variety of contingency plans” were held by the military applicable to the Pacific, Europe “and elsewhere”, all classified.  “And it would be very inappropriate for me on a microphone to discuss the risk associated with those plans relative to anything with respect to Taiwan or anywhere else in the Pacific.”  Reassuring.

As often tends to come to pass, when the potential for war lurks in cupboards and around corners, there are those less than unwilling to repel it.  The chance to exercise muscle, especially indulged vicariously, brings out the inner war monger.  Bret Stephens uses the New York Times to promote the popular view held by many in the US and amongst its allies that Biden was quite right not to stick to “diplomatic formulas of a now-dead status quo”.  President Xi Jinping, that sly devil, had “changed the rules of the game” by crushing protests in Hong Kong, repudiating the “one country, two systems” formula and blithely ignored the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on Chinese claims on the South China Sea.

Stephens sees opportunity in this statement from Biden, a thankful slaying of ambiguity.  For one, the US can sell more arms to Taiwan while incorporating Taipei into its broader strategic approach.  The administration should also convince Taipei to increase its “scandalously low” military budget.  Washington, for its part, can increase the small component of US Special Operations and Marine personnel already deployed to train local forces.  Biden’s stumble, in short, was a shift; and the shift moves one step closer to inciting war.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from The White House Facebook Page

Western Attempts to Blame Russia for Global Food Crisis

May 25th, 2022 by Paul Antonopoulos

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.

***

With the globe potentially on the brink of a food crisis caused by the lack of wheat exports from Ukraine, the West is attempting to blame Russia for this situation whilst ignoring Kiev’s culpability. Frustratingly for the West though, it is Russia that holds the key in ensuring that the world is not gripped in a food crisis.

With war waging in Ukraine and India suffering in a severe heatwave, the World Bank has warned that the world could face its biggest food crisis since the 1970’s because of grain shortages. The price of agricultural products is soaring as Ukraine cannot sow its fields to its maximum potential and Indian crops have been destroyed by the severe heat. The price of wheat has now risen to 456 euros per ton.

Before the Russian military operation began, Ukraine ranked fifth in grain exports, with their biggest customers being African and Middle Eastern countries. Most grain is shipped by sea. However, as Ukraine lost access to the Azov Sea, and with Odessa being blockaded, ships being impounded and sea mines planted near the coast, about 25 million tons of Ukrainian grain is stranded.

Russian envoy at the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya highlighted on May 20 that the West does not refute the “grains-for-weapons” proposal:

“We asked our Western colleagues to publicly refute this version that many experts are inclined to believe nowadays right at the meeting. Of course, nobody did this. Just as nobody explained how these deliveries facilitate the bolstering of global food security which the Western states are so concerned about verbally.”

The EU is effectively preparing a safety net of grain at the expense of the global south. The EU will first supply grains to the domestic market and then the rest will be sent to third countries. Delivery via the Danube helps increase the amount of grain supplied to Europe, but this volume is still not enough as the ability of river ports to transport goods is not more than 10% of goods transported by sea.

Another problem is that planting in Ukraine has not yet been completed. It is likely that harvest will be 20-30% smaller than usual, keeping in mind that 84 million tons of grain was harvested last year.

In addition to wheat, Ukraine ranks 4th in the world in terms of corn supply. Last year, Ukraine exported about 23 million tons of corn, with about 55% of exports going to the EU and about 30% to China and South Korea.

Although the G7 accuses Moscow of manufacturing a food crisis by preventing Ukrainian food barges from running through Russian territory, thus increasing prices, they remained silent on the fact that Ukraine is blockading foreign vessels in various ports and that the country’s military planted sea mines along the coast. Ukraine’s planting of sea mines has made most shipowners unwilling to navigate such dangerous waters, and in this way, Kiev has sabotaged its own export capabilities.

Blaming Russia for increased food prices could be the establishment of a new pretext to sanction Moscow. Such a pretext overlooks the crisis in India, China’s restriction of grain exports and Ukraine mining its Black Sea coastline.

The US, Canada, France and Germany, as key exporters, will present themselves as being capable of saving the world from famine, which they are evidently preparing to blame Russia for. However, these countries are also facing major crises, partly because of the knock-on effects of anti-Russia sanctions and the war in Ukraine.

In the US, the price of diesel, agricultural machinery, diesel-powered trucks and industrial equipment have skyrocketed. The price of diesel reached a record $5.50 per gallon. At the same time, US stockpiles fell sharply — nationwide, they have fallen 43% since 2020. Food prices are also rising.

The situation is exacerbated by sanctions, such as the EU’s ban on the import of fertilizers from Russia. This is despite the fact that Russia is one of the three largest suppliers of carbide, ammonia and ammonium nitrate.

This has not stopped the EU from restricting imports, but now they can expect half of a usual yield this harvest season. Because of this, it is likely that Western countries will not prioritize a potential global famine as they focus on their own domestic market instead.

French newspaper LeFigaro recalled that in 2007, problems with wheat provoked food riots in 37 countries. The consequences of this partially led to the so-called Arab Spring. At that time, the price of cereal was 240 euros per ton, now it is more than 450 euros.

Russia could serve as an alternative source of grain to plug the gap caused by Ukraine’s inability to sow, harvest and transport at full capacity. Russia is expecting a bumper crop this year, with grain harvests likely to reach 130 million tons, including 87 million tons of wheat. Russia remains a reliable supplier of grain and if it is not wanted in the West, there will be no shortage of buyers in the global market, especially as its largest shipments are already sent to non-Western countries such as Turkey, Egypt and the South Asia region.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Attempts to Blame Russia for Global Food Crisis
  • 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.

***

Veteran US statesman Henry Kissinger has urged the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, warning that it would have disastrous consequences for the long term stability of Europe.

“I hope the Ukrainians will match the heroism they have shown with wisdom,” Kissinger warned an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, adding with his famous sense of realpolitik that the proper role for the country is to be a neutral buffer state rather than the frontier of Europe.

As The Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports, Kissinger’s comments came amid growing signs that the Western coalition against Vladimir Putin is fraying badly as the food and energy crisis deepens, and that sanctions may have reached their limits.

The former US secretary of state and architect of the Cold War rapprochement between the US and China told the gathering of elites that it would be fatal for the West to get swept up in the mood of the moment and forget the proper place of Russia in the European balance of power.

“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome.

Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante.

Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself,” he said.

The architect of the détente with China under the Nixon administration suggested that ‘status quo’ ante means “how things were before,” implying that Ukraine should accept a peace deal to restore the situation on February 24, where Russia formally controlled the Crimea peninsula and informally controlled part of the Donetsk region in east Ukraine.

The 98-year-old statesman is making no friends among the blue-check-mark brigade who seem to see only one path for humanity… and it ends in a mushroom cloud…

However, one ‘blue-check’ appears to comprehend what Kissinger is saying – end this escalation now before it ends badly for all of us…

Kissinger appeared at a Financial Times conference over the weekend warning that “we are now living in a totally new era…”

The key exchange, expanding on his most recent comments regarding the West and Russia, was as follows:

Financial Times: The Biden administration is framing its grand geopolitical challenge as being democracy versus autocracy. I’m picking up an implicit hint that it’s the wrong framing?

Henry Kissinger: We have to be conscious of the differences of ideology and of interpretation that exists. We should use this consciousness to apply it in our own analysis of the importance of issues as they arise, rather than make it the principal issue of confrontation, unless we are prepared to make regime change the principal goal of our policy. I think given the evolution of technology, and the enormous destructiveness of weapons that now exist, [seeking regime change] may be imposed on us by the hostility of others, but we should avoid generating it with our own attitudes.

We are now [faced] with technologies where the rapidity of exchange, the subtlety of the inventions, can produce levels of catastrophe that were not even imaginable.

But there’s almost no discussion internationally about what would happen if the weapons actually became used.

My appeal in general, on whatever side you are, is to understand that we are now living in a totally new era, and we have gotten away with neglecting that aspect.

Food for thought from someone who’s been ‘in the room’.

*

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: Vladimir Putin and Henry Kissinger shaking hands in 2007 (Source: ZH)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Fact Checkers’ Furious After Henry Kissinger Says Ukraine Should Cede Territory for Peace with Russia
  • Tags: , ,

Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living

May 25th, 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.

***

Researchers found 39 microplastics in surgical lung samples from 11 of 13 people. There were 12 types that would commonly be found in plastic bottles, twine, clothing and surgical masks

A respirator specialist says surgical masks don’t meet the legal definition of a mask but rather are “breathing barriers.” He was emphatic they are shedding microplastics small enough to be inhaled

A data analysis of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in Kansas revealed counties with mask mandates had higher mortality rates than those without mask mandates

Once inhaled or consumed, microplastics can be found in your bloodstream in particles small enough to cross membrane barriers. It’s also found in an infant’s first stool, suggesting maternal exposure; an animal study found nanopolystryene particles in fetal brain, liver, kidney and lung tissue 24 hours after maternal exposure

*

Tiny bits of plastic about the size of a sesame seed or smaller are everywhere. News headlines often show intact plastic bags, rings and bottles as the primary threats to the environment — and these are indeed harmful to marine life and more — but the smaller, more insidious microplastic bits may even be more harmful. A study1 from Great Britain2 found microplastics in 11 out of 13 patients’ lungs.

Across the world, 299 million tons of plastic were produced in 2013, much of which ended up in the oceans, threatening wildlife and the environment.3 That number jumped to 418 million tons in 2021.4 In 2018, the U.S. alone generated 35.7 million tons of plastic and sent 27 million tons to landfills, which accounted for 18.5% of all municipal solid waste.5

Chemicals found in plastic products are known to act as endocrine disruptors.6 These chemicals are similar in structure to natural sex hormones, and they interfere with the normal functioning of those hormones in your body.7 This poses a particular problem for children who are still growing and developing.

The price that society will pay for the ubiquitous use and distribution of plastic particles has yet to be quantified. Evidence suggests that the long-term exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like phthalates poses a significant danger to health and fertility.

The amount of plastic that enters the environment grows each year as manufacturers continue to produce products in disposable containers and consumers continue to demand a disposable lifestyle. At a time when advocacy groups warn that plastics are falling from the sky8 and have become a global tragedy,9 the COVID-19 pandemic has driven the plastic problem to even greater heights.

Study Finds Microplastics in 11 Out of 13 Patient’s Lungs

Decades of research have shown that people breathe in microparticles of air pollution as well as consume them in food and water. A 2021 autopsy study10 showed microplastics in 13 of the 20 people analyzed and over 20 years ago a 1998 U.S. lung cancer study11 found plastic and fibers in 99 of the 114 lung samples that were examined.

According to the Natural History Museum,12 microplastics measure less than 5 millimeters. They call microplastics “one of the greatest man-made disasters of our time.” While there are industrial uses for microplastics, most form when they break away from larger plastic products in the environment.

Primary microplastics are those produced in small sizes for industrial use, such as in sandblasters, cosmetics or microfiber clothing. Secondary microplastics result from the breakdown of larger plastic products caused by exposure to environmental stressors.13

One team of scientists from Hull York Medical School sought to analyze the impact that inhaling microplastics has on human tissue. Past research has found synthetic fibers in lung tissue, but researchers wrote there were no robust studies confirming microplastics in lung tissue. The current study analyzed human lung tissue in 13 patients who had undergone lung surgery.

They found microplastic contamination in 11 of the 13 patients.14 The team found 39 pieces in 11 lung tissue samples. Laura Sadofsky, senior lecturer and lead researcher in the study, commented on the importance of the results:15

“Microplastics have previously been found in human cadaver autopsy samples — this is the first robust study to show microplastics in lungs from live people. It also shows that they are in the lower parts of the lung. Lung airways are very narrow so no one thought they could possibly get there, but they clearly have.

This data provides an important advance in the field of air pollution, microplastics and human health. The characterisation of types and levels of microplastics we have found can now inform realistic conditions for laboratory exposure experiments with the aim of determining health impacts.”

Study authors found the subjects harbored 12 types of microplastics, “which have many uses and are commonly found in packaging, bottles, clothing, rope/twine, and many manufacturing processes. There were also considerably higher levels of microplastics in male patients compared to females.”16

Another unexpected finding was that a higher number of microplastics were found in the lower portions of the lung. The most abundant types of microplastics were polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).17 This finding points to the recent ubiquitous use of blue surgical masks during the pandemic as PP is the most commonly used plastic component in those masks.

Expert Says COVID Face Covers Are Not Masks

A study18 published in 2021 looked at the risks of wearing blue surgical face masks and inhaling microplastics. The researchers found that reusing masks could increase the risk of inhaling microplastic particles and that N95 respirators had the lowest number of microplastics released when compared to not wearing a mask.

They said, “Surgical, cotton, fashion, and activated carbon masks wearing pose higher fiber-like microplastic inhalation risk …”19 and yet, according to Chris Schaefer, a respirator specialist and training expert, the masks used by millions of people throughout the world are not really masks at all.20

Schaefer calls these “breathing barriers” as they “don’t meet the legal definition” of a mask. He was emphatic that the surgical masks used by consumers throughout Canada, the U.S. and the world are shedding microplastics small enough to be inhaled.21

“A [proper] mask has engineered breathing openings in front of mouth and nose to ensure easy and effortless breathing. A breathing barrier is closed both over mouth and nose. And by doing that, it captures carbon dioxide that you exhale, forces you to re-inhale it, causing a reduction in your inhaled oxygen levels and causes excessive carbon dioxide. So, they’re not safe to wear.”

He encourages people to cut one open and look at the loose fibers that are easily dislodged within the product.22

“The heat and moisture that it captures will cause the degradation of those fibres to break down smaller. Absolutely, people are inhaling [microplastic particles]. I’ve written very extensively on the hazards of these breathing barriers the last two years, I’ve spoken to scientists [and other] people for the last two years about people inhaling the fibres.

If you get the sensation that you’ve gotten a little bit of cat hair, or any type of irritation in the back of your throat after wearing them. That means you’re inhaling the fibres.”

He went on to note that anyone exposed to these types of fibers in an occupational setting would be required to wear protection. Instead, people are using products that increase the risk of inhaling fibers that “break down very small and, well, what that’s going to do to people in the in the form of lung function — as well as toxicity overload in their body — I guess we’ll know in a few years.”23

Face Coverings Also Increase the Death Rate From COVID-19

German physician, Dr. Zacharias Fögen, published a study24 in the peer-reviewed journal Medicine, which analyzed data across counties in Kansas, comparing areas where there was a mask mandate against counties without a mandate.

He found that mandatory masking increased the death rate by 85%. The mortality rate remained 52% higher in counties that mandated masking even when the analysis accounted for confounding factors. Fögen writes that further analysis of the data showed that 95% of the effect “can only be attributed to COVID-19, so it is not CO2, bacteria or fungi under the mask.”25

He has named this the Foegen Effect which refers to the reinhalation of viral particles trapped in droplets and deposited on the mask, which worsens outcomes. He writes:26

“The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case. Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.

The mask mandates themselves have increased the CFR (case fatality rate) by 1.85 / 1.58 or by 85% / 58% in counties with mask mandates. It was also found that almost all of these additional deaths were attributed solely to COVID-19. This study revealed that wearing facemasks might impose a great risk on individuals, which would not be mitigated by a reduction in the infection rate.

The use of facemasks, therefore, might be unfit, if not contraindicated, as an epidemiologic intervention against COVID-19.”

Fögen notes two other large studies that found similar results with case fatality rates. The first was published in the journal Cureus27 and found no association between case numbers and mask compliance in Europe but a positive association with death and mask compliance.

The second study28 was published in PLOS|One, which demonstrated there was an association between negative COVID outcomes and mask mandates across 847,000 people in 69 countries. The researchers estimated that ending the mask mandates could reduce new cases with no effect on hospitalization and death.

Plastics Trigger Cell Damage and Death

Past research has highlighted the impact microplastics have on the environment, wildlife and human health. However, many studies have not drawn an association between microplastic consumption or inhalation and disease. Instead, they identify research gaps and recommend further study.29

A paper30 published in April 2022 has suggested why this data has been inconsistent. The lab data was the first to find that microplastics damaged human cells at levels that are relevant to the number of particles humans ingest or inhale.

The study was a meta-regression analysis of the toxicological impact on human cells across 17 studies that compared the level of microplastics that cause cell damage. The researchers found that it was the irregularly shaped microplastics that cause cell damage and not the spherical microplastics that are normally used in laboratory experiments.

This suggests that past lab data using spherical microplastics may not fully represent the damage that microplastics cause to human health. Evangelos Danopoulos from Hull York Medical School in the U.K., who led the study, commented on why research is increasing: “It is exploding and for good reason. We are exposed to these particles every day: we’re eating them, we’re inhaling them. And we don’t really know how they react with our bodies once they are in.”31

Where Does Plastic Pollution Go in Your Body?

Researchers have found that tiny microplastics are not only deposited in your lungs and gut but can also be found floating in your blood. Researchers from The Netherlands analyzed samples32 from 22 healthy volunteers and found plastic particles in 77% of the samples. These particles were 700 nanometers or greater in dimension, which is a size that can be absorbed across membranes.

Some samples contained up to three different types of plastic. The study author told The Guardian “Our study is the first indication that we have polymer particles in our blood — it’s a breakthrough result. But we have to extend the research and increase the sample sizes, the number of polymers assessed, etc.”33

The researchers wrote that where these plastic particles end up in the body also requires further study. They stated that it’s “scientifically plausible” that the plastic particles are being transported by the bloodstream to organs, based, for instance, on data showing that 50, 80 and 240 nm polystyrene beads and microsized polypropylene can permeate the human placenta.34

After these microplastics cross the placental barrier, they end up in a newborn’s first feces. This means they migrate from the infant’s blood to the gut. A pilot study35 published in 2021 looked at the magnitude of human exposure to microplastics and found that the microplastic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was found in meconium samples, which is a baby’s first stool.

The amount of PET in infant stool was 10 times higher than found in adult samples, which suggested that babies have plastic in their system that is absorbed from their mother. How this will affect the future of human health is still being studied. An animal study found that just 24 hours after maternal inhalation exposure, nanopolystyrene particles could be detected in the placenta and fetal brain, lungs, liver, heart and kidney.36

It appears that inhaling or consuming microplastics allows micro particles access to your bloodstream and then to your vital organs. While researchers have demonstrated that the irregularly shaped microplastics found in the environment cause cell damage and death, the long-term effects on disease have not been identified. Yet, you may be sure that cell damage and death do not occur without consequences.

*

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, 14 Science of the Total Environment, 2022;831(2)

2, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 Western Standard, April 17, 2022

3 Coastal Care, November 2019

4 Our World in Data, Plastic Pollution

5 Environmental Protection Agency, Plastics: Material Specific Data, Overview

6 Endocrine Society, December 5, 2020

7 Scientific Reports, 2018;8(6086)

8 Scientific American, June 11, 2020

9 Center for Biological Diversity, Ocean Plastics Pollution

10 Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021;416(124126)

11 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 1998;7(5)

12 Natural History Museum, January 21, 2020

13 National Geographic, microplastics

15, 16 Hull York Medical School, April 6, 2022

18, 19 Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021;411

24 Medicine, 2022;101(7)

25 The Daily Skeptic, May 2, 2022

26 Medicine, 2022;101(7) 4

27 Cureus, 2022;14(4)

28 PLOS|One, 2021, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252315

29 Food, Health, and the Environment, 2018;5:375

30 Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021; 127861

31 The Guardian, December 8, 2021

32 Environment International 2022; doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199 3.2

33 The Guardian March 24, 2022

34 Environment International, 2022; doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199 3.3 Plastic’s biological fate?

35 Environmental Letters & Technology Letters, 2021; doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.10c00559

36 Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 2020;17(55)

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

***

On Saturday, US President Joe Biden signed a bill authorizing $40 billion in spending, largely for weapons and other assistance to Ukraine.

One month ago, US military assistance to Ukraine under the Biden administration totaled $4 billion. With the stroke of a pen, Biden has expanded the US commitment to the conflict tenfold.

But with the ink barely dry on the latest weapons shipment, Washington went on to escalate the conflict further. On Monday, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced that the US would provide Ukraine with Harpoon anti-ship missiles via an intermediary, Denmark. The Harpoon is the standard anti-ship armament of the US Navy, capable of sinking large warships.

On Friday, Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs adviser Anton Gerashchenko tweeted that

“The US is preparing a plan to destroy the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet” as part of a “plan to unblock the ports.” He continued, “Deliveries of powerful anti-ship weapons (Harpoon and Naval Strike Missile with a range of 250–300 km) are being discussed.”

The Pentagon responded by officially denying that the US is actively planning operations to destroy Russia’s navy in the Black Sea. However, Monday’s announcement makes clear that it is engaged in precisely such an operation. The US was already directly involved in the sinking of the flagship of the Russian fleet, Moskva, last month.

As usual, military escalation by the United States is accompanied by a propaganda barrage. In this case, the apologists of US imperialism are declaring that greater involvement in military operations in the Black Sea is dictated by the need to open the ports for global food shipments.

The Washington Post published an editorial entitled “Putin is starving millions of people around the world.” It concludes, “with 20 million metric tons of grain and corn just sitting in storage at Ukrainian ports right now, there’s only so much the rest of the world can do. Mr. Putin’s war is on the verge of becoming Mr. Putin’s global famine.”

The Post’s hypocrisy is jaw-dropping. The United States is the world’s leading practitioner of using starvation as a “weapon” of foreign policy. In 1974, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz declared, “food is a weapon. It is now one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit.” In December 1980, John Block, Reagan’s secretary of agriculture, told reporters: “I believe food is the greatest weapon we have.”

The examples of the US using starvation as a weapon include withholding food aid to Chile in 1973 as part of a successful effort to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende and cutting food assistance to Bangladesh in 1974 during a massive famine to punish the country for trading with Cuba.

US sanctions on food and medicine imported by Iraq in the 1990s contributed to the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, while US sanctions against Iran led to runaway food price inflation, meaning that “following a healthy diet has become more difficult for most Iranians,” according to one study.

As for the present ongoing food crisis, fundamental responsibility lies with the US and NATO powers, which provoked the current conflict and have sought at every point to scuttle efforts at a negotiated solution to the war.

Establishing control over the Black Sea is a vital US war aim. This waterway connects Europe, Russia and the Middle East. It not only holds critical reserves of oil and gas, but serves as a nodal point for hydrocarbon pipelines connecting Europe and Asia.

Even as the United States was escalating its war with Russia, Biden openly threatened to go to war with China, the world’s most populous country and its second-largest economy.

Speaking at a press conference in Japan, Biden was asked, “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”

Biden replied, “Yes… That’s the commitment we made.”

Despite efforts by the media to present Biden’s comment as a misstatement or a “gaffe,” the reality is that Biden’s remark corresponds with the views of leading US foreign policy figures.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Twitter, “This is the third time @potus has spoken out in favor of strategic clarity on Taiwan and third time WH [White House] staff has tried to walk it back. Better to embrace it as new US stance.”

Supporting Biden’s declaration that the US should go to war with China over Taiwan, Haass declared, “The ‘Ukraine model’ [is] inadequate for Taiwan. Taiwan [is] an island that cannot be easily resupplied. Plus local partners & allies in Asia want direct US intervention. Plus Taiwan not nearly as strong as Ukraine. So direct US military involvement would be essential for defense vs China.”

The US-provoked war against Russia in Ukraine has already killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions. The war against China Biden is threatening would turn the entire Asia-Pacific region, the world’s most populous area, into a war zone, with devastating and incalculable consequences.

Far-reaching plans for military escalation were in place long before Biden even reached the White House. In 2020, Biden published an article entitled “Rescuing U.S. Foreign Policy After Trump” in Foreign Affairs.

Biden pledged, “to counter Russian aggression, we must keep the alliance’s military capabilities sharp.” At the same time, the United States needs to “get tough with China,” he wrote. The “most effective way to meet that challenge is to build a united front of U.S. allies and partners to confront China.”

These plans were limited to the specialist foreign policy press read by beltway insiders, and Biden’s plans to provoke war with Russia and China played virtually no part in his appeal to voters. Instead, Biden publicly pledged to end “forever wars.”

In reality, Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was a repositioning of US forces in preparation for an escalation of the US conflict with Russia and China.

In 2020, the World Socialist Web Site warned:

“A Biden/Harris administration will not inaugurate a new dawn of American hegemony. Rather, the attempt to assert this hegemony will be through unprecedented violence. If it is brought to power—with the support of the assemblage of reactionaries responsible for the worst crimes of the 21st century—it will be committed to a vast expansion of war.”

These warnings have been confirmed. For years, the United States military has systematically emphasized its plans to wage “great-power conflict” with these two countries. Now, a war with Russia has already broken out, and Biden’s comments make it clear that the administration is systematically preparing for a war with China.

These conflicts threaten to escalate into a world war, waged between nuclear-armed powers, threatening Europe, Asia, North America and, indeed, the whole of human civilization with destruction.

The Biden administration’s war plans express the relentless drive by US imperialism to reverse its relative economic decline through military means.

The crisis triggered by the war, however, is bringing workers into struggle all over the world against the rising cost of living and the efforts by the ruling classes to make workers pay for the crisis. This global movement of the working class provides the social base for the struggle to avert a new world war and stop the catastrophe threatening mankind.

*

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

Featured image: The USS Coronado (LCS 4) launches a Harpoon Block 1C missile. (Source: WSWS)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As It Escalates War Against Russia, Biden Administration Threatens War Against China
  • 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.

***

An American mainstream “military analyst”, the four-star General Barry McCaffrey on Monday tweeted a sequence from a 2015 video game Arma 3 as the actual footage of Ukrainian forces downing a Russian aircraft.

It is quite surprising that the high-ranking military officer did not verify the content he chose to spread on his social media account since it is not the first time the pro-Ukraine faction has published video game footage as genuine Ukraine victories.

In fact, the Ukrainian government had previously released at least two video game clips for propaganda in recent months. In a short clip of the Arma 3 video game play, an imaginary Russian MiG-29 gets shot down by an air defense system.

“Russian aircraft getting nailed by UKR missile defense. Russians are losing large numbers of attack aircraft. UKR air defense becoming formidable,” McCaffrey announced on Twitter.

Faced with a deluge of mocking and incredulous comments, McCaffrey quickly deleted the embarrassing post. The fake footage did not stop CNN pro-Ukraine pundit Max Boot from retweeting it.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense had used Arma 3 video game footage before to claim non-existent victories.

On Monday meanwhile, the surrender of hundreds of Azov Battalion fighters that had been holed up in Mariupol’s Azovstal steel factory were described by the mainstream media as an “evacuation” and an “end” to their “combat mission”.

The New York Times, CNN, AP and other outlets tried to downplay what could be a devastating turn of events for the Ukrainian General Staff. Ukrainian soldiers will no doubt be dismayed by the lack of support they have now witnessed, not only from their superiors but also from their Western sponsors, after they were abandoned by them.

The headquarters of the territorial defense of the DPR said that so far 256 people have surrendered at Azovstal, of which 51 were wounded. The DPR reported that they were preparing reserve capacities to receive 2000 prisoners of war.

*

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

Featured image: Surrendering Ukrainian fighters in Mariupol. Screenshot from RIA NOVOSTI

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 member of the Israeli parliament, Israel Katz, warned Palestinians of another “Nakba” if they fly the Palestinian flag. The Likud lawmaker put up a video on his twitter this morning featuring him speaking at the parliament, with the message:

Yesterday I warned the Arab students, who are flying Palestine flags at universities: Remember 48. Remember our independence war and your Nakba, don’t stretch the rope too much. […] If you don’t calm down we’ll teach you a lesson that won’t be forgotten.

His actual speech elaborates a bit more:

Ask your elders, your grandfathers and grandmothers, and they will explain to you that in the end, the Jews awaken, they know to defend themselves and the idea of the Jewish state. Don’t stretch the rope too much.

The plenum seems to be quite empty, but Palestinian Israeli lawmaker Aida Touma-Sliman from the Joint List of Palestinian parties is there, and at this point she counters him: “Are you threatening?”

Katz answers, “Listen, listen, this is also meant for you.” He then tells her how Arabs in Israel have it better than in any Arab country, with welfare and democracy, and chides Touma-Sliman for being a Communist, who joins “the worst of Israel’s enemies – they speak of coexistence, while supporting the enemies of Israel… we will bring this to an end”.

Then he comes with that final sentence: “If you don’t calm down, we’ll teach you a lesson that won’t be forgotten”.

Touma-Sliman responds with a “Wow”.

Well it is wow, isn’t it? Katz is a former minister of finance, foreign affairs, and intelligence under Netanyahu– he is from the heart of the Israeli political establishment. But it’s not a very new occurrence, that Israeli lawmakers come up with warnings of another Nakba.

In May 2018, Likud lawmaker Avi Dichter (former head of Shin Bet) warned that the Great March of Return in Gaza would turn into “the great Nakba”. This is where Israel took the liberty to target unarmed civilians who posed no danger with live ammunition, targeting also journalists and humanitarian workers. The carnage resulted in over 200 dead and 33,000 wounded, many maimed for life, over those 86 weeks. As Israeli journalist Orly Noy says, “the IDF has done little more than whitewash its own violence”.

One really has to ask oneself why there is so much discontent among Israeli apologists, when Rep. Rashida Tlaib sponsored a resolution to recognize the Nakba. I mean, the Israeli fascists use the term regularly! And they deliberately taunt Palestinians with it. They threaten Palestinians with it.

It’s not like this is a novel and exclusive Palestinian narrative – Israelis know exactly what it’s about, and they use the term as a weapon.

This points to the fact that the Nakba is not merely an historic event, but rather an ongoing reality, just as Tlaib said:

The Israeli apartheid government’s ongoing ethnic cleansing seeks to degrade Palestinian humanity and break the will of the people to be free. Fortunately, as Palestinians and their allies prove time and time again, we will persist no matter the circumstances until peace, freedom, equity and respect for all people are secured and protected.

So let’s not just recognize and commemorate the Nakba – let’s oppose it as it keeps unfolding.

*

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 Mondoweiss

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 Russian special military operation in Ukraine moves forward, it becomes harder for Western analysts to deny the evident failure of the NATO’s project for post-Maidan Kiev. Given the current scenario, one of the greatest geopolitical thinkers in the western world, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, gave realistic advice so that a solution to the conflict is found as quickly as possible, with little damage to the parties involved.

Henry Kissinger argues that Europe must stop insisting on a defeat of Russian forces in Ukraine, claiming that the effects of such insistence would be disastrous for European stability in the long term. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the former Secretary of State even suggested that Ukraine should cede part of its territory, in order to reach a peace agreement in this conflict.

According to The Telegraph, in his speech on Monday, May 23, Kissinger stated that direct negotiations for the cessation of the combat should begin within a maximum period of two months, in order to avoid further damage. The former head of US diplomacy believes that after this period it will be much more difficult to control the security crisis and its effects, as that would possibly mean for the West the beginning of a new war against Russia.

“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante (…) Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself’, he says.

As we can see, for him, the ideal is to return to the pre-conflict status quo. But it is necessary to understand what such a status quo would be. Considering that, in other moments of his speech, Kissinger argued Ukraine should cede territory, he seems to agree that Kiev must accept all Russian-imposed peace conditions and recognize the new sovereign republics and Russian Crimea. With this territorial reformulation of the Ukrainian state, it would be possible to return to a scenario of stability not only pre-Russian operation, but even pre-Maidan, when Ukraine was truly geopolitically neutral.

For him, a “neutral Ukraine” today does not mean the same as it did eight years ago, but this is still the ideal scenario to look for: “About eight years ago, when the idea of membership of Ukraine in NATO came up, I wrote an article in which I said that the ideal outcome would be if Ukraine could be constituted as a neutral kind of state, as a bridge between Russia and Europe (…) I think that opportunity does not now exist in the same manner, but it could still be conceived as an ultimate objective”.

In fact, Kissinger is absolutely unsuspected of any “pro-Russian” position. His background in American foreign policy and all his vast literary work make his pro-Western thinking very clear, but without prejudice to his strategic sense. Kissinger, unlike most contemporary pro-Western politicians and globalist elites, does not give up realism. Certainly, for him, a world with NATO global hegemony would be ideal, but he knows that this is no longer materially viable and, in his expertise, he points out alternative paths to maintain world peace and avoid escalating tensions.

As expected, Ukrainian reactions to the former secretary’s statements were, in general, extremely negative. For example, Inna Sovsun, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, stated: “It’s a pity that the former U.S. secretary of state believes that giving up on part of the sovereign territory is a way for peace for any country”. Also, Zelensky’s adviser Mykhailo Podolyak: “As easily as Mr. Kissinger proposes to give Russia part of Ukraine to stop the war, he would allow to take Poland or Lithuania away. It’s good that Ukrainians in the trenches do not have time for listening to Davos panicmonger. They’re a little bit busy defending Freedom and Democracy”.

In the Western world, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult not to take a realistic stance. Even before Kissinger’s words, the New York Times had published an article with very similar content, exposing that it would be up to the Ukrainians to make difficult decisions in the name of peace: “In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: they are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like (…) If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand”. In fact, as the situation worsens for Kiev, analysts who until recently encouraged “Ukrainian resistance” are forced to expose more realistic content, in order to save their own credibility.

But it is not analysts and ex-state officials who make real politics. Western politicians and the globalist elites that support and finance them need to understand the messages of Kissinger and the realists: a neutral and territorially reformed Ukraine is the only way to end the conflict.

*

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.

***

It was apparently a “gaffe” of the kind we had forgotten since George W Bush stepped down from the US presidency in early 2009. During a speech in Dallas last week, he momentarily confused Russian President Vladimir Putin’s current war of aggression against Ukraine and his own war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.

Bush observed that a lack of checks and balances in Russia had allowed “one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq… I mean, Ukraine. Iraq too. Anyway… I’m 75.”

It sounded like another “Bushism” – a verbal slip-up – for which the 43rd president was famous. Just like the time he boasted that people “misunderestimated” him, or when he warned that America’s enemies “never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people – and neither do we”.

Maybe that explains why his audience laughed. Or maybe not, given how uncomfortable the laughter sounded.

Bush certainly wanted his mistake to be seen as yet another slip-up, which is why he hurriedly blamed it on his age. The senility defence doubtless sounds a lot more plausible at a time when the incumbent president, Joe Biden, regularly loses track of what he is saying and even where he is.

The western media, in so far as it has bothered to report Bush’s speech, has laughed along nervously too. It has milked the incident largely for comic effect: “Look, we can laugh at ourselves – unlike that narcissist Russian monster, Putin.”

The BBC accorded Bush’s comment status as a down-page brief news item. Those that gave it more attention preferred to term it a “gaffe” or an amusing “Freudian slip”.

‘Putin apologists’

But the focus on the humour of the moment is actually part of the media’s continuing war on our understanding of recent history. It is intended to deflect us, the audience, from thinking about the real significance of Bush’s “gaffe”.

The only reason the media is now so belatedly connecting – if very indirectly – “a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion” of Ukraine and what happened in Iraq is because of Bush’s mistake.

Had it not happened, the establishment media would have continued to ignore any such comparison. And those trying to raise it would continue to be dismissed as conspiracy theorists or as apologists for Putin.

The implication of what Bush said – even for those mockingly characterising it in Freudian terms – is that he and his co-conspirator, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, are war criminals and that they should be on trial at the Hague for invading and occupying Iraq.

Everything the current US administration is saying against Putin, and every punishment meted out on Russia and ordinary Russians, can be turned around and directed at the United States and Britain.

Should the US not be under severe economic sanctions from the “civilised world” for what it did to Iraq? Should its sportspeople not be banned from international events? Should its billionaires not be hunted down and stripped of their assets? And should the works of its long-dead writers, artists and composers not be shunned by polite society?

And yet, the western establishment media are proposing none of the above. They are not calling for Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes. Meanwhile, they echo western leaders in labelling what Russia is doing in Ukraine as genocide and labelling Putin as an evil madman.

The western media are as uncomfortable taking Bush’s speech at face value as his audience was. And for good reason.

That is because the media are equally implicated in US and UK crimes in Iraq. They never seriously questioned the ludicrous “weapons of mass destruction” justification for the invasion. They never debated whether the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign of Baghdad was genocidal.

And, of course, they never described either Bush or Blair as madmen and megalomaniacs and never accused them of waging a war of imperialism – or one for oil – in invading Iraq. In fact, both continue to be treated by the media as respected elder statesmen.

During Trump’s presidency, leading journalists waxed nostalgic for the days of Bush, apparently unconcerned that he had used his own presidency to launch a war of aggression – the “supreme international crime”.

And Blair continues to be sought out by the British and US media for his opinions on domestic and world affairs. He is even listened to deferentially when he opines on Ukraine.

Pre-emption excuse

But this is not simply about a failure to acknowledge the recent historical record. Bush’s invasion of Iraq is deeply tied to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And for that reason, if no other, the western media ought to have been driving home from the outset the parallels between the two – as Bush has now done in error.

That would have provided the geopolitical context for understanding – without necessarily justifying – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s role in provoking it. Which is precisely why the media have worked so hard to ignore those parallels.

In invading Iraq, Bush and Blair created a precedent that powerful states could redefine their attack on another state as “pre-emptive” – as defensive rather than aggressive – and thereby justify the military invasion in violation of the laws of war.

Bush and Blair falsely claimed both that Iraq threatened the West with weapons of mass destruction and that its secular leader, Saddam Hussein, had cultivated ties with the extreme Islamists of al-Qaeda that carried out the 9/11 attacks on the US. These pretexts ranged from the entirely unsubstantiated to the downright preposterous.

Putin has argued – more plausibly – that Russia had to take pre-emptive action against covert efforts by a US-led Nato to expand its military sphere of influence right up to Russia’s borders. Russia feared that, left unchecked, the US and Nato were preparing to absorb Ukraine by stealth.

But how does that qualify Russia’s invasion as defensive? The Kremlin’s fears were chiefly twofold.

First, it could have paved the way for Nato stationing missiles minutes away from Moscow, eroding any principle of mutual deterrence.

And second, Nato’s incorporation of Ukraine would have drawn the western military alliance directly into Ukraine’s civil war in the eastern Donbas region. That is where Ukrainian forces, including neo-Nazi elements like the Azov Brigade, have been pitted in a bloody fight against ethnic Russian communities.

In this view, absent a Russian invasion, Nato could have become an active participant in propping up Ukrainian ultra-nationalists killing ethnic Russians – as the West is now effectively doing through its arming of Ukraine to the tune of more than $40bn.

Even if one discounts Russia’s concerns, Moscow clearly has a greater strategic interest invested in what its neighbour Ukraine is doing on their shared border than Washington ever had in Iraq, many thousands of miles away.

Proxy wars

Even more relevant, given the West’s failure to acknowledge, let alone address, Bush and Blair’s crimes committed in Iraq, is Russia’s suspicion that US foreign policy is unchanged two decades on. On what basis would Moscow believe that Washington is any less aggressive or power-hungry than it was when it launched its invasion of Iraq?

The western media continue to refer to the US attack on Iraq, and the subsequent bloody years of occupation, as variously a “mistake”, a “misadventure” and a “blunder”. But surely it does not look that way to Moscow, all the more so given that Washington followed its invasion of Iraq with a series of proxy wars against other Middle Eastern and North African states such as Libya, Syria and Yemen.

To Russia, the attack on Iraq looks more like a stepping stone in a continuum of wars the US has waged over decades for “full-spectrum dominance” and to eradicate competitors for control of the planet’s resources.

With that as the context, Moscow might have reasonably imagined that the US and its Nato allies were eager for yet another proxy war, this time using Ukraine as the battlefield. Recent comments from Biden administration officials, such as Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, noting that Washington’s tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Kyiv is intended to “weaken Russia”, can only accentuate such fears.

Back in March, Leon Panetta, a former US secretary of defence and the CIA director under Barack Obama, who is in a position to speak more freely than serving officials, observed that Washington was waging “a proxy war with Russia, whether we say so or not”.

He predicted where US policy would head next, noting that the aim would be “to provide as much military aid as necessary”. Diplomacy has been a glaringly low priority for Washington.

Barely concealed from public view is a desire in the US and its allies for another regime change operation – this time in Russia – rather than end the war and the suffering of Ukrainians.

Butcher versus blunderer

Last week, the New York Times very belatedly turned down the war rhetoric a notch and called on the Biden administration to advance negotiations. Even so, its assessment of where the blame lay for Ukraine’s destruction was unambiguous: “Mr Putin will go down in history as a butcher.”

But have Bush or Blair gone down in history as butchers? They most certainly haven’t. And the reason is that the western media have been complicit in rehabilitating their images, presenting them as statesmen who “blundered” – with the implication that good people blunder when they fail to take account of how entrenched the evil of everyone else in the world is.

A butcher versus a pair of blunderers.

This false distinction means western leaders and western publics continue to evade responsibility for western crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

That was why in late February – in reference to Ukraine – a TV journalist could suggest to Condoleezza Rice, who was one of the architects of the illegal war of aggression on Iraq as Bush’s national security adviser: “When you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime.” The journalist apparently did not consider for a moment that it was not just Putin who was a war criminal but the very woman she was sitting opposite.

It was also why Rice could nod solemnly and agree with a straight face that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “against every principle of international law and international order – and that’s why throwing the book at them [Russia] now in terms of economic sanctions and punishments is a part of it”.

But a West that has refused to come to terms with its role in committing the “supreme international crime” of invading Iraq, and has been supporting systematic crimes against the sovereignty of other states such as Yemen, Libya and Syria, cannot sit in judgment on Russia. And further, it should not be trying to take the high ground by meddling in the war in Ukraine.

If we took the implications of Bush’s comment seriously, rather than treating it as a “gaffe” and viewing the Iraq invasion as a “blunder”, we might be in a position to speak with moral authority instead of flaunting – once again – our hypocrisy.

*

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.

Jonathan Cook is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: www.jonathan-cook.net

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.

***

There should be no surprise that the summit meeting of the leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) hosted by Russia at the Kremlin on May 16 fell short of articulating against the “collective West” over the Ukraine conflict. The same pattern as in the 2008 Russo-Georgian war is repeating. Russia is not dictating policies and is going along with the consensus opinion. The contrast with the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation couldn’t be sharper.

The president of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko said at the summit in Moscow, “It is absolutely clear that without united pushback from the CSTO allies and other integration associations in the post-Soviet space, the collective West will ratchet up its pressure.” But President Vladimir Putin was the only other speaker to echo what Lukashenko said. Putin dilated on the NATO’s expansion strategy and its implications. But the remarks by the CSTO leaders from Central Asia — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — and Armenia show that they weren’t impressed. None of them even referred publicly to the Ukraine war as a topic of urgent concern for the CSTO. 

Without doubt, Washington has taken careful note. The Biden Administration singled out Kazakhstan as a special invitee to the ministerial meeting on global food security at the UN Headquarters in New York on May 18. Secretary of State Antony Blinken invited Foreign Minister Mukhtar Tileuberdi to Washington for a bilateral on May 20. 

The US has always prioritised Kazakhstan as a key partner in the Central Asian region. In retrospect, the uprising in January in Kazakhstan made no difference to Washington’s assessment. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s consolidation of power in Astana — ironically, with the help of CSTO forces led by Russia — seems to work splendidly for the US. 

As Washington sees it, President Tokayev, formerly a career diplomat himself, has potential to transform Kazakhstan as a “swing state.” Thus, it estimates that Europe and the US can help the Kazakhs break free from the ties of history and move toward a freer, more independent future, which is bound to have a domino effect on the Central Asian region as a whole in due course. 

In his welcoming remarks at the meeting with Tileuberdi at the state  department on Friday, Blinken said all the right things and came straight to the point — “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” which would have “profound impacts” in Central Asia in the areas of food, energy, trade, etc. The readout of the meeting said Blinken “confirmed our commitment to minimising the impact on allies and partners, including Kazakhstan, from the sanctions imposed on Russia.” 

This assurance virtually rules out secondary sanctions and will come as a matter of great relief to Kazakhstan. In fact, the primary outlet for Kazakh fossil fuels has been a pipeline to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Although Kazakhstan has the world’s twelfth-largest proven oil reserves and is fourteenth for gas, profiting from those resources has proven difficult because it is landlocked, making it cumbersome to bring the fuel to market and difficult to transport exploration and extraction infrastructure to the sites in the first place. Also, Russian irredentism has the potential to disrupt Kazakh energy export routes. (Three years back, Russia forced an end to Kazakh oil and coal shipments to Ukraine, which transit Russian territory by rail.) 

Paradoxically, Kazakhstan’s liberator comes from Beijing. Kazakhstan now supplies oil to China via pipeline and there is a parallel gas line that transits Turkmen exports through Kazakh territory. Whereas the conventional wisdom was that a China-Central Asia pipeline connection would be prohibitive cost-wise due to the vast distances involved, China has made the strategic investments along with Kazakh oil company KazMunaiGas, and the result is that the China National Petroleum Corporation has become Central Asia’s main energy player, overtaking Russia’s Gazprom. 

The geopolitical implications of Kazakhstan’s multi-vector policies are self-evident. Unsurprisingly, the Western majors have invested heavily in Kazakh oilfields too. Suffice to say, Washington senses that Kazakhstan’s current transition from the rule of former President Nurusultan Nazarbayev will likely fortify its independent foreign policy for years to come.

While Washington’s engagement of the Central Asian region used to be episodic in the past, in a marked departure, the Biden Administration has shown the determination to pay sustained attention. This coincides with the sharp deterioration of US-Russia relations during the past year. The state department readout on Friday stated pointedly that “Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Tileuberdi plan to stay in close contact.” 

The CSTO summit in Moscow last Monday, timed to coincide with the 30th  anniversary of the Collective Security Treaty and the 20th anniversary of the organisation, conveys a powerful signal that the allies of Russia and Belarus are taking a neutral stance vis-a-vis the war in Ukraine. They are neither supportive of Moscow nor opposed to it.  

However, this is not to be construed as a reflection of the character of the Russia-Kazakhstan strategic partnership. Putin has long known and worked with Tokayev, who before becoming president in 2019 served as chair of the Senate with earlier stints as prime minister and foreign minister. That said, looking back, Russia had its own compelling reasons to help Tokayev overcome the January uprising in Kazakhstan. To be sure, the presence of the CSTO troops was a game changer for Tokayev who was able to consolidate his grip on power and stabilise the situation, which in turn re-established his own position as president.

However, as a result of it, Tokayev does not owe any “debt” to Moscow and indeed there has been no major shift in Kazakhstan’s internal or external politics in Russia’s favour, either. Five months later, we can clearly see that Kazakhstan does not support the war in Ukraine.

Kazakhstan has ruled out any diplomatic recognition of the two breakaway republics in Donbass region. But Kazakhstan has also so far consistently abstained from international votes, such as those in the United Nations, voting neither for nor against measures directed at Russia. Nonetheless, on the other hand, Kazakhstan also maintains that it will follow the principles and norms of the UN when it comes to the Ukrainian conflict. It is a delicate trapeze act which Tokayev skilfully handles.

The outcome of the CSTO meeting has come as a disappointment to Chinese experts who expected the leaders who gathered in Moscow “to deliver a consistent message to the West which has been sowing discord between Moscow and other CSTO members,” as a commentary in Global Times put it.

The commentary noted: “Chinese analysts said Monday’s summit was of great significance to Russia and the bloc amid the Ukraine crisis and multiple emerging internal challenges on security and economy… On the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Central Asian countries did not fully support Russia or criticize Russia like Western countries.”

*

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: The leaders of the member states of Collective Security Treaty Organisation met in the Kremlin, Moscow, May 16, 2022 (Source: Indian Punchline)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) Won’t be Drawn into Ukraine War. M. K. Bhadrakumar
  • 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.

***

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to deny a request by Bayer to review a verdict that found the corporation liable for damages from the use of its Roundup (glyphosate) herbicides. Now, Bayer is using proxy organizations to place pressure on the Biden Administration and Justice Department to rescind its decision. Alongside a range of chemical industry umbrella groups, many of which—like Croplife America—Bayer is a member of, a letter was sent to President Biden expressing “grave concern” about the opinion filed by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. Among a range of baseless claims, the agrichemical industry is deflecting lower court findings on the hazards and cancer risk of their products with the claim that their toxic chemicals are needed to feed the world, as crops shipments from Ukraine have been halted during the ongoing war. “The agrichemical industry has long tried to sell the idea that their toxic pesticides are needed to feed the world, as if to suggest that their motives are altruistic when, in fact, they have shown a callous disregard for life and a sustainable future,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. ” We can grow food without toxic chemicals and offer support for all the victims of war, with a reverence for healthy ecosystems and the life they support,” he said.

Bayer filed its petition with the Supreme Court in August 2021, seeking to reverse the case of Hardeman v. Monsanto, as Bayer assumed all liabilities associated with Monsanto when it purchased the company in 2018. In that suit, a California court found unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman. Mr. Hardeman told the jury he had used Roundup since the 1980s to spray poison oak and weeds around his property, resulting in his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014. He was awarded $5.27 million, while the punitive damages were ultimately reduced from $75 to $20 million.

Bayer’s appeal to the Supreme Court includes two claims. The first is a preemption argument, suggesting that federal pesticide law preempts state-level “failure-to-warn” claims that form the basis of the Hardeman suit. To prevail under California’s failure-to-warn law, plaintiffs must prove that the product had knowable risks, the risks presented were substantial if used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, consumers would not have recognized those risks, defendants failed to warn consumers, and consumers were thus injured as a result.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already affirmed a lower court ruling that state-level failure-to-warn claims were “equivalent to” and “fully consistent with” federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and that because the company had the ability to comply with both federal and California law, federal law did not preempt plaintiff claims. Bayer is arguing that because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not approve labels with a cancer warning, failure-to-warn claims should not apply. However the court ruled that Roundup’s label did not have “the force of law necessary to have a preemptive effect.”

Bayer is also arguing that the allowance of expert testimony by the Ninth Circuit violates court precedent and federal rules. The Ninth Circuit held that a district court applied the correct standards in admitting expert testimony in the Hardeman case. This issue centers significantly around causation experts use of epidemiological evidence, a strong and growing body of literature linking glyphosate to cancer, which EPA and pesticide manufacturers have regularly discounted.

In December 2021, the Supreme Court requested the Solicitor General provide an opinion about whether the Court should take up the civil verdict. This resulted in Bayer suspending settlement discussions until the Supreme Court made its decision. It is very rare for the Supreme Court to review a civil claim; reports indicate less than 1% of such claims are granted review by the Justices.

The amicus brief filed by the Solicitor General rejects both of Bayer’s claims. It asserts that the Ninth Circuit’s standard for the admission of expert testimony is not different from other circuit courts, “and its factbound application of that standard here raises no issue of general importance.”

In regard to preemption, it notes, “The court of appeals correctly held that FIFRA [federal pesticide law] does not preempt respondent’s claims, and that decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals. The brief further indicates, “Although some aspects of EPA-approved labeling may preempt particular state-law requirements, EPA’s approval of labeling that does not warn about particular chronic risks does not by itself preempt a state law requirement to provide such warnings.” Despite having the statutory authority to do so, and making regulatory determinations regarding the issue, EPA does not relay information on its label about the chronic risks, like cancer, that a pesticide product may pose. No legal requirements within federal pesticide law stop or preempt California from requiring pesticide labels to include information about chronic health dangers like cancer.

To the pesticide industry, allowing states to alert the public about the chronic hazards of the products they produce would stop them from feeding the world while there is a war in Ukraine. “Supplying wheat to the world is more important than ever given the unprecedented times with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” said National Association of Wheat Growers President Nicole Berg. “NAWG is concerned this new policy would undermine access to safe and effective crop protection tools that play a critical role in helping feed the world.”

The wording of the industry’s letter to President Biden urging his Administration to withdraw the brief is even more bombastic. “Such action would reduce crop yields at a time when lives depend on us producing every bushel possible.” With such a claim, one may suppose that the agrichemical industry is a nonprofit charity. Yet, nothing could be farther from the truth. These industry groups represent a modern-day oligopoly, focused solely on short-term goals, the next quarterly returns, and outsized compensation for its executives. The chemical industry aims to extract as much profit as possible from the land, and through the unnecessary use of hazardous pesticides, transfer the risk of crop loss from weeds and insects to its customers in the form of chronic health risks, health care costs, and environmental contamination.As the agrichemical industry proclaims its mission to “feed the world,” as many as 30 million adults and 12 million children are living in food insecure homes where they are not consistently getting enough to eat.

Bayer is a member, has a representative who sits sits on the board, or provides monetary donations to nearly every industry group that signed the letter attempting to pressure the Biden Administration to withdraw its amicus brief. This letter follows along with Bayer’s “Hail Mary” attempts to sidestep responsibility for the health effects of Roundup. As Bayer notes on its website, “Regardless of the final outcome at the Supreme Court, the company is fully prepared to move forward with its five-point plan, manage litigation risks and bring closure to the Roundup™ litigation.” As part of this “five-point plan,” the corporation has already indicated it is reformulating consumer-use Roundup products beginning in 2023. However, as Beyond Pesticides noted at the time, there would be nothing to stop Bayer from rescinding that decision at any moment.

It is not enough to maintain a status quo that permits chemical industry cartels to bully regulators and elected officials into defending their hazardous products. Real reform is needed to address the depth of corruption that allows dangerous, carcinogenic pesticides to be placed on the market in the first place. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging your Senators to enact meaningful reforms to federal pesticide law, and tell EPA to stop allowing the pesticide industry free rein to regulate itself based on financial risks instead of the risks to health and the environment that federal law requires.

*

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 Beyond Pesticide

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Agrichemical Industry Demands Biden Administration Rescind Support for Cancer Victims Before Supreme Court
  • Tags: , , ,

Latest Bad News About COVID Vaccines: Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 24, 2022

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot. Initially, her cause of death was deemed inconclusive, but at an inquest, pathologist Dr. Sukhvinder Ghataura explained that he believes the COVID-19 shot was to blame. He told the coroner.

Pfizer Tells Federal Judge that Pfizer Owns the Federal Government and Is Thereby Immune to Normal Contract Law

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 24, 2022

Pfizer affirms that its agreement with Washington under “Other Transaction Authority” permits Pfizer to violate clinical trial regulations and federal laws protecting the public. In other words, Pfizer has legal authority to commit fraud that kills people.

America Confronting Russia and China: U.S. General Mark Milley Predicts Grim Future of Deadly Great Power Wars Fought in Cities

By Kyle Anzalone, May 24, 2022

America’s highest-ranking military officer painted a picture of a dark future with great power wars fought in urban environments. Speaking to graduating cadets at the United States Military Academy, General Mark Milley forewarned of death tolls for US soldiers in the tens of thousands.

The Agony of a Totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and A Different “Being Human”: Scientific Psychology Demands New “Enlightenment”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 24, 2022

This appeal is the confession of a free soul in the midst of the agony of a global crisis that will lead to a totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and a different “being human”. It is not meant to be a self-portrayal, even if the author starts from experiences in his youth.

World Economic Forum (WEF): Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Opening Speech, Money Weapons Advisors — Standing Ovation

By Peter Koenig, May 24, 2022

First, the west received a little-bit of Zelenskyy’s praise for supporting Ukraine with money, weapons and NATO advisors to fight Russia, in most everybody’s Davos-mind, the aggressor. But that’s not enough. Then came the hammer, Zelenskyy asked for more. For much more, money, weapons – sophisticated weapons – billions and billions more. To fight Russia.

The Freedom Convoy and the Collapse of Canadian Liberalism

By Ray McGinnis, May 24, 2022

My comfort with the mainstream media pandemic narrative changed abruptly in June 2021. A close family friend I’d known since early childhood eagerly stepped up to get his first shot of AstraZeneca. Within 18 hours he suffered a brain aneurysm. He couldn’t speak. He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t work. His mother suffered from greatly reduced lung capacity after her first dose.

Biden Administration’s Ministry of Truth Stumbles

By Philip Giraldi, May 24, 2022

Finally some good news – maybe! The Department of Homeland Security’s recently launched Disinformation Governance Board has gone into what has been described as the “pause” mode and its controversial Director Nina Jankowicz has resigned, citing “vile personal attacks and physical threats.”

Russia to Reach Record Trade Surplus. US-EU Financial Sanctions Have Failed?

By Uriel Araujo, May 24, 2022

On March 1, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, in an interview to France Info radio, described the Western sanction packages as “extremely effective” measures that would cause “the collapse of the Russian economy”. This has failed – the ruble has recovered, and analysts also expect Moscow’s trade surplus to hit record highs in the coming months.

Pressure Mounts on Patel Over Assange Decision

By Joe Lauria, May 24, 2022

Pressure is building from both sides on the home secretary.  Press freedom and human rights organizations, a Nobel laureate, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, journalists and Assange supporters have appealed to Patel to let Assange go.

As Monkeypox Cases Spread, Report Shows Gates Foundation, WHO, Pharma Execs Took Part in Monkeypox Pandemic ‘Simulation’

By Michael Nevradakis, May 24, 2022

Days before the WHO convened, the Biden administration placed a $119 million order for monkeypox vaccines after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed six people in the U.S. were being monitored for the viral infection, and one person had tested positive.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Latest Bad News About COVID Vaccines: Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’

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.

***

Pfizer affirms that its agreement with Washington under “Other Transaction Authority” permits Pfizer to violate clinical trial regulations and federal laws protecting the public.

In other words, Pfizer has legal authority to commit fraud that kills people. See this. 

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit from a whistleblower who revealed problems at sites that tested Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, alleged in a suit that was unsealed in February that Pfizer and associated parties violated clinical trial regulations and federal laws, including the False Claims Act.

In its motion to dismiss, Pfizer says the regulations don’t apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was executed under the department’s Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which gives contract holders the ability to skirt many rules and laws that typically apply to contracts.

That means that Jackson’s claim that Pfizer must still comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations “is simply wrong,” Pfizer said.

As I have explained on many occasions, the US government is privatized. It is run by private interests whose representatives are found on the SEC, FDA, EPA, Federal Reserve,  and all other regulatory agencies. 

As George Stigler made clear 60 years ago, the US regulatory agencies are captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate. 

The power of private interests also comes from the fact that private interests are the financiers of political campaigns. 

Every elected official—House, Senate, President—and every state and local official knows he/she is in office because of the campaign contributions.  This means that elected officials are responsible to their donors, not to the voters.  The power of private interests was reinforced by the US Supreme Court decision that gave essentially unlimited ability to corporations to purchase government to serve their interests. 

This is the real picture of today’s United States.  The US is a country that can only serve private interests, never the public interest, itself a hard interest to define in a country in which Identity Politics is pervasive. 

To read complete article, click here

 

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pfizer Tells Federal Judge that Pfizer Owns the Federal Government and Is Thereby Immune to Normal Contract Law
  • 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.

***

America’s highest-ranking military officer painted a picture of a dark future with great power wars fought in urban environments. Speaking to graduating cadets at the United States Military Academy, General Mark Milley forewarned of death tolls for US soldiers in the tens of thousands.

Milley identified Russia and China as the growing powers America will face in the next generation.

“We are facing right now two global powers, China and Russia,” he said. “As we are entering a world that is becoming more unstable. The world you are being commissioned into has the potential for significant international conflict between great powers, and that potential is increasing, not decreasing.”

During the commencement speech, he noted the importance of America confronting Russia in Ukraine.

“Yet again in Ukraine, we are learning the lesson that aggression left unanswered only emboldens the aggressor,” the general said.

After recalling the massive American casualties in World War I and World War II, the general explained future great power conflicts would likely cause tens of thousands of deaths for US soldiers.

“26,000 soldiers and marines were killed in only six weeks from October to November 1918…26,000 US troops were killed in the eight weeks in the summer of 1944, 58,000 Americans were killed in action in the air, at sea and on land in five theaters of war and only eight weeks. That’s the human cost of great power war.”

Milley laid out how he believed warfare would evolve over the next quarter-century.

The general said new technologies will shape the battlefield, including robotic tanks, ships, and airplanes. He referred to artificial intelligence as “the mother of all technologies” and said, “machines are actually developing the capacity to learn and to reason these rapidly converging developments in time and space or resulting in that profound change.”

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs assesses future conflicts will be fought in cities. “The battlefield will be highly complex and almost certainly decisive in urban areas,” he said. If Milley is correct, the coming wars will exact high tolls on civilian populations.

*

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.

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America Confronting Russia and China: U.S. General Mark Milley Predicts Grim Future of Deadly Great Power Wars Fought in Cities

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.

***

 

 

 

Author’s Forward

This appeal is the confession of a free soul in the midst of the agony of a global crisis that will lead to a totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and a different “being human”. It is not meant to be a self-portrayal, even if the author starts from experiences in his youth. All political questions were intentionally placed in the background: they were given special consideration in many articles.

Since the thoughts and actions of adults are still determined by a “magical belief in authority” – uncritical and clouded by promises of happiness – the author believes that the Enlightenment in the 17th/18th century remained an unfinished project. Belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute intellectual obedience and paralysis of the mind.

Full-minded adults can then no longer think independently and judge rationally. But it is not only their intelligence that is intimidated and degraded, but also their will and self-confidence.

In religious communities, education in obedience begins with the young child. It must allow itself to be led and guided without contradiction by all the “authorities” involved in the educational process – parents, teachers, priests. The authoritarian principle in education connects without any interruption to the “divine origin” of rule and respect for all “authorities” as conveyed by the Church. Thus, both religious and authoritarian education make the growing generation obedient and docile.

The author is concerned that these methods of education will lead to a situation where the younger generation will not be able to steer the world in a different direction. Scientific psychology, which researches human nature and provides assured answers to the question of the mental condition of human beings, therefore calls for a new “enlightenment” that incorporates the findings of scientific psychology about human nature.

In doing so, a free thinker does not claim to have at his or her disposal the only saint-making or the only truth that promises happiness. For the free mind, there is an unlimited number of truths to be discovered and to follow change.

Jean Meslier (1664-1729), Catholic priest and French radical enlightener from the time of the early Enlightenment, answers the question of what is true with the words:

“True is that which is not dogmatic bondage and does not divide men into believers and non-believers or those of other faiths, but is beneficial to the coexistence of men and promotes their understanding.” (1)

Of course, it remains the inalienable right of religious people to draw revelations of the highest religious truths from the words of the Bible. But it is equally the unconditional duty of the researcher to infer historical truths only from entirely unimpeachable testimonies.

According to the French physics professor and president of the Union of Atheists, Francis Perrin (1901-1992), the conviction that there is no God does not lead man to despair or fear, but to a deep understanding of the value and meaning of life:

“The firm conviction that there is no God and that the presumed answers of religions are illusory, foolish or childish, when man, beset by questions, ponders his lot or searches for a meaning to existence, this firm conviction does not lead at all to despair or fear, but to a great tranquillity of mind, to a deep understanding of the value of life and to a high conception of the dignity of man responsible to himself for his life and his deeds.” (2)

The appeal, written in generally understandable language, is also intended to provide the interested layperson with insights into the human life of the soul.

It is a supplement and deepening of the author’s book published in 2020 in Gornji Milanovac (Serbia) with the title “Handing over power to no one! A Psychological Manifesto of Common Sense” (ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5). The “Neue Rheinische Zeitung” (NRhZ) published a preprint and an abridged version of the book in November 2020. The abridged version was also adopted by “Global Research” in Canada.

Since it can be assumed that no publisher will be found for the present appeal, it will be distributed as a bilingual article (German and English) via the internet.

Introduction 

The theme of this appeal is the conviction of the author – a teacher, educationalist and qualified psychologist – that young people can very well develop into free-thinking, courageous and moral citizens. But for this to happen, all those responsible for the education of youth must refrain from making the growing generation “obedient” and “compliant” on their way to adulthood with mind-paralysing religious and authoritarian educational methods.

The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th/18th centuries was a great upheaval in history. The philosopher Emanuel Kant (1724-1804) formulated the guiding principle of the Enlightenment: “Have the courage to use your own mind.” Behind this statement was the idea that man should use his intellect and thereby develop into a mature personality.

Before the Enlightenment, the Church and the authorities did not want people to use their intellect: they were supposed to accept the “truths” presented to them by the state and the Church as a given without questioning them. Now, however, blind obedience to the Church began to waver.

The appeal to reason as the universal authority of judgement is considered an important characteristic of the Enlightenment. This includes the fight against prejudice, the turn to the natural sciences, the plea for religious tolerance and the orientation towards natural law.

Natural law, a right given by nature, says that there is something that is right by nature. The knowledge of what is right by nature makes it possible to oppose totalitarian ideologies and dictatorships from a firm human standpoint and to feel a sense of outrage against injustice and inhumanity.

Natural law thinking began in ancient Greek philosophy. Plato (427-347 BCE) assumed that there are objective, absolutely valid norms, values and laws that are not dependent on the changing opinions of people.

The objective ideas of what law is must guide the state and the state leadership at all times. The highest goal in human life was a rational life.

In socio-political terms, the Enlightenment aimed at more personal freedom of action (emancipation), education, civil rights, general human rights and the common good as a duty of the state. Many Enlightenment thinkers were optimistic about progress and assumed that a rational society would gradually solve the main problems of human coexistence.

In the author’s view, however, the Enlightenment has remained an incomplete project, an unfinished process of social emancipation. The thinking and actions of most people are still dominated by a “magical belief in authority” and an absolute spiritual obedience.

Yet human beings are born neither religious nor believing in God. However, the mentally healthy and “uncrippled” child enters a society where delusional ideas and illusions prevail. If one understands how the magical worldview affects the soul life and reason of the young person, then one also understands the immature behaviour of adult believers.

As soon as the first mental impulses appear in the little child and it learns to speak, it is “taken into care” by society, parents and the church. It is made clear to him that his nature is not allowed to develop freely with regard to his feeling for nature and his world view. If it wants to avoid being punished with general contempt and hellish chastisements, it must press its being into a certain ecclesiastical mould.

With this procedure, a very strong and paralysing pressure is exerted on the child’s soul. No political organisation, no matter how dictatorial and totalitarian, is capable of exerting such paralysing pressure on children’s souls. This mental rape is worse and more lasting than any physical rape. The same is true of the rape of the mind.

Religious faith places alongside reason and knowledge a magical illusory world that scientific analysis has no business approaching. Religions regard themselves as something above all that must not – and cannot – be the subject of empirical-rationalist investigation. They are of the opinion that science is not at all capable of grasping the realm of religion, which is of divine origin, in its totality.

If we start from a “magical faith in authority” and the reflex of an absolute spiritual obedience, then in order to understand its causes we must refer to a text written by Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), the founder of the Jesuit order, in the middle of the 16th century, and to which the German word “Kadavergehorsam” can be traced. The version translated from Spanish into Latin and published by the Congregation of the Order in 1558 reads:

“We should be aware that each one of those who live in obedience must allow himself to be led and guided by Divine Providence by means of the Superior, as if he were a dead body to be taken wherever and treated in whatever way, or like a staff of an old man to serve wherever and for whatever the wants to use him.” (3)

Long before Ignatius of Loyola, Francis of Assisi (1181/82-1226) compared the perfect and highest form of obedience to one’s superior to a dead, disembodied body that allows itself to be taken wherever one wishes without protest or grumbling (4).

According to Loyola’s text, the obedient person must allow himself to be “led” and “guided” by divine providence by means of the “superior” or “superior” without contradiction, as if he were a “dead body” or “disembodied body”. The ruling stratum of society has also always justified its domination, its political and economic power over people’s minds with the ideological concept of “authority”. And this in turn is supported by the idea of the “absolute”, which eludes any possibility of control through experience.

For the “rulers”, the highest power of such an ideology is “God” – as an “unknowable”, “ultimate” cause and ethical lawgiver. Kings, for example, call themselves “by God’s grace” and thus say that they derive their enthronement from the divine instance.

Since the child already has to be led and guided without contradiction by the “authorities” involved in the educational process in order to still be obedient as an adult, scientific psychology demands a new “Enlightenment”.

*

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 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 values education and an education for public spirit and peace.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) Hagen, Friedrich (1977). Jean Meslier oder der Atheist im Priesterrock. Leverkusen and Cologne, p. 37

(2) op. cit., p. 7

(3) https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Kadavergehorsam

(4) op. cit., p. 7

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Agony of a Totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and A Different “Being Human”: Scientific Psychology Demands New “Enlightenment”

Video: Testing the Waters. Evidence of the Corona Crisis and Actions

May 24th, 2022 by Corona Investigative Committee

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 Corona Committee was formed by four lawyers.

It is conducting an evidence review of the Corona crisis and actions. 

*

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 a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Testing the Waters. Evidence of the Corona Crisis and Actions

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 two prior columns, which can be accessed here and here, Mark Skidmore and I wrote about the $21 trillion in federal government transactions in the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that our government indicated were undocumented and unexplained.

As the concerns and questions we raised gained traction, investigative reporter Dave Lindorff dug into the issue, recently publishing the article “Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed” in The Nation (2018). 

Based on a series of interviews with current and former government officials, Lindorff concluded that Pentagon accounting is “phony”, composed of made up numbers designed to obfuscate and thus propelling “US military spending higher year after year”.

The issue received additional attention in the media when incoming Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to the $21 trillion in a Tweet:

$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.” $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means %66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before premiums.

This comment captured the attention of numerous media outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post where the focus was on fact checking (see here and here, for example). The near universal assessment was that the comment by Ocasio-Cortez was misleading—the $21 trillion in undocumentable transactions do not reflect actual unauthorized spending. However, there is a very important point that is missed by nearly everyone.

Click here to read the full article in Forbes (January 2019)

*

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 Forbes

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.

***

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals. – George Orwell, “Freedom of the Press”

Recently, a friend told me she’d taken part in a webinar conducted by the Council of Canadians. The webinar included First Nations people speaking about RCMP mistreatment of indigenous peoples on reserve. It was contrasted with the peaceful disbursement of freedom convoy protesters in Ottawa on February 18th.

The webinar narrative was partially true, likely informed by mainstream news reports. RCMP policing among First Nations people needs to be repaired. But, the Trucker Freedom Convoy in Ottawa wasn’t broken up peacefully. Just ask Candice “Candy” Sero.

Sero is a full-blood Mohawk woman from Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in Hastings County, Ontario. On February 18, I watched live footage online of mounted police officers charging through the freedom protester crowd and trampling Candy Sero as she stood with her wheeled walker. She fell to the ground. A horse stepped on her shoulder.

A man in the crowd started yelling with growing desperation, “Oh my gosh. Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Look what you did. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. You trampled on the lady… Shame on you. Shame on everyone of you. Shame on you…”

Candy Sero survived the trampling. But she suffered a broken clavicle.

However, what I saw unfolding live in downtown Ottawa wasn’t part of the new orthodoxy. The live footage I saw wasn’t part of what right-thinking people would be shown, would accept. The people hosting the webinar could be forgiven.

But why did I have to depend on independent reporters and footage from protesters cell phones to reveal an ugly side to policing in Ottawa on February 18? Why weren’t the CBC or CTV covering these stories?

Why was I increasingly feeling set adrift from my NDP and Liberal political leaders?

My vote for Joe Clark in 1979 was the exception to my mostly voting NDP since 1980. My paternal grandfather voted for the United Farmer’s of Alberta party from 1921 until it collapsed in 1935, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation until 1961, and its successor – the New Democratic Party – until he died. NDP leader Tommy Douglas was a hero in my family. And so I supported causes like funding for the CBC, and giving donations at times to the Friends of the CBC.

Over the decades, I’ve been on the ‘left’ on a host of political debates: against NAFTA, keeping Canada out of the Iraq War, and more. I enthusiastically supported Jack Layton, NDP leader from 2003 to 2011, and was acquainted with him when I campaigned for him as a city counsellor when I’d lived in Toronto.

All governments require scrutiny

Still, I knew Liberal or NDP governments were fallible. Jody Wilson-Raybould was a star Kwakʼwala indigenous Liberal candidate Vancouver riding next to mine in the 2015 federal election. She was given the dual portfolio of Minister of Justice and Attorney-General by prime minister Justin Trudeau. But in 2019, she was expelled from the Liberal caucus over the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Canada’s Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion later found that Trudeau improperly pressured Wilson-Raybould to intervene in an ongoing criminal bribery case. Trudeau’s impropriety concerned the Quebec-based construction company SNC-Lavalin and pressuring Wilson-Raybould to offer the company a deferred prosecution agreement.

In read her memoir, Indian in the Cabinet, Jody Wilson-Raybould described a one-on-one meeting with Justin Trudeau at the Fairmont-Pacific Rim Hotel in Vancouver on February 11, 2019. It took place while the SNC-Lavalin affair dominated the headlines. These lines from her memoir haunted me:

He asked if I trusted him. I could see the agitation visibly building in the prime minister. His mood was shifting. I remember seeing it. I remember feeling it. I had seen and felt this before on a few occasions, when he would get frustrated and angry. But this was different. He became strident and disputed everything I had said. He made it clear that everyone in his office was telling the truth and that I…and others, were not. He told me I had not experienced what I said I did. He used the line that would later become public, that I had “experienced things differently.” I knew what he was really asking. What he was saying. In that moment I knew he wanted me to lie – to attest that what had occurred had not occurred.

By the time the pandemic began in March 2020, I had brought my manuscript Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored to a boutique publisher.

Early on, I heard from some friends who were beginning to question the official narrative about the pandemic. But most of my friends accepted mainstream news stories. I was shocked by accounts of people being put on ventilators. And boggled by the daily case counts, death counts. But, mostly I kept my own council.

Over the next 18 months I worked with editorial staff on editing, copyediting, proof reading, graphic design, and marketing for my book, working with a publicist. The lockdowns, semi-lockdowns and occasional modest restrictions were inconvenient. But, I had my home. I had my computer. In Vancouver, I could order take-out from restaurants. I was rolling with things. Not altogether comfortably. But, I was comfortable enough. I had a deadline to get my book to publication on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Vaccine adverse events get personal

My comfort with the mainstream media pandemic narrative changed abruptly in June 2021. A close family friend I’d known since early childhood eagerly stepped up to get his first shot of AstraZeneca. Within 18 hours he suffered a brain aneurysm. He couldn’t speak. He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t work. His mother suffered from greatly reduced lung capacity after her first dose.

As 2021 rolled along, several others in my wide circle across North America were injured by mRNA vaccines. Many others were learning about adverse events, AND calling into question how rare the side effects were.

Still, the media daily reported these vaccines were “safe and effective.” Though on August 6, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that the Covid-19 vaccines did not stop or reduce transmission, or prevent infection. What was being offered as the only solution to the pandemic didn’t seem to be able to deliver what it was peddled to solve.

Tolerance

In late December 2021, prime minister Justin Trudeau called the unvaccinated “misogynist, racist… We have a choice to make. Do we tolerate these people?” Given Trudeau’s carefully crafted image, this was jarring, illiberal. Classic liberalism has championed the value of tolerance. In 1789, the National Constituent Assembly of the French Revolution passed its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Article 10 stated:

“No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice does not disturb public order as established by the law.”

But in 2021, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was signaling to Canadians that there were categories of people that maybe shouldn’t be tolerated. He was characterizing legal protests, of the right and freedom to assemble – established under the Canadian charter – as illegal.

Since he’d become leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau’s public image was that of someone who was inclusive. Trudeau was someone who cared about the average person. He was someone who listened to their concerns. But now, the prime minister was openly disdainful, calling the protesters everything but classist. Justin Trudeau’s unwavering rhetoric helped cement disgust toward the protesters among many Canadians.

Collapse of liberalism in Canada

What did the Liberal Party of Canada have to do with liberalism in 2022? Classical liberalism emerged with the collapse of feudalism and the slow erosion of church authority in the Renaissance.

Liberalism began with the invention of the printing press, the flowering of culture in the vernacular (non-Latin) languages among the commoners, and widespread educational reform. Classic liberalism advanced the need for non-interference and independence of citizens under the rule of law.

In his 2003 book, LiberalismJohn Gray writes that classical liberalism consists of these four pillars.

First, “it is individualist, in that it asserts the primacy of the person against any collectivity.”

Secondly, liberalism is “egalitarian, in that it confers on all human beings the same basic moral status.” It is universalist in its inclusion of all persons regardless of any distinguishing features – all having the same moral worth.

And fourthly, liberalism anticipates the march of human progress attained through critical reason to advance social wellbeing. The word liberal comes from the Latin liber which means “free.”

In the 18th and 19th centuries liberal politicians championed causes that included the 6-day/48-hour workweek, welfare, child labour laws and public schooling, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, universal suffrage, unemployment insurance, social security, and the abolition of slavery.

Bodily integrity and security of the person

Liberalism also advanced the value of bodily integrity. This included i) a women’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, ii) An individual’s right to not be sold into slavery or forced labour, iii) The right not to be tortured, iv) The right not to be sexually assaulted, v) and The right to the security of one’s person. The latter included informed decisions about taking medical treatments and procedures.

After World War II the security of one’s person was the catalyst for creating the Nuremberg Code of August 1947. In the Nuremberg Trial, German physicians were held responsible, and sentenced, for conducting unethical medical procedures on humans during the war. The judges at Nuremberg rendered this verdict in relation to any medical procedure or treatment, including:

  • Point 1: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
  • Point 4: The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  • Point 5: No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  • Point 6: The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Off-message data

Almost 75 years later, was there reason to be concerned that the Covid vaccines could result in death or disabling injury? Were these vaccines riskier than advertised? The prime minister declared “the science is settled.” The Covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective.

Yet, documents released by court-order in the USA revealed Pfizer knew by February 2021 that 1,223 people had died from taking their vaccine, according to the pharmaceutical companies Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports.

At the Centers for Disease Control’s on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the system was blinking red. In January 2022 the number of Covid-19 vaccine deaths stood at over 23,000 in America.

As of May 13, 2022, the CDC’s cumulative reported deaths after Covid vaccination in the USA stands at 28,141. This was in less than a year and a half. Since 1990, VAERS has been criticized for notorious underreporting.

Comparing VAERS data on Covid-19 vaccines with other CDC data is illuminating. Merck’s anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx, was pulled from the American market in 2004 after five years. In 2004 VAERS reported 6,636 people had died in reaction to taking Vioxx. An article in the Lancet determined Vioxx caused 88,000 heart attacks, and 38,000 of these died.

VAERS 6,636 reported Vioxx deaths turned out to reflect only 17% of the actual deaths. VAERS 5-year Vioxx data is less than 24% of deaths compared to experimental Covid vaccines reported in less than 18 months.

What if, like Vioxx, the 28,000 deaths from Covid-19 vaccines represent only 17% of the actual deaths and were 165,000? Or higher? It would appear the Covid-19 vaccines don’t meet the standards set in the Nuremberg Code, based on Pfizer’s own internal reports alone.

May 2022, Canadian hospital statistics on Covid-19 admissions found 50% had received the 3rd shot (booster), 32% were “fully vaccinated,” 2% had one shot – “partially vaccinated” – and 16% were unvaccinated. This is consistent with hospitalization trends since the start of 2022. Could this be due to a National Institutes of Health and Moderna study finding that the mRNA vaccine is “impeding the development of the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies” and suppressing the immunity of the vaccinated?

A study published by the NIH titled “‘Pandemic of the unvaccinated’? At midlife, white people are less vaccinated but still at less risk of Covid-19 mortality in Minnesota” suggested what was at play was a “pandemic of the disadvantaged.”

Autonomy

Nonetheless, Canadians were required to get two doses. When I got fully vaccinated, I no longer believed the vaccine would keep me safe from infection or injury. A mix of social obligations, personal circumstances, and social coercion played a big role.

In America, Dr. Anthony Fauci was alleging the spread of Covid was due to a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.

The claim was repeated in Canada.

Yet Peter Doshi, editor-in-chief of the prestigious British Medical Journal, concluded “We are not in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Doshi said, 

“It saddens me that we as a society are oversaturated with the attitude of ‘everybody knows,’ which limits intellectual curiosity and leads to self-censorship.” If hospitalizations and deaths occur almost exclusively in unvaccinated people, “why would booster shots be necessary?” asked Doshi.

“And why would the statistics be so different in the United Kingdom, where most hospitalizations and deaths from COVID occur among the fully vaccinated? There’s a correlation there that you should be curious about,” Doshi said. “Something’s not right.”

But Canadian authorities barreled along. The penalty for refusing vaccination in Canada for many has meant getting fired with no employment insurance.

In New Brunswick the government let stores decide if they would allow the unvaccinated to buy groceries.

In Quebec, the premier considered placing a tax on the unvaccinated. Effective November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians were prohibited from traveling by air or train domestically, and from leaving the country by plane, train or ship.

Though these policies are mandated by governments that are purportedly ‘liberal,’ they reveal a serious collapse of liberalism in Canada. For centuries, liberalism has advanced the cause of citizen autonomy: the capacity of individuals in a nation state to make informed decisions free of coercion. But, coercion has been a regular feature accompanying these measures.

Heroes & villains

On March 31, 2021, Justin Trudeau lauded Canadian truckers as heroes of the pandemic. He tweeted:

“While many of us are working from home, there are others who aren’t able to do that – like truck drivers who are working day and night to make sure our shelves are stocked. So when you can, please #ThankATrucker for everything they’re doing and help them however you can.”

But as 2022 began, the Trudeau government determined that unvaccinated truckers WOULD not be allowed to cross the Canada-U.S. border, effective January 15, 2022. The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters have all asked the federal government to either eliminate or postpone the mandate. Factoring in American truck drivers, the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the American Trucking Associations estimated that as many as 32,000, or 20%, of the 160,000 Canadian and American cross-border truck drivers could be taken off the highways by the vaccination requirement.

When the new trucker mandate was enacted on January 15th, it crossed a line for many Canadians. Based on transmission of the virus by the vaccinated, and truckers never being super-spreaders, there was no defensible medical reason to require them to be vaccinated.

By January 22 a Trucker Freedom Convoy formed in Prince George and Vancouver, British Columbia. Their destination was Ottawa. On January 26, prime minister Trudeau derided those joining the convoy as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” and claimed he was “following the science.”

As the convoy headed east during January’s freezing temperatures, truckers reported what was unfolding.

The convoy is 100kms long and growing all the time. The support people have is overwhelming. Coming into Winnipeg yesterday was pretty emotional the com radios went pretty quiet because no one could find words to express what we felt…people packed on the shoulders of the streets. Cars parked and people for miles and miles on the ring road around the city. On the four lane going out of Winnipeg…ended up driving 5 to 20 km/hr for hours and hours.

People had camp fires going in the ditches, fire works… Crane trucks with the booms up with signs, lights flashing, and flags. The shoulders of the four lane packed with people and cars. Overpasses packed with people. Tons of families little kids all bundled up. Everyone was jumping, dancing, waving signs, flags, and flash lights. All in -30C.”

CBC news footage on January 27 confirmed a sea of Canadian flags greeting the convoy as it headed to Ottawa.

As convoys from British Columbia departed on January 23, those charged with standing on guard for Canada were remarkably passive. CSIS, the RCMP and the Canadian military had access to surveillance of everyone’s phone calls, text messages, and emails among the organizers of the convoy (and all Canadians). Yet, no one in the military, CSIS or the RCMP expressed any concern about a coup or insurrection. There was no attempt by those in authority to halt Ottawa-bound convoys from the West or the Maritimes from arriving in Ottawa the week of January 23rd.

As the convoy arrived in Ottawa on January 28, on the Power and Politics show, CBC announcer Nil Koksal commented “there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, or perhaps even instigating it from the outside.”

Another CBC commentator mused

“I don’t know if it’s far-fetched to ask but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows… perhaps even instigating it…”

The allegations were retracted by the CBC on February 4. As well, there was a lot of media hype about the convoy being a white supremacist conspiracy. But federal financial investigators found no evidence of the charge.

Peaceful protest

Prime minister Justin Trudeau went into an undisclosed location after having caught COVID. The PM had received two vaccines and the booster, which might be seen as undercutting the need to mandate them. He ridiculed the whole convoy as “an insult to truth.”

Rex Murphy stood nearly alone, rebuking his counterparts in the Canadian media for its “alarmist rhetoric,” WHO WERE describing the arriving protesters as “an occupying force.” Murphy observed:

The protest has been actually not mainly but overwhelmingly peaceful, and the political and major press response, wildly alarmist and ominous. Ottawa shops remain with their windows intact, no assaults on police stations or police being bombarded with sticks and stones, no armed patrols by the truckers telling people where they could go or not go, and a splendid number of rather endearing incidents that have failed to make it to national or local press.”

Murphy lambasted slanted media coverage depicting the protesters as Nazis, based on a lone swastika carried by a dodgy man shunned by the crowd.

The New York Times commented:

“The protests…blocked traffic on major streets downtown, disrupted business and tormented residents with incessant honking. But they were by and large nonviolent. Organizers inflated bouncy castles in the street, and people brought small children and dogs. DJs played music from a flatbed truck turned into a stage. At one point people soaked in a hot tub erected in front of the Parliament building.”

This was hardly a recipe for insurrection.

Barring Australia and China, during the pandemic Canada had some of the harshest restrictions in the world. Many citizens wanted government accountability and a public discussion about the rationale for the mandates. National Post reporter Rupa Subramanya, Bill Gates, Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau weren’t alone being triple-vaxxed and still getting Covid. Based on hospitalizations, this was happening to a lot of Canadians who got the booster.

Allegations of property damage and arson

Trucker Freedom Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson Q.C., reports that during the first week after the trucks arrived the trucks were vandalized.

Groups of Antifa were coming through at night in their black hoodies and backpacks and black jeans. And they would come when the truckers were sleeping and knife their tires and cut their air lines and spray paint the trucks. They would vandalize the trucks. So, each block had a block captain for that area of trucks. And they had a watch system so that when an Antifa person would show up, the trucker would grab them, call 9-1-1 and the police would come, arrest that guy and take him away. That would happen three instances in the night. Guess what the police chief would do the next day? He’d say ‘we had three arrests for property damage in the downtown core last night’ The arrests were Antifa, the 9-1-1 calls were from truckers.”

But Ottawa police left it to the media to infer the vandals, those responsible for “property damage,” were convoy protesters. But politicians and the press, hunting for any indication of violence on the part of the protests continued apace.

On the morning of February 6, Matias Munoz alleged two arsonists came to an apartment building at Metcalfe and Lisgar at 5 AM. with fire starter bricks into the lobby. He tweeted: “One of them taped the door handles so no one could get in or out” (including the arsonists).

According to the story, a tenant saw the arsonists lighting a fire in the lobby, asked if they were truckers. And then decided to go to bed without calling 911. Which is what you’d do if you knew you were in a building that was on fire.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson held an emergency meeting of city council condemning the “malicious intent” of the convoy protesters. “Yesterday we learned of a horrific story that clearly demonstrates the malicious intent of the protesters occupying our city.”

But the Ottawa Deputy Chief told the press on February 8, “We don’t have any direct linkage between the occupation — the demonstrators — and that act.” On March 21, Ottawa police confirmed the person charged with the February 6th arson had nothing to do with the convoy protest.

On April 8th, Rex Murphy reported:

This week, we found out that the attempt to burn down an apartment building in Ottawa, which was so widely and wildly heralded during the Freedom Convoy protest, had nothing to do with the truckers. Please let this sink in.

At the time, such was the volume of assumption, innuendo and outright allegation that everyone from Nanaimo, B.C., to Nain, N.L., formed the impression that this despicable action, an outrage by any standard, was the work of the truckers. Not true. False. Nothing to do at all with the protesters. It was allegedly the work of two Ottawa miscreants who were working alone.”

Crowdfunding

As the convoy protest continued, over 130,0000 individuals contributed to crowdfunding on GoFundMe. When this was shut down on February 4, donors gave to GiveSendGo. Funds raised for the truckers soon reached $12.7 million, plus several million more in cryptocurrencies. The average donation was $75.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s brother-in-law donated $13,000 dollars to the Convoy. When the media found out, Jodver Singh Dhaliwal said he “didn’t know what the Convoy was all about.” It would seem prudent for anyone giving a $13,000 donation to look into what the donation was in support of. But, never mind.

The CBC alleged on February 10 that donors to the crowdfunding efforts were largely Trump supporters and foreign racists meddling in Canadian domestic affairs. But, GoFundMe testified to the House of Commons Safety Committee on March 3 “Our records show that 88% of donated funds originated in Canada.” This was about 113,000 Canadians. CBC eventually retracted their story that donors were mostly foreign.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford was among those addressing the protesters. On February 12, Peckford told the Freedom Convoy he worked with the prime minister’s father and other Canadian premiers to enshrine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The April 1982 charter that Peckford and his counterparts signed gave Canadian citizens these inalienable rights:

  • 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (including) c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.
  • 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
  • Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
    a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
  • 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived…

Truckers who drove by themselves to take essential supplies to keep the economy running had for two years not been spreading Covid. Yet, now were being deprived of their charter rights: of mobility, to remain in and leave Canada, and to pursue a livelihood. Peckford slammed the vaccine mandates as a violation of the Charter.

Legal protest

Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and other Liberal cabinet ministers, repeatedly referred to the convoy protest as “illegal.” But on February 7 Ontario Chief Justice McLean ruled the protest was legal. 

He wrote:

the defendents and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.”

Ottawa city councillor Dianne Deans said the protesters were terrorists. This is a nationwide insurrection.

Yet, Barry MacKillop, deputy-director of FINTRAC, the federal organization that goes after terrorism funds and criminal money-laundering, told the Commons finance committee that there was not a shred of illegal activity associated with the trucker convoy. The protests had nothing to do with domestic terrorism or money-laundering.

Calls for dialogue

Several MPs with the Liberal Party disagreed publicly with the prime minister, advising the need for Trudeau to listen to citizens “legitimate concerns.” “It is time to stop dividing people, to stop pitting one part of the population against another,” said MP Joel Lightbound on February 8. Liberal MPs Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Yves Robillard agreed with Lightbound.

While the protest continued, scientists and physicians present with the convoy wanted to have a discussion with politicians and Dr. Theresa Tam and Dr. Howard Njoo (Public Health Agency of Canada), and Dr. Shelley Deeks (chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization). For two years there was no public discussion, debate, or scrutiny REGARDING the veracity of the claims of politicians and public health officials about the Covid vaccines, mask mandates, lockdowns or social distancing. There was no media exposure to any dissenting or alternate opinion, no matter the credentials of those asking for accountability.

After two years of “we’ve got the science, so shut up,” protesters said back up your claims. But Tam, Njoo and Deeks, along with the prime minister and his cabinet, avoided all opportunities to conduct public or private discussions.

Racists, misogynists

The media made much ado about a single protester sporting a Nazi swastika, and another masked man with a confederate flag. Justin Trudeau emerged from HIS COVID WITHDRAWAL from time to time to denounce the “racist, misogynist” protesters.

But on the ground others experienced things differently. Rupa Subramanya, reporting for the National Post and the Wall Street Journal is an Indo-Canadian. Throughout the protest, she was their daily visiting and interviewing people.

Subramanya said in an interview:

I wanted to go there and make up my own mind. The reality of these protesters, the truckers, starting from Day 1, is very different from the received narrative that was already in place – propaganda – because that is really what it amounted to. These people were a cross-section of Canadians. They were mostly working-class.

I encountered people of colour. I saw new immigrants. I saw children. I saw women. I saw the old, the young. Franco-Canadians, Anglo-Canadians. A lot of camaraderie. I spent three weeks at the protest every day, several times a day. I didn’t encounter a single racist, white supremacist, or even a misogynist.

These were some of the warmest, friendliest, people I’ve ever met in my life, two decades here, in Canada. It was quite unusual that my perspective as a person of colour who went into the protests was so different from the mainstream coverage. There was this total disconnect between what was being said and what I personally experienced.” Or as prime minister Justin Trudeau might have suggested, Rupa Subramanya “experienced things differently.”

When Asian-Canadian Doctor Daniel Nagase spoke from the stage he received nothing but applause. The same was the case for longtime Global TV news writer Indo-Canadian journalist Anita KrishnaDr. Julie Ponesse was another woman providing leadership, and speaking to a receptive crowd. Nonetheless, a completely different political and media depiction of the protesters saturated the news from Day 1. The fascist insurrection needed to be stopped to prevent a coup.

Who were these protesters?

Though the media framed the protest as “anti-vax,” Rupa Subramanya found most were vaccinated in the Ottawa crowd. Numbers had been infected with Covid and recovered. They wanted to know why natural immunity wasn’t accepted, for the first time in history, as part of a person’s medical history? The protesters also had fundamental questions about the erosion of Canadian democracy and infringement of charter rights.

Rupa Subramanya interviewed “Peter the trucker, who I spoke to very close to where I live (in downtown Ottawa). He pointed to my building and he said, you know, ‘I put the concrete stairs in that building.’”

The truckers were the people who delivered the food, delivered the hospital supplies, the oil and gas, construction materials for building, road and bridge upgrades and repairs, and botox to keep news anchors looking ten years younger on their daily newscasts. They’d delivered books from Amazon, and more for two years.

A downtown Ottawa data scientist named David lived on Kent Street, and saw the protesters “camped out below my bedroom window.” Interested to meet his new neighbors, David introduced himself. He walked to many of the protesters, including an indigenous man from Manitloulin Island who showed David his medicine wheel.

On his blog, David concluded that night he’d “met someone from every province except PEI. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians. These are the people that Canada relies on to build its infrastructure, deliver its goods, and fill the ranks of its military in times of war.

“The overwhelming concern they have is that the vaccine mandates are creating an untouchable class of Canadians…. They see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; And they said enough. Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob. They are our moral conscience reminding us…. We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.”

During the first week of the protest, news broke on February 2 raising concerns of many in the convoy that the lockdowns were nothing more than a government confidence game. That day the front page of the National Post ran with this headline: “Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, John Hopkins study finds.”

Convoy and City of Ottawa letters of agreement

After February 8, Keith Wilson details how “there was a secret meeting between lawyers for the Convoy and City of Ottawa. The city wanted the trucks removed from the 5-way intersection near the Chateau Laurier. And the Convoy agreed to move the trucks.

Letters of agreement were signed and publicly released by the head of the Convoy, Tamara Lich, and Mayor Jim Watson. (This was) outlining a plan to move the trucks from downtown Ottawa side streets to a farm, and have people who wanted to protest be shuttled as pedestrians back to Parliament Hill. While Convoy leaders were moving trucks out of Ottawa Prime Minister Trudeau announced he was invoking the Emergency Act.

In an interview with Viva Frei, Wilson explained:

This was all in place by Friday, February 11 – Saturday, February 12. So, on Monday, February 14, the truckers started to move their trucks out of Ottawa. But not all the police were aware of this and so the police would stop them from moving the trucks out of the downtown core. However, after Convoy leaders got in touch with a Captain of the Ottawa police, they were able to get 40 trucks moved out of the downtown core to a farm. In Mayor Watson’s letter he acknowledged that moving the number of trucks the city wanted moved out of designated areas was a big operation that would take a number of days to accomplish. However, as the Convoy leaders were getting more trucks moved out of the downtown to de-escalate things, as the Mayor had requested, more Ottawa police kept stopping truckers from moving their trucks out of downtown Ottawa.”

Ottawa Police charged Tamara Lich with mischief for counseling truckers. Keith Wilson says:

“yes, she counseled truckers. She told truckers to move their trucks and open up emergency lanes in order to comply with the request of the City of Ottawa, and the Ottawa Police. They didn’t counsel any truckers to block a road. The word the Convoy leaders got from the Ottawa Police on Friday, February 11, to explain why they were stopping truckers from moving their trucks out of Ottawa, and off the side streets over to Wellington Street, was that they got their instructions to stop the trucks from moving from the Federal Government.”

Meanwhile, interim Ottawa Police chief Steve Bell told reporters “The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa is funded by the Ontario government and is empowered to seize children from families if necessary.” One trucker whose two teenagers were with him in his truck asked CBC reporter Joseph Tunney who was inferring his children were in danger said, “Are my children in danger for being in Ottawa? Is that what you’re saying to me? I have two teenagers here that are in my car. Are they in danger? Yes or no?”

Emergency Act

On the afternoon of Monday, February 14th, – Valentine’s Day – Justin Trudeau announced the invocation of the Emergency ActThe Emergency Act IS the successor to the War Measures Act.

The War Measures Act ceased to be in force the moment the Emergency Act was passed in parliament to replace it in July 1988. It was drafted by Perrin Beatty, Minister of Defense.

By the time Trudeau made his announcement, protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor had been cleared. While protests in Coutts (AB), Emerson (MB) and in the Pacific Highway Crossing (BC) were already in the process of being cleared by police using the legal powers they already had.

Yet, Justin Trudeau explained “It was only after we got advice from law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act.” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said, “We are listening to law enforcement. According to law enforcement we need the Emergencies Act.” 

But none of this was true. On May 11, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lecki told a joint Commons-Senate Committee, “No, there was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act. We successfully used a measured approach and existing legislation to resolve (the) blockades.” Neither did the Ottawa Police or the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The National Post observed that:

The Ottawa Mayor, if requested by the chief of police, could invoke (municipal) Section 4 to prohibit public assemblies, or perhaps more simply just impose an overnight curfew in the downtown area, so police could fine and even detain anyone not in their residence. Emergency management, whether for public welfare or public order, starts at the lowest level of government before it — if necessary — escalates upwards. The prime minister shouldn’t be declaring a national emergency if the only result will be to prohibit assemblies or impose curfews. Having declared a municipal emergency the mayor of Ottawa can do so, and the question is, why hasn’t he?”

During a press conference on February 17, a Francophone reporter pointed out that Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino had been “insinuating for days” that weapons were being brought to Ottawa, or were in Ottawa with the convoy. Mendicino replied, “I am not saying that there is an intelligence saying there are weapons in Ottawa.”

At a March 24 House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety, Conservative MP Dane Lloyd pressed Ottawa Police Service (OPS) interim chief Steve Bell to confirm “Were loaded firearms (at the Freedom Convoy) found? Yes or no?” Bell replied, “In relation to—no, not relating to any charges to this point…at no point did we lay any firearms-related charges. ”

The Trucker Freedom Convoy protest of 2022 paled in comparison to the FLQ Crisis in October 1970. In 2022 there was no organized terrorist group. Acts of terrorism had not occurred. There were no bombs, no explosions. No one had been kidnapped and held for ransom. The convoy organizers urged an end to vaccine mandates and pandemic restrictions. Unlike 1970, no buildings were destroyed. No one had been killed. Contained in the February 14 invocation was the clear wording of the Emergency Proclamation confirming Canadians had the right to go to downtown Ottawa to protest.

Freezing bank accounts

As part of the passage of the Emergency Act, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that bank accounts, pension funds, mortgages, insurance, and other financial assets by protesters – and those who donated to their cause – would be frozen. Martha Durdin, CEO of the Canadian Credit Unions Association, confirmed in her March testimony before a Parliamentary committee that there was a run on the banks. This took place immediately after Freeland made her announcement that they were going to freeze people’s bank accounts for making small donations to the Convoy cause.

Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson, told Viva Frei, “I have it from a very high source, that a) the banks realized what had happened when they saw how their customers reacted. Having people who don’t trust your institution…is bad for your business model. There were some people withdrawing millions of dollars from their accounts.

As well, big financial players in the investment community in the USA weighed in. They were asking if investing in Canada was now like investing in Venezuela or Cuba. “What just happened to Canada? I thought it had the rule of law. I thought  it had checks and balances.”

There was a phone call to the PMO from Wall Street which cautioned,“We are going to publicly distance ourselves from your actions. We are going to criticize your actions. You have 24 hours to reverse them.” So, Justin Trudeau held a press conference and said “circumstances have changed and now it’s time for Canada…”

By March 30, 2022, authorities had the bank accounts of 206 people frozen. Despite some reports in the press, Keith Wilson was not aware of any of the crowdfunding donors having their bank accounts frozen. Wilson said, “if someone in a retirement home in Lethbridge, Alberta, made a $50 donation because it was important to him, I think he’s just going to be fine.”

The implied threat by the Freeland to retroactively seize and freeze accounts of donors prior to invoking the Emergency Act on February 14, Keith Wilson claimed, was legal a non-starter.

The Freedom Convoy was a federally licensed non-profit organization. Media commentator Viva Frei remarked “The Convoy was never designated a terrorist organization. And you can’t just make it one – a terrorist organization – because you don’t like it.”

Cracking down on the convoy

On February 18th, police cracked down on the peaceful protest and disbursed the crowd. The mainstream media in Canada showed viewers tension in the air, but not police beating, or swarming, protesters with batons or ends of rifles. All-Day footage showed protesters experienced things differently here, and here.

The Financial Times of London wrote an editorial titled “Canada’s Illiberal Response to Protesters.”

FT warned:

“Canadian leader Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act this week in response to the occupation was a step too far… The measures are designed to respond to insurrection, espionage and genuine threats to the Canadian constitution rather than peaceful protest, no matter how irritating and inconvenient. The right to such protest is fundamental to a free society.”

Wall Street Journal headline asked “Will Canadian Democracy Survive Justin Trudeau?: His father invoked emergency powers in 1970—but that was against terrorists, not peaceful protesters.”

WSJ wondered:

will Canada return to its peaceful, democratic roots? Or will this episode transform into something more sinister and undemocratic. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has certainly acted like a tinpot dictator. Mr. Trudeau refused to meet with Freedom Convoy organizers or protesters in Ottawa…the PM was nowhere to be seen. Instead of finding ways to diffuse this tense situation, Mr. Trudeau’s approach was to throw more gasoline on the fire. The absentee Prime Minister would infrequently grace the nation with his presence to mock and smear his opponents.”

In another editorial, the paper concluded “Government’s job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties. Canada has failed on both scores.”

The Economist editorialized that “a wise government would listen to them (Freedom Convoy protesters) and respond politely, taking their complaints seriously and patiently explaining why COVID restrictions, though onerous, are necessary for the time being.” But if you followed the mainstream news in Canada, seldom was heard a discouraging word.

Canada’s mainstream media gave Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Emergency Act two thumbs up. Perhaps it helped that 1,500 Canadian media outlets received a total of $61 million from the Trudeau Liberals before the fall 2021 election.

Emergency Act lifted

The Emergency Act was enforced by the Federal cabinet bringing the act into force on February 14. But both Parliament and the Senate had to pass the act. As senators debated the measure it looked like it was going to be defeated. 45 of 91 Senators debating the Emergency Act indicated they would vote no. More had yet to speak.

As well, all the provinces had to pass the act within 30 days. Seven premiers had cautioned Trudeau against invoking the Emergency Act.

On February 23, once 45 senators indicated they would vote no, only one was more needed to signal a no vote and embarrass the Liberals. While the senators were still speaking, a press conference was hurriedly called. Prime minister Trudeau announced the Emergency Act was lifted, and it was now a time for “healing.”

Brian Lilley described the 180-degree turn-of-events in the Toronto Sun: “Less than 24 hours after defending the need to keep all the emergency powers he had granted his own government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dropped every single last one. Not just some of them. Not just the ban on taking minors into the area around Parliament Hill. He dropped all of them at 4 p.m. on Wednesday.

It is mind-boggling…

The worst part of this whole ordeal though is the precedent Trudeau and his government have set with the politicization of the Emergencies Act. Declaring a national emergency over concerns about tow trucks and some ineffective local policing is a pretty low bar.”

The convoy protest unfolded while most lockdown, or semi-lockdown, measures remained in force across Canada. Citizens made meaning of what was happening in their own bubbles, watching their trusted news sources to frame the story. The Liberals and the media succeeded in stampeding a majority of Canadians into a state of agitation and disgust toward the protesters. At most the protest could be construed as civil disobedience.

But an Ontario judge had ruled the protest was legal. It was never an insurrection, or an occupation. The long history of civil unrest has numbers of other incidents, like the 78-day Mohawk blockade or the Mercier Bridge in 1990.

Even after September 11, when 26 Canadians died in the terrorist attacks in the USA, amidst great chaos and confusion, there was no invocation of the Emergency Act.

Mandatory inquiry

In the United States, when the 9/11 Commission was impaneled, President George W. Bush declared the purpose of the inquiry was “to examine and report on the facts and causes relating to the September 11th terrorist attacks” and “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.”

However, it turned out the Bush White House didn’t actually want this at all.

Before the 9/11 Commission began its investigation, Executive Director Philip Zelikow drew up an outline of the final Report. Zelikow was the author of the paper justifying preemptive war in Iraq and neglecting Clinton White House briefings about al Qaeda in the transition to the Bush administration. Zelikow’s outline for chapter headings and sub-headings for the 9/11 Commission Report prescribed what narrative the inquiry would conclude.

During the course of the investigation, Zelikow decided who would speak before the commission, and whose testimony would be included or omitted from the Report. 9/11 victims’ families asked for Zelikow’s resignation.

The Trudeau government is mimicking the 9/11 Commission, viewed by many September 11th families as a cover-up. As required by law, an inquiry will report back to Parliament on February 20, 2023.

Trudeau has mandated Ontario appeals court judge Justice Paul Rouleau to focus on the actions of the Freedom Convoy protesters, rather than on holding the government accountable. Rouleau donated over half a million dollars to the federal Liberal Party between 1993 and 1997 alone. Rouleau’s instructions are:

(i) …to examine and report on the circumstances that led to the declaration of a public order emergency being issued by the federal government and the measures taken by the Governor in Council by means of the Emergency Measures Regulations and the Emergency Economic Measures Order for dealing with the public order emergency that was in effect from February 14 to 23, 2022;

(ii) to examine issues, to the extent relevant to the circumstances of the declaration and measures taken, with respect to

(A) the evolution and goals of the convoy and blockades, their leadership, organization and participants,

(B) the impact of domestic and foreign funding, including crowdsourcing platforms,

(C) the impact, role and sources of misinformation and disinformation, including the use of social media,

(D) the impact of the blockades, including their economic impact, and

(E) the efforts of police and other responders prior to and after the declaration…

The inquiry into the freedom convoy protest omits investigating the Trudeau government for its response to the protest. There is no requirement to scrutinize the choice not to meet with convoy leaders. No mandate to scrutinize the prime minister’s rhetoric about the working-class protest.

No scrutiny about the merits of suddenly requiring vaccination for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border. No scrutiny into how the prime minster’s own rhetoric may have been a catalyst for the protest itself. There is no instruction to Justice Rouleau to access the necessity to invoke the Emergency Act.

What’s left of the Canadian Left

In the midst of the freedom convoy protest, where was the Canadian Left? From the 1900s, the coming together of workers in a powerful way in order to demand greater rights, including the right to work, has been seen as a positive thing by the Left. Historically, whether it was the Dominion Labor Party, United Farmers of Alberta, Progressive, CCF, or the NDP, all have supported working-class strikes and protests of almost any kind.

But the face of the Left in 2022 is NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, egging on Trudeau to pass the Emergency Act.

It fell to former NDP MP Svend Robinson, who served as NDP’s Justice Critic when the Emergency Act was passed to replace the War Measures Act, to comment two days after Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergency Act,

I was in the House during 1988 debate on the Act, when we were promised that “emergency powers can only be used when the situation is so drastic that no other law of Canada can deal with the situation.” That test has not been met. The NDP can stop this. Will they?”

Yet this view wasn’t echoed by a single sitting member of the NDP parliamentary caucus in 2022.

In October 1970, NDP leader Tommy Douglas, while agreeing that the FLQ kidnapping was serious, told parliament the federal government had the option:

to deal with it (FLQ Crisis) under the powers which it now has under the laws of Canada…There are very considerable powers there. I think the government deserves some criticism because some of those sections have not been used.”

The same could be said for the considerable powers the federal government had at its disposal, in the Criminal Code, in February 2022. Yet, Jagmeet Singh endorsed invoking the Emergency Act before it was debated, before it was declared. Singh was part of the hysteria, warning Canadians about sedition, and a coup. Meanwhile protesters played hockey, gave food to the homeless, danced to the Macarena, and honked horns, and sang O Canada.

The Freedom Convoy protest reveals a growing class divide in Canada. This is accompanied by a huge disconnect between the Left and the working-class. When a real insurrection comes along, I’ll rush to my laptop and pen a call for patriots across our nation to “stand on guard for thee.”

Meanwhile, I’m waiting for our political establishment to reacquaint themselves with the meaning of words like inclusion, listening, tolerance, autonomy, mobility, accountability, and liberty. And why they still matter.

What is the future of civil disobedience, of protest, of liberty in Canada?

The Freedom Convoy has been framed as sedition, insurrection, a cause for the Emergency Act. What excuse will future governments cook up?

The convoy protests of 2022 has revealed, especially for the working class, not so much the fact of liberal democracy but the myth of liberal democracy. The mainstream narrative about the protest is a case study of how, through the clever and careful use of language, politicians and the media can manipulate the emotions of citizens, influencing their perceptions and actions.

The truckers for two years were lauded as heroes, but media spin and political ridicule turned them into enemies, “mercenaries.” The story we’ve been told about the truckers must not stand. In May 2022, 5 to 6 million Canadians are unvaccinated. Accepting the media spin about the trucker convoy as history ensures another group of people will be shown the door as Canada morphs into a society, based on who is “in” and who is “out.”

*

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

Ray McGinnis is the author of “Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored”.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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.

***

Continental Observer conducted an interview with Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Guillemain, a former Air Force pilot, who provides us with his analysis of the situation in Ukraine, but also on on NATO.

Continental Observer: Concerning the characteristics of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. How can an independent expert explain and comment on this?

Jacques Guillemain: First of all, I thank you for this interview, which allows us to contradict the dominant anti-Russian discourse. One day, historians will be able to sort out the truth from the falsehood. I do not claim to be an “independent expert”, but the observation of the real facts allows one to form an opinion, free from any one-sided propaganda. Every war has multiple reasons, and the key to any analysis is to remain objective. This is not the case in the Western camp, which is totally enslaved to Washington’s narrative, which amounts to designating Putin as the aggressor and sole culprit. The disinformation is insane.

However, for Vladimir Putin, it is above all a question of ensuring the security of Russia and its people, threatened by constant pressure from NATO since 1990.

It is all the same dismaying to hear that Russia is the aggressor, when NATO, despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, has found nothing better than to integrate 14 countries of the former USSR, thus going from 16 countries in 1990 to 30 members in 2022 and soon 32, with Sweden and Finland.

I would add that the Minsk agreements signed in 2015 by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France, providing for autonomy for the pro-Russian republics of Donbass, have never been respected. A war waged by Kiev against the separatist republics resulted in 13,000 deaths, but who is talking about it? And, it is proven that Kiev was preparing an attack on the separatists for March 2022, a reality that precipitated the Russian offensive. Putin does not want missiles on Ukrainian soil, just as Kennedy did not want them in Cuba in 1962. An obvious fact that our Western “experts” prefer to hide.

CO: Why is the German practice of creating “Festung” – fortress cities with civilians as “human shields” – visible in the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU)?

JG: Urban warfare is the response of the weak to the strong. It is estimated that in open terrain, the balance of power between the attacker and the defender must be 3 to 1 to ensure victory. But it increases to 6 or 10 to 1 in an urban war. An exorbitant cost for the attacker. A suicidal option that Putin refused in Kiev. There is no question of conquering the city district by district, house by house. There is no question of razing a city of 2.5 million inhabitants and adding up the civilian casualties, as the enemy does not hesitate to take over inhabited buildings, hospitals and even schools to protect itself from the Russian artillery.

It is obvious that the Ukrainian army has no chance of resisting the Russian army in a frontal clash in open terrain. The Ukrainians have never carried out any large-scale attacks and have totally suffered the invasion of the first three days of the war. Since then, the front has stabilized over 1000 km long and 150 km wide. The Ukrainians understood that urban warfare was their salvation, and this is what they practice, which explains the destruction in many cities, even if the Russians target only military objectives, not wanting to raze the cities and kill civilians.

In 1944, Hitler proposed the idea of “Festung” in cities that had operational or strategic importance. The enemy had to occupy these “strongholds” first in order to free up transportation routes for a new offensive. In August 1944, American troops began the siege of the French port of Brest. It was turned into a “Festung” by the German general, Bernhard Ramke, who held the defense for 43 days before surrendering. Many inhabitants of Brest were killed, starved to death or perished under the rubble.

CO: Can we see a similar military strategy with the Ukrainian army?

JG: Warfare in the shelter of fortresses has existed since the dawn of time. Messada, Alesia, Constantinople, to name only the most famous sieges. The Middle Ages were built around castles, these fortresses that were most often besieged, waiting for famine and disease to do the work instead of weapons. Therefore, it is understandable that the Ukrainian soldiers are entrenched in the cities. But, we must not forget that the Russians are perfectly informed about the targets to be destroyed. When Ukrainian soldiers hide in a civilian building, it becomes a military target, with the risk of collateral losses. The Russians fear that in the Donbass, the Ukrainians will generalize an urban war like in Mariupol, which would lead to inevitable destruction and civilian casualties.

CO: In Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian armed forces have not only taken Ukrainian citizens hostage. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, more than 7,500 foreigners are currently being held hostage in Ukrainian cities. Why don’t the French media talk about this?

JG: In this war, there is only one culprit, Putin, according to the Western narrative. Therefore, let’s not expect from our media the truth about the Ukrainian turpitude and exactions. We are never told about Kiev’s crimes in Donbass for eight years. Yes, it is the great silence on the civilians who are used as human shields, on the foreigners trapped by the war. But there is also a silence about the hundreds of foreign soldiers serving alongside Ukrainian soldiers, either as advisors or as mercenaries. We learn on the Russian side that NATO officers have been killed, but nothing filters through to the Ukrainian side. The best example is the Azovstal fortress, where Azov units, civilians and foreign soldiers were locked up. The siege of this factory seems to be over, since the civilians have been evacuated and 260 fighters have surrendered. The Russian command expects a lot from this partial surrender, rich in information of all kinds.

CO: During the war, the first strikes are made against the capital of the attacked state, the residence of its leader and the military headquarters. Why does Russia almost never strike the centers of political and military leadership, does not destroy key infrastructure – rail transport, communications, pipelines, bridges and other facilities for survival of the civilian population?

JG: In my opinion, Kiev was never a military objective for Putin. He probably thought that the Ukrainians would not object to the overthrow of a corrupt government, hated by the population. But Biden decided otherwise and saw in this Russian offensive, the unexpected opportunity to fight Russia by proxy. And Zelensky, manipulated by Washington, immediately took on the role of David against Goliath. The media artillery then took it upon itself to make the Ukrainian president the new Churchill and Putin a “butcher”. The result is that Ukraine, helped by forty nations, “resists” the Russian bear, but at what price? How many military losses? How many civilian victims? How much destruction? Only the Americans are the big winners of this useless relentlessness. Because Putin will not back down. Crimea and the Donbass will remain Russian. In my opinion, the “hero” Zelensky will have to answer to his people one day, for having refused to negotiate when there was still time. And, to answer the second part of your question, Putin never wanted to wage war on the brotherly Ukrainian people, but only on the regime in place and the Nazi units accused of abuses by Amnesty International and Human Right Watch. He first wanted to preserve all civilian infrastructures. He only decided to destroy them in order to block the convoys of arms supplied on a massive scale by the West.

CO: How do you explain the fact that Russia supplies Europe with gas via Ukraine?

JG: Putin would be wrong to deprive himself of this manna which brings him billions. He has almost doubled his income with the rise in prices, and these sales in rubles have enabled him to bring the ruble back to its pre-war level. As for the rights of passage that Ukraine receives, this is part of the give and take deals that we see in all conflicts.

CO: Why hasn’t Russia refused to honor the contracts?

JG: For the moment, Putin needs these contracts. Let’s not forget that the West has blocked, not to say stolen from Russia, $300 billion in foreign exchange reserves, half of the reserves of the Bank of Russia. A hold-up never seen in history. If France’s nominal GDP is 2500 billion euros, Russia’s is 1500 billion. Therefore, the main wealth of Russia, beyond its scientific geniuses, is its colossal mining resources, that is to say 20% of the world reserves!

CO: What position should France take in this conflict?

JG: A total neutrality. No arms to Ukraine, but massive humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people. Secondly, I am in favor of leaving the integrated command of NATO, which has become an offensive alliance at the sole service of Uncle Sam and in particular the American arms lobby. We do not have to be the Americans’ auxiliaries in their colonial expeditions worthy of the 19th century. Adventures that have all ended in fiascos.

CO: Finally, Sweden and Finland have declared that they want to join NATO. What is your opinion on this decision?

JG: I am opposed to it, but I hear that Putin is ready to accept this double membership, provided that no NATO base is established in these countries. And if Biden plays with fire, we should not be surprised if the world relives a new Cuban missile crisis, that frightening game of “nuclear poker” that was played in 1962 and brought the planet to the brink of the Apocalypse. Because Putin is not Khrushchev…

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on French Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Guillemain: “Ukrainian soldiers are entrenched in the cities”
  • Tags: ,

Biden Administration’s Ministry of Truth Stumbles

May 24th, 2022 by Philip Giraldi

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.

***

Finally some good news – maybe! The Department of Homeland Security’s recently launched Disinformation Governance Board has gone into what has been described as the “pause” mode and its controversial Director Nina Jankowicz has resigned, citing “vile personal attacks and physical threats.” Its status will reportedly be reviewed over the next 75 days and it will likely be rolled out more quietly next time around and under a different name.

The Board was developed to counter what was held to be unfair criticism of policies being promoted by the government.

Ironically, however, it has recently become clear that the White House itself has been doing much of the lying. It uses the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other government agencies to spread false information, referred to as disinformation, to dupe the public into believing that there is something good and noble about America becoming heavily involved in the war in Ukraine, with all that entails. And, of course, since the evildoers must be excoriated as that drama is playing out, good old Russia fits in admirably, particularly as the Democrats still like to pretend that it was Moscow’s interference that defeated Hillary in 2016.

A lie is a lie, but it is the ultimate irony when a government that is caught lying on a regular basis sets up an inquisition that seeks to identify and take action against ordinary citizens who are accused of spreading “disinformation.”

Of course, critics on the right immediately discerned that the disinformation will consist of anything that challenges the official government line on various issues, up to including pandemics, white supremacist domestic terrorism, aborting unwanted babies, and even the march to war.

Although the inept President Joe Biden Administration can rightly be accused of elevating deceit to a steady diet of malapropisms, one can trace the rise of egregious lying by heads of state to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and, more recently, to the criminal deceptions carried out by the George W. Bush Administration. Those lies led to the invasion of Iraq, which cost trillions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and which is still producing unrest in the region.

So now we were to be confronted by the Disinformation Governance Board, so designated under the august authority of the Department of Homeland Security to root out disinformation and those who are seeking to disseminate falsehoods about what our noble elected officials are doing to us in Washington. Followers of George Orwell inevitably, and almost immediately, dubbed the new creation the Ministry of Truth.

The official launch documents in late April claimed that the DGB would be “protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, & civil liberties” against the “threat of disinformation.” Its focus would be on “homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia,” meaning that it would be discrediting any source that complains about the flood of aliens crossing the US southern border or casting doubts on the necessity of supporting America’s Ukraine “allies.” In a follow-up briefing DHS elaborated that it would monitor threat “disinformation spread by foreign states such as Russia, China and Iran, or other adversaries such as transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations.”

And the board was to be headed by one Nina Jankowicz, a weird, highly politicized concoction who sang about her mission in a tweet entitled “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” while confirming that she would be the first executive director of the DGB. She has also written a book entitled “How To Be A Woman Online.” She has worked for the National Democratic Institute, the Democratic Party affiliate of the National Endowment for Democracy that promotes democracy worldwide. She has also been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

In an NPR interview responding to a question concerning Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, Jankowicz ridiculously opined that “I shudder to think about, if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would be like for the marginalized communities around the world…” Glenn Greenwald further described the new Disinformation Czar as having “herself ratified and helped spread virtually every disinformation campaign concocted by the union of the Democratic Party and corporate media over the last five years. Indeed, the only valid basis for calling her a ‘disinformation expert’ is that she has spread disinformation with such gusto. The most notorious of those was the pre-election lie that the authentic Hunter Biden laptop was ‘disinformation.’ She also decreed falsely that the origins of COVID were definitively proven to be zoonotic and could not have come from a lab leak, was a frequent and vocal advocate of the fraudulent Steele Dossier, and repeatedly pronounced as true all sorts of Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theories which Robert Mueller, after conducting an intense 18-month investigation, rejected as lacking evidence to establish their truth.”

Jankowicz’s boss Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas nevertheless claimed that she was “eminently qualified,” a “renowned expert,” and politically “neutral.” But to put that in context, her rather thin actual work history, heavy on being a Democratic Party apparatchik tied to the Clintons, oddly includes a stint as a Fulbright-Clinton fellow in 2017 serving as an adviser on disinformation to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. She sports the US and Ukrainian flags next to her picture on her twitter page.

Attempts by governments to shape their message by discrediting alternative viewpoints are not exactly new. Here in the US, suppressing contrary views is nearly as old as the republic. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 gave the president power to deport potentially “dangerous” foreigners and made it a crime to print “any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government. President John Adams supported these laws because he wanted to prevent a war with France, quite the reverse of what the Biden regime is seeking to do as it mobilizes against Russia. Vice President Thomas Jefferson was openly disgusted by the unconstitutional acts, which probably contributed to his election as president in 1800.

The Acts were subsequently allowed to expire and were never reviewed by the Supreme Court, but there is also the later example of the Committee for Public Information which was used by the government to support the war party line in World War One. There followed the Espionage Act of 1918, which is still in effect, that was used liberally by President Woodrow Wilson to silence critics of American entry into the war. The definition of what constitutes “espionage” was deliberately made infinitely elastic and the Act is still in use against whistleblowers and presumably also Julian Assange.

Given the language connected with the launch of the Disinformation Government Board, it might reasonably be assumed that it would have surely sought to suppress “malicious writing” and speech relating to the Biden sponsored wave of illegal immigration along the country’s southern border that has driven America’s foreign-born population to a record 46.6 million people. And, in addition to an increase in arriving Afghans, which was actually written into the bill proposing $33 billion more for Ukraine, there will surely be more Ukrainian migrants. Jewish organizations in the US, Europe and Israel are already actively bringing in co-religionists. Given political realities, displaced Ukrainian Jews will likely be quietly given refugee status granting them full benefits to include housing and welfare payments.

Not surprisingly, the surging wave of immigration is highly unpopular among working people who are already established, even among many Democrats, and the Biden response will be to compel the bad vibes go away, literally, by openly labeling critics as liars peddling disinformation. Whether there will be actual criminal or civil penalties attached to the process remains to be seen when the board is most likely resurrected under another name.

And, of course, the likes of Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Tom Massie, journalist Tucker Carlson and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard would have their views on the developing catastrophe in Ukraine challenged and denigrated, to include possibly arranging for their banning from social media sites, which is already being done to some critics. The fact is that we do not know at this point exactly what the new Board will eventually be empowered to do, but one can count on the results being bad, destructive both of the First Amendment and of honest journalism in the United States.

The ability of the government to collude with corporate America to diminish personal liberty of the citizenry cannot be understated. We have already seen corporations that operate on the internet proactively terminating accounts that it considers politically unacceptable. Consortium News, a perfect respectable site of long standing that has a splendid record of investigative journalism, was recently delisted by PayPal, which took the further step of confiscating its nearly $10,000 of funds with the threat that the money might be retained by PayPal as an additional punishment.

The reality is that the government can unleash its thousands of lawyers to make a case against nearly every citizen who is politically active. Which is why the Biden Administration has already been criminalizing and/or sanctioning any foreign organization that has “interfered in or undermined public confidence in United States elections,” as if the two major parties are not already doing that quite effectively all by themselves. If that is truly a crime why aren’t Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell being sanctioned?

In my own experience, I have dealt with threatened punishment regarding my contributing to and participating in the activities of an Iranian NGO and a Russian information site. Neither organization can plausibly regarded as a threat to the United States, though they both were highly critical of US government policies, as am I. In one case, American participants in a conference overseas organized by the Iranians were warned that they would be arrested upon return, which currently appears to be “due process” in the US. In the case of the Russian site, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) advised that any American writing for the site could be fined as much as $311,562!

The unfortunate reality is that the real damage is being done through the employment of government driven restrictions punishing ordinary citizens who are exercising their right of free speech and free association. It is easy to claim that a foreign news service or NGO is “undermining confidence in US elections” as it is a charge that one need not have to prove. Indeed, it is unprovable and it is a weapon that can be used to manage dissent and to narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. The question becomes whether and to what extent the successor to the now paused Disinformation Governance Board will attempt to apply similar standards to Americans. One might suggest that the barring of dissident US journalists and political figures from social media sites and from funding mechanisms like PayPal is the first shot to be fired in a long struggle over what is “truth” that will play out over the next two 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.

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

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 March 1, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, in an interview to France Info radio, described the Western sanction packages as “extremely effective” measures that would cause “the collapse of the Russian economy”. This has failed – the ruble has recovered, and analysts also expect Moscow’s trade surplus to hit record highs in the coming months.

The West did sanction the country in an unprecedented way, targeting its foreign reserves particularly, and, as response to that, worried citizens rushed to their banks to withdraw cash. The financial system thus seemed to be on the way to its collapse.

Imports fell, as expected, due to logistical disruptions and also due to the regulatory uncertainty that arose as a result of the new sanctions and their relative vagueness. For example, Kazakhstan’s vice-minister of trade and integration, Kairat Torebayev, complained in an interview to EURACTIV on May 13 that “nobody can tell me if Kazakhstan can sell yogurt to Russia”.

Moreover, the sanctions and the expulsion of some of the Russian lenders from the SWIFT network made it harder for firms in Russia to buy goods from the West. Initially, the ruble depreciated dramatically and there was talk of an inevitable default on Russian debts. With its assets frozen, and sanctions preventing its Central Bank from using about half of its $640 billion in foreign reserves (to pay back its creditors), plus rising inflation and capital flight, things certainly were not looking good.

However, at the end of March, the currency began to recover. By mid-April, its value had already reached 1 RUB = 0.013 USD, which was the rate just before Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine.

On April 26, the rouble hit a more than two years high (trading at 76.90 versus the euro) before it stabilized near 77. And, on May 5, it was then reported that the ruble briefly reached its highest level (against the US dollar) since March 2020. It hit a high of 65.31 per dollar.

Finally, on May 20, the ruble reached both its strongest level against the Euro since June 2015 (touching 59.02) and the strongest level against the US dollar since March 2018 (hitting 57.0750).

On May 19, Moscow stated that about half of the 54 Russian gas company Gazprom’s clients have opened accounts at the Gazprombank; analysts have attributed the ruble rally to this fact. The EU after all has allowed its member states to keep purchasing Russian gas without breaching the sanctions they themselves imposed on Moscow – by using rubles for payment.

But it is not just the currency that has recovered.

Exports are going well too. According to the Economist, Russia in fact can expect a record trade surplus.

Even though the Kremlin has ceased to publish detailed monthly trade data, one can still work on the data pertaining to Russia’s trading partners themselves.

The data available shows that China, on May 9, reported that its goods exports to the country did fall by more than a quarter (in comparison with last year), but its imports from Russia rose by over 65%. Based on data from the eight largest Russian trading partners, the Economist estimates that while Russian imports may have fallen by approximately 45% (since February), its exports, on the other hand, have risen by around 8%.

The Institute of International Finance (IIF), which is a bankers’ organization, estimates that the current-account surplus (including trade and financial flows) can come in at $250 billion in 2022. That is more than double the $120 billion that was recorded last year. Thus it would appear that sanctions in fact have boosted Moscow’s trade surplus. Even the exports directed to the West have been holding up well. The global rise in energy prices has boosted the revenues even further. Russian inflation is still high, but it is slowing. With economic activity indicators improving, the Russian authorities have reasons to be optimistic about avoiding a financial crisis.

The truth is that the Russian Federation, being an almost 140 million people market, comprises half of the whole Eurasian Union. The Russian market is quite irreplaceable from the perspective of these countries. Moreover, in Europe, there is no quick alternative for Russian energy sources.

Meanwhile, Germany’s inflation rate rose in April at its fastest pace since before the country’s reunification in 1981. This is fuelled by the rising energy prices, which in turn have been exacerbated by the current Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Similarly, with energy bills soaring, the UK inflation rate is rising at its fastest rate for 40 years.

At this point one can already say that the Western sanctions against Russia have failed and even backfired.

This means the West is losing the economic and financial war it waged against Moscow. Sending weapons to Ukraine is not working either.

This explains why talks of a cease-fire are being echoed by the main European leaders and by the US itself, even though the very same players had signaled their intention to a full-spectrum confrontation quite recently. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski has changed his hitherto uncompromising tone: speaking on national TV, on May 21, he stated that “only diplomacy can end the Ukraine war”.

The West is losing its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine – both militarily and economically. Now it has to reopen diplomatic channels. The only other choice is a global nuclear war.

*

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

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Robert Snow, a pilot for American Airlines, one of the top 3 largest airlines in the country, has 31 years of commercial airline experience and additionally seven years of experience as a U.S. Air Force pilot.

Snow says that he might not be able to fly again after he suffered a cardiac arrest only 6 or 7 minutes after landing a plane he piloted from Denver to Dallas Fort Worth (DFW).

He still had two more flights scheduled on April 9.

He believes that his cardiac arrest is connected to the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine he was forced to take in order to keep his job on Nov. 4, 2021, even though he already had natural immunity from previously contracting the virus.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist, told Newsmax that Snow’s case fits a “pattern.”

“There is no other explanation,” McCullough said about Snow’s case since Snow has no coronary disease.

“The MRI pattern is consistent,” the doctor said. “Indeed, it may have been vaccine-induced myocarditis with a late manifestation of cardiac death.”

In addition, he told The Epoch Times that he has received “several phone calls and communications from friends in the industry that do think that they might have had issues with a vaccine.”

Most alarming is that some pilots are “afraid to raise the flag and say, ‘Hey, I think I might have an issue because they’re afraid they’ll either lose their medical certification to fly, which if we lose our medical, we can no longer operate. We can’t be a commercial pilot anymore. And in worst-case scenario, which is what right now probably what I’m experiencing is you can’t fly at all. Period,” Snow said.

“I would just tell you that there are other pilots out there that have had concerns, not just pilots, also because it was an employee mandate. So we have flight attendants, we have mechanics, we have dispatchers, we have gate agents, you name it. Of course, for pilots, we consider that a safety-sensitive job so we’re a little bit more concerned from the standpoint of aviation safety; but yes, I have received calls from other pilots and other communications stating that they have concerns but because of the nature of this, they’re afraid to come forward.”

The veteran pilot had serious questions about the novel COVID vaccines that are supposed to prevent infection from the SAR-CoV-2 virus.

Vaccine booster efficacy also wanes over time.

What’s more, cases of myocarditis—inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis—inflammation of the lining outside the heart have spiked dramatically since the COVID vaccines started being administered worldwide.

He did not want to get the shot, but being the sole provider for his family, decided to take the risk.

Amid short sighs, Snow told The Epoch Times: “Initially, my employer was not going to force the vaccine on its employees. They subsequently changed their mind on approximately October 1, in conjunction with the executive office here in the United States mandate on federal contractors. They decided that now that they would enforce the vaccine mandate on all employees of the airline. And in regard to that, we were told that if we did not receive the vaccination we would be terminated. There was no question as to the sincerity at that time of their statement.”

Airlines, which are government contractors, were affected by President Joe Biden’s executive order from September that states all employees of those companies have to be vaccinated against the CCP virus.

The Epoch Times reported on December last year that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) was breaking its own rule that states pilots should not fly after having taken medications that have been approved for less than a year, according to a group of attorneys, doctors, and other experts; including another pilot who says his career ended due to adverse reactions from a vaccine.

“So I elected, after some serious consideration given that I was the sole source of income for my family, that I would go ahead and receive the vaccine. I didn’t want to,” Snow said.

“I had serious questions as to the safety and the efficiency and the effectiveness of the vaccine. I’d already had COVID. I’d already tested positive for antibodies, and really didn’t see the rationale for it. But, the only solution that might have been available to me to not receive the vaccine was to request a religious or medical exemption. Neither of which did I really feel like I should request. Medical exemption, I didn’t have any reason to not to, scientifically speaking, not receive it, other than the fact that it was issued under an EUA and not fully tested. And as far as a religious exemption, I didn’t see any reason to request that because I don’t really have a religious belief that would prevent me from receiving this particular vaccination. So for moral and ethical reasons, absolutely. But that wasn’t considered a valid reason not to get the vaccine.”

The veteran pilot had a sore arm for 10 days after getting the jab, and later experienced a strange pain that spread through his upper body.

Snow said that his arm became “pretty sore,” for 10 days, something which he didn’t experience with any previous vaccinations. For other vaccines for travel or in the military, he would usually have soreness for two or three days maximum.

Things returned to normal until January, then he recalled:

“I was on that course of a flight and noticed a strange pain while I was working on the overhead panel. …  I got a strange pain in my right shoulder, seemed to spread down to my lower right quadrant and then up into my chest and through my shoulder blades, which I thought was very strange, but I just kind of chalked it up to manipulating myself oddly on the overhead panel, maybe tweaked a nerve or something like that, because I really had no history of that whatsoever that I’d ever experienced. And so [the] pain went away after one or two minutes and then back to normal.

“When we finished that flight, I actually tested positive again for COVID for the second time, [the] first time I had it was in March of 2021. Second time then would have been in January of 2022—this is postvaccination mind you— and that was what I presumed to be the Omicron variant because it presented itself basically as just allergies, I kept sneezing a lot, runny nose and that was it, no fever, no chills, no nothing, no loss of taste and smell like I had the first time. So I went back to work, after the mandatory amount of time, and I started getting the pain again, only a little bit more frequently this time. So actually, with a history of gastrointestinal issues, I went to see a gastroenterologist he elected to do an endoscopy to take a look to see if I had maybe a hiatal hernia or something that was aggravating the vagus nerve. We also did an abdominal CAT scan.

“During the course of awaiting the results of the abdominal CAT scan, that’s when I had my sudden cardiac arrest and that was after the course of a flight from Denver to DFW. We had been on the gate just a few minutes after shutting the aircraft down, probably about six minutes, six, seven minutes after touchdown. And I stood up to collect my bags to proceed to the next aircraft. We were to finish up with another turn to a different city to come back and then finish the trip on day four. And that’s the last I remember, standing up collecting my luggage. And at that point, witnesses say I collapsed in the flight deck. And that’s all I know at this point. When I woke up, I was in the ICU at Baylor Scott and White in Grapevine Texas, having suffered a sudden cardiac arrest.”

He now has to wear an automatic external defibrillator or “life vest” that monitors his heartbeats, except when he showers when he is supposed to be monitored by a family member. The life vest is designed so that if the heart rhythm becomes abnormal, it will send a small shock to get it back to sinus rhythm, and if it detects full atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation, or any sort of fibrillation, it would send a much stronger shock to try to get it back to the right rhythm.

Albeit all this trauma, Snow feels very fortunate because he was able to get professional care immediately, which is not the case for many other people.

According to heart.org:

“Cardiac arrest is when the heart stops beating. Some 350,000 cases occur each year outside of a hospital, and the survival rate is less than 12 percent. CPR can double or triple the chances of survival.”

“If you look at the numbers … I try not to look too closely at them because it’s rather intimidating.” Snow said, referring to the survival rate of cardiac arrests.

“The thing that concerns me, is [that] this happened in the right place at the right time. Because if it had happened … any other time where I was either alone or beyond reasonable response time for a medical response, I wouldn’t be here having this conversation.”

John Pierce Law, who previously represented many prominent conservatives, is going to sue 18 major airlines, including American Airlines, focusing on the alleged unconstitutionality of the vaccine mandates that were imposed on the airline employees.

*

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.

Enrico Trigoso is an Epoch Times reporter focusing on the NYC area.

Featured image: A stock photo of an airplane taking off. (Mohamed Hassan/Pixabay)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Airline Pilot Suffers Cardiac Arrest Between Flights Post Mandatory COVID Vaccination

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.

***

 

 

 

 

 

Der vorliegende Appell ist das Bekenntnis einer freien Seele inmitten der Qual einer globalen Krise, die zu einer totalitären „Neuen Weltordnung“ (NWO) und einem anderen „Menschsein“ führen wird. Man möge keine Selbstschilderung darin erblicken, auch wenn der Autor von Erlebnissen in seiner Jugend ausgeht. Mit Absicht wurden alle politischen Fragen in den Hintergrund gestellt: ihnen kam in vielen Artikeln besondere Betrachtung zu.

Da das Denken und Handeln erwachsener Menschen nach wie vor von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ – kritiklos und umnebelt von Glücksverheißungen – bestimmt wird, ist der Autor der Auffassung, dass die Aufklärung im 17./18. Jahrhundert ein unabgeschlossenes Projekt geblieben ist. Die Autoritätsgläubigkeit führt unweigerlich zur Autoritätshörigkeit, die in der Regel den Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams und eine Verstandeslähmung auslöst. Vollsinnige Erwachsene können dann nicht mehr selbständig denken und vernünftig urteilen. Aber nicht nur ihre Intelligenz wird eingeschüchtert und herabgesetzt, sondern auch ihr Wille und ihr Selbstbewusstsein.

In religiösen Gemeinschaften beginnt die Erziehung zum Gehorsam bereits beim kleinen Kind. Es muss sich von allen am Erziehungsprozess beteiligten „Autoritäten“ – Eltern, Lehrern, Priestern – widerspruchslos führen und leiten lassen. Das autoritäre Prinzip in der Erziehung schließt sich ohne jeden Unterbruch an den „göttlichen Ursprung“ der Herrschaft und den Respekt vor allen „Autoritäten“ an, so wie er von der Kirche vermittelt wird. Somit machen sowohl die religiöse wie auch die autoritäre Erziehung die heranwachsende Generation gehorsam und gefügig.

Den Autor treibt die Sorge um, dass diese Erziehungsmethoden dazu führen werden, dass auch die junge Generation nicht in der Lage sein wird, die Welt einmal in eine andere Bahn zu lenken. Die wissenschaftliche Psychologie, die die menschliche Natur erforscht und gesicherte Antworten auf die Frage nach der seelischen Verfassung des Menschen bereithält, fordert deshalb eine neue „Aufklärung“, die die Erkenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie über die menschliche Natur mit einbezieht.

Dabei behauptet ein freier Denker nicht, dass er über die alleinseligmachende oder alleinglückverheißende Wahrheit verfügt. Für den freien Geist gibt es eine unbegrenzte Anzahl von zu entdeckenden und dem Wandel folgenden Wahrheiten.

Jean Meslier (1664-1729), katholischer Priester und französischer Radikalaufklärer aus der Zeit der Frühaufklärung, beantwortet die Frage, was wahr ist, mit den Worten:

„Wahr ist, was nicht dogmatische Fessel ist und die Menschen nicht in Gläubige und in Nichtgläubige oder Andersgläubige trennt, sondern dem Zusammenleben der Menschen nützt und ihr Einvernehmen fördert.“ (1)

Selbstverständlich bleibt es das unveräußerliche Recht des religiösen Menschen, aus den Bibelworten Offenbarungen der höchsten religiösen Wahrheiten zu schöpfen. Aber es ist ebenso die unbedingte Pflicht des Forschers, historische Wahrheiten nur aus ganz einwandfreien Zeugnissen zu folgern.

Nach Auffassung des französischen Physik-Professors und Präsidenten der Union der Atheisten, Francis Perrin (1901-1992), führt die Überzeugung, dass kein Gott ist, den Menschen nicht zu Verzweiflung oder Angst, sondern zu einem tiefen Verständnis für den Wert und Sinn des Lebens:

„Die feste Überzeugung, dass kein Gott ist und dass die angemaßten Antworten der Religionen illusorisch, töricht oder kindisch sind, wenn der Mensch, von Fragen bedrängt, über sein Los nachdenkt oder nach einem Sinn des Daseins sucht, diese feste Überzeugung führt keineswegs zu Verzweiflung oder Angst, sondern zu einer großen Ruhe des Geistes, zu einem tiefen Verständnis für den Wert des Lebens und zu einer hohen Vorstellung von der Würde des für sein Leben und seine Taten vor sich selbst verantwortlichen Menschen.“ (2)

Der in allgemeinverständlicher Sprache verfasste Appell soll auch dem interessierten Laien Einsichten in das menschliche Seelenleben vermitteln.

Er ist eine Ergänzung und Vertiefung des 2020 in Gornji Milanovac (Serbien) erschienen Buches des Autors mit dem Titel „Keinem die Macht übergeben! Ein psychologisches Manifest des gesunden Menschenverstands“ (ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5). Die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung“ (NRhZ) veröffentlichte im November 2020 einen Vorabdruck und eine Kurzfassung des Buches. Die Kurzfassung wurde auch von „Global Research“ in Kanada übernommen.

Da davon auszugehen ist, dass sich für den vorliegenden Aufruf kein Verleger finden wird, wird er als zweisprachiger Artikel (Deutsch und Englisch) per Internet verbreitet werden.

Einleitung 

Thema dieses Appells ist die Überzeugung des Autors – einem Lehrer, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologen –, dass junge Menschen sich sehr wohl zu frei denkenden, mutigen und moralischen Bürgern entwickeln können. Doch dazu müssen es alle für die Erziehung der Jugend Verantwortlichen unterlassen, die heranwachsende Generation auf ihrem Weg ins Erwachsenenleben mit verstandeslähmenden religiösen und autoritären Erziehungsmethoden „gehorsam“ und „gefügig“ zu machen.

Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung im 17./18. Jahrhundert war ein großer Umbruch in der Geschichte. Der Philosoph Emanuel Kant (1724-1804) formulierte den Leitsatz der Aufklärung: „Habe den Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen.“ Hinter dieser Aussage stand der Gedanke, dass der Mensch seinen Verstand gebrauchen und sich dadurch zu einer mündigen Persönlichkeit entwickeln soll.

Vor der Aufklärung war es von der Kirche und der Obrigkeit nicht gewünscht, dass der Mensch seinen Verstand gebraucht: Er sollte die „Wahrheiten“, die ihm von Staat und Kirche vorgesetzt wurden, als gegeben hinnehmen, ohne diese zu hinterfragen. Nun aber geriet der blinde Gehorsam gegenüber der Kirche ins Wanken.

Die Berufung auf die Vernunft als universelle Urteilsinstanz gilt als wichtiges Kennzeichen der Aufklärung. Dazu gehört der Kampf gegen Vorurteile, die Hinwendung zu den Naturwissenschaften, das Plädoyer für religiöse Toleranz und die Orientierung am Naturrecht.

Das Naturrecht, ein von der Natur gegebenes Recht sagt, dass es etwas gibt, was von Natur aus recht ist. Das Wissen darüber, was von Natur aus recht ist, macht es möglich, totalitären Ideologien und Diktaturen von einem festen menschlichen Standpunkt aus entgegenzutreten und ein Gefühl der Empörung gegen Unrecht und Unmenschlichkeit zu empfinden.

Seinen Anfang nahm das naturrechtliche Denken in der antiken griechischen Philosophie. Platon (427-347 v.u.Z.) ging davon aus, dass es objektive, absolut gültige Normen, Werte und Gesetze gibt, die nicht von den wechselnden Meinungen der Menschen abhängig sind. An den objektiven Ideen dessen, was Recht ist, müsse sich der Staat und die Staatsführung zu allen Zeiten orientieren. Das höchste Ziel im menschlichen Leben sei ein vernunftbestimmtes Leben.

Gesellschaftspolitisch zielte die Aufklärung auf mehr persönliche Handlungsfreiheit (Emanzipation), Bildung, Bürgerrechte, allgemeine Menschenrechte und das Gemeinwohl als Staatspflicht. Viele Vordenker der Aufklärung waren fortschrittsoptimistisch und nahmen an, eine vernunftorientierte Gesellschaft werde die Hauptprobleme menschlichen Zusammenlebens schrittweise lösen.

Nach Auffassung des Autors ist die Aufklärung jedoch ein unabgeschlossenes Projekt geblieben, ein unvollendeter gesellschaftlicher Emanzipationsprozess. Denken und Handeln der meisten Menschen wird nach wie vor beherrscht von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ und einem absoluten geistigen Gehorsam.

Dabei wird der Mensch weder religiös noch gottesgläubig geboren. Das geistig gesunde und „unverkrüppelte“ Kind gerät jedoch in eine Gesellschaft, in der wahnhafte Ideen und Illusionen vorherrschen. Wenn man versteht, wie die magische Weltanschauung auf das Seelenleben und die Vernunft des jungen Menschen wirkt, dann versteht man auch das unmündige Verhalten erwachsener Gläubiger.

Kaum zeigen sich beim kleinen Kind die ersten seelischen Regungen und es lernt zu sprechen, wird es von der Gesellschaft, den Eltern und der Kirche „in Obhut genommen“. Es wird ihm klar gemacht, dass sich sein Wesen bezüglich des Naturgefühls und der Weltanschauung nicht frei entwickeln darf. Will es verhindern, mit allgemeiner Verachtung und höllischen Peinigungen bestraft zu werden, muss es sein Wesen in eine bestimmte kirchliche Form pressen.

Mit diesem Vorgehen wird ein sehr starker und lähmender Druck auf die Kinderseele ausgeübt. Keine noch so diktatorische und totalitäre politische Organisation ist imstande, einen solch lähmenden Druck auf Kinderseelen auszuüben. Diese seelische Vergewaltigung ist schlimmer und nachhaltiger als jede körperliche. Das gleiche gilt für die Vergewaltigung des Geistes.

Der religiöse Glaube setzt neben Vernunft und Wissen eine magische Scheinwelt, der sich die wissenschaftliche Analyse nicht zu nähern hat. Die Religionen betrachten sich als etwas über Allem Stehendes, das nicht Gegenstand empirisch-rationalistischer Untersuchung sein darf – und auch nicht sein kann. Sie sind der Meinung, dass die Wissenschaft überhaupt nicht imstande ist, den Bereich der Religion, der göttlicher Herkunft sei, in seiner Totalität zu erfassen.

Wenn wir von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ und dem Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams ausgehen, dann müssen wir zum Verständnis seiner Ursachen einen Text heranziehen, den Ignatius von Loyola (1491-1556), der Gründer des Jesuitenordens, Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts verfasste und auf den das deutsche Wort „Kadavergehorsam“ zurückzuführen ist. In der vom Spanischen ins Lateinische übertragenen und von der Ordenskongregation 1558 veröffentlichten Fassung heißt es:

„Wir sollten uns dessen bewusst sein, dass ein jeder von denen, die im Gehorsam leben, sich von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen führen und leiten lassen muss, als sei er ein toter Körper, der sich wohin auch immer bringen und auf welche Weise auch immer behandeln lässt, oder wie ein Stab eines alten Mannes, der dient, wo und wozu auch immer ihn der benutzen will.“ (3)

Bereits lange Zeit vor Ignatius von Loyola verglich Franz von Assisi (1181/82-1226) die vollkommene und höchste Form des Gehorsams gegenüber dem Vorgesetzten mit einem toten, entseelten Leib, der sich ohne Widerspruch und ohne Murren hinbringen lässt, wo man will (4).

Der gehorsame Mensch muss sich gemäß dem Text von Loyola „von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen“ oder „Vorgesetzten“ widerspruchslos „führen“ und „leiten“ lassen als wäre er ein „toter Körper“ oder „entseelter Leib“. Auch die herrschende Schicht der Gesellschaft rechtfertigt ihre Herrschaft, ihre politische und wirtschaftliche Macht über die Gemüter der Menschen seit jeher mit dem ideologischen Begriff der „Autorität“. Und diese wird wiederum gestützt durch die Idee des „Absoluten“, das sich jeder Kontrollmöglichkeit durch die Erfahrung entzieht.

Für die „Herrschenden“ ist die höchste Kraft einer solchen Ideologie „Gott“ – als „unerkennbare“, „letzte“ Ursache und ethischer Gesetzgeber. So nennen sich etwa Könige „von Gottes Gnaden“ und sagen damit, dass sie ihre Inthronisierung von der göttlichen Instanz herleiten.

Da sich bereits das Kind von den am Erziehungsprozess beteiligten „Autoritäten“ widerspruchslos führen und leiten lassen muss, um auch noch als Erwachsener gehorsam zu sein, fordert die wissenschaftliche Psychologie eine neue „Aufklärung“.

*

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. Hagen, Friedrich (1977). Jean Meslier oder der Atheist im Priesterrock. Leverkusen und Köln, S. 37
  2. A. a. O., S. 7
  3. https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Kadavergehorsam
  4. A. a. O., S. 7
  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wissenschaftliche Psychologie fordert neue „Aufklärung“

What’s Biden’s End Game in Ukraine?

May 24th, 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.

***

Last week, President Biden signed a massive $40 billion military aid bill for Ukraine. Who cares that inflation is killing the American economy and mothers can’t even get baby formula. For Washington, spending on war and empire always seems to trump America’s interests.

To put this giveaway to Ukraine in perspective: just since late February, the US has provided nearly $60 billion in “assistance” to Ukraine. That is almost half that country’s entire 2020 GDP! Washington has literally adopted Ukraine in our name and on our dime.

The Biden Administration claims that Ukraine is winning the war with Russia and that such an expenditure to protect Ukraine’s borders is critical to our national interests and worth risking a nuclear war over.

But protecting Ukraine’s democracy is no longer the stated goal of the Administration. Defense Secretary Austin outlined the Administration’s new intention not long ago when he said that the real goal is to weaken Russia.

Biden’s neocons are fighting a war with Russia, but once again Congress has no interest in voting on a war declaration or even in debating whether war with Russia 30 years after the end of the Cold War is a good idea.

There is a reason our Constitution grants war powers to the legislative branch. Forcing Members of the House and Senate to declare the US to be in a state of war also enables them  – through the powers of the purse-string – to define the goals of the war and particularly what a victory looks like. That prevents the kind of mission-creep ahd shifting objectives that have characterized our endless wars in the 21st century – including this current proxy war with Russia.

Even the US mainstream media is beginning to notice. Last week the New York Times’ Editorial Board published an editorial originally titled, “What is America’s Strategy in Ukraine?” complaining that the Biden Administration has yet to answer any questions to the American people regarding its involvement in Ukraine.

While, as could be expected, the paper attacked the “isolationists” in the US Congress who opposed the $40 billion giveaway, the NY Times editorial board nevertheless registered what can only be seen as the first major sign of dissent among the usual media war cheerleaders.

They wrote:

…it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions. And the US aims and strategy in this war have become harder to discern, as the parameters of the mission appear to have changed.

While warning that Americans’ interest in Ukraine will begin to wane without more clarity from Washington as to its goals, the paper went on to directly contradict the Biden Administration’s predictions of a Ukraine victory:

A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.

Congress – with very few exceptions – has opened a financial spigot to the government in Kiev without asking a single question about how and why the money is to be spent. When Senator Paul simply asked for someone to keep track of the $60 billion we shipped over there he was met with near-unanimous opposition.

An endless supply of US taxpayer money to Ukraine with zero stated goals and zero oversight. Isn’t it time to stand up and demand that both parties in Congress start asking some hard questions?

*

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 The Last Refuge

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 president of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, weighed in on the effects of the UN-brokered truce and the future position of Yemen during a televised address carried by Al Masirah TV on 22 May.

According to the Yemeni president, the truce has resulted in very little alleviation of the suffering of the Yemeni people.

“The citizen did not feel a difference between truce and non-truce, which is not encouraging enough. We are not against extending the truce, but what is not possible is accepting any truce in which the suffering of Yemeni people continues,” Al-Mashat said.

Saudi Arabia has consistently violated the UN-brokered ceasefire agreement which started on 2 April.

By 9 April, the Saudi-led coalition had committed 1,647 violations of the ceasefire.

The violations consist of shelling residential communities, the seizure of oil tankers approved by the UN, and the launch of hundreds of illegal spy plane missions over Yemeni airspace.

The ceasefire stipulated that UN-approved fuel ships must be allowed to pass the Saudi-imposed naval blockade. Few ships have been allowed to enter Yemeni ports, despite having UN approval.

Another stipulation – the re-opening of Sanaa International Airport to commercial flights – was not honored until approximately one and a half months into the two-month truce, with the first flight departing on 16 May.

Two flights per week are being reportedly allowed during the remaining 15 days of the truce.

On this basis, President Al-Mashat affirmed the will of Yemen and its people for establishing a real and lasting peace, but said that it must coincide with their demands for ending the siege, bombardment and military occupation of Yemeni lands, as well as the start of reconstruction efforts to rebuild what was destroyed during the war.

On 17 May, the UN declared its intentions to extend the truce in order to begin negotiations to end the seven years of war.

The Yemeni president expressed the desire of his country to engage in real cooperation that leads to the improvement of humanitarian and economic situations in any truce.

Al-Mashat referred to the unelected council appointed by Saudi Arabia as the “Council of Shame,” stating that such a council was  responsible for killing Yemeni people and that “there was no difference between their position and that of the traitor Hadi.”

The war-torn country continues to experience one of the worst humanitarian crises as a result of the Saudi-led war and its economic blockade on Yemen.

*

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: Yemeni President Mahdi al-Mashat (Photo credit: Al Masirah / Al Mayadeen)

EU Gives OK to Pay for Russian Gas in Rubles

May 24th, 2022 by Julianne Geiger

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 EU has put an end to the lingering ambiguity surrounding how EU members can pay for Russian gas without violating sanctions.

Russia has demanded that countries pay for its gas in rubles, although European governments have struggled to find a way to oblige Russia while not running afoul of sanctions. Further complicating matters—until now—was the EU’s lack of clarification on whether such an arrangement would violate the current sanctions.

On Friday, Germany and Italy both told companies that they could open up rubles accounts in order to purchase Russian gas, in line with President Vladimir Putin’s request.

Russia’s request has companies opening up two accounts at Gazprombank; one in euros or U.S. dollars and another in rubles. Buyers would deposit the payment into one account in U.S. dollars or euros, and then it is automatically converted to rubles without the involvement of the Bank of Russia.

As of last week, 20 companies in the EU had opened accounts at Gazprombank, while another 14 had asked for the necessary paperwork to open up accounts. Germany’s VNG had already opened up an account with Gazprombank.

With the EU now clarifying that such an arrangement would not violate sanctions, additional companies are expected to file paperwork to open up ruble accounts.

But so far, Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland have refused to pay with ruble accounts. Russia has already cut off supplies to Bulgaria and Poland, and Russia said it would cut off gas supplies to Finland on Saturday.

According to Reuters, the EU has so far given out contradictory information, one version in writing on how to buy gas from Russia without violating sanctions, and a contrary version in a closed-door meeting that cautioned EU members not to open ruble accounts with Gazprombank.

*

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 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.

***

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot; her death was deemed to be caused by myocarditis due to the shot

Emergency calls 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

Pfizer deliberately excluded pregnant women from COVID-19 shot trials; the recommendation that the shots are safe and effective for pregnant women was based on a 42-day study involving 44 rats

Research conducted by the New York State Department of Health found the shots’ effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%

Considering the adverse effects and lack of effectiveness, many have called for an immediate withdrawal of the shots

*

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot.1 Initially, her cause of death was deemed inconclusive, but at an inquest, pathologist Dr. Sukhvinder Ghataura explained that he believes the COVID-19 shot was to blame. He told the coroner:2

“On the balance of probabilities, she had vaccine-related problems. There is nothing else for me to hang my hat on. It is the most likely reason, in my conclusion. It is more than likely Dawn died in response to the Covid jab.”

Government officials continue to deny deaths linked to Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shot. In the U.S., they’ve only acknowledged nine deaths as causally associated with Johnson and Johnson’s COVID-19 shot as of May 10, 2022.3 But this case, which occurred in the U.K., highlights the potential dangers of shot-induced myocarditis.

According to Ghataura, the woman had several signs of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, including inflammation of the heart, fluid in the lungs and a small clot in her lungs.

She had also reported menstrual irregularities, jaw pain and arm pain.4 When asked by a family member whether he believed the woman would still be alive today if she hadn’t received the shot, Ghataura said, “It’s a difficult question but I would say yes.”5

COVID-19 Shots Increase Heart Attack Risk by 25% in Youth

At the conclusion of the inquest regarding the woman’s death, assistant coroner Alison McCormick stated, “I give the narrative conclusion that her death was caused by acute myocarditis, due to recent Covid-19 immunization.”6 Myocarditis is a recognized adverse effect of mRNA COVID-19 shots,7 and one that has been named in other deaths.

Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, a CEO of a major health clinic, fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack.8 The autopsy stated myocarditis. He was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life. In another example, epidemiologists confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot.9

Both had received second doses of the shot. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology”:10

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy.”

An astounding study published in Scientific Reports further 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 2021 to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.11

The researchers evaluated the association between the volume of the calls and other factors, including COVID-19 shots and COVID-19 infection, but a link was only found for the shots:12

“[T]he weekly emergency call counts were significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group but were not with COVID-19 infection rates.

While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”

COVID Shots Weren’t Tested on Pregnant Women

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer attempted to hide COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years. “When I saw that, that’s when I got very vocal and said fraud has occurred. How do I know that? They won’t show us the clinical data,” former Blackrock portfolio manager Edward Dowd said.13 This should be a red flag for all Americans.

Now that a lawsuit forced the FDA to release thousands of the documents, data about what they were trying to hide is coming out. Among the revelations is evidence that Pfizer deliberately excluded pregnant women from COVID-19 shot trials. So how did they make the recommendation that the shots are safe and effective for pregnant women?

This was based on a 42-day study involving 44 rats.14 What’s more, a Pfizer-BioNTech rat study revealed the shot more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss and also led to a low incidence of mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae in the fetuses.15

A CDC-sponsored study that was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy,” according to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK).16

When the risk of miscarriage was recalculated to include all women injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 82% to 91%.

Also buried in one of the documents is the statement, “Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week …”17 What this means is Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.

Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’

“It looks to me — this is not an overstatement from what I’ve seen — that this was a clinical trial that by August 2021, Pfizer and the FDA knew was failed, the vaccines were not safe and effective,” said investigative author Naomi Wolf. “That they weren’t working. That the efficacy was waning … and that they were seriously dangerous. And they rolled it out anyway.”18

Regarding the shots for pregnant women, Wolf said, in an interview with Stephen Bannon on “War Room,” that a spike in severe adverse events among pregnant women coincides with the rollout of COVID-19 shots.

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) whistleblowers datamined the DOD health database, revealing significant increases in rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, along with cancer and neurological disease, since COVID-19 jabs rolled out.19 “This is honestly one of the wors[t] things I’ve ever, ever seen in my 35 years as a reporter,” Wolf said.20

Not only does IPAK’s data show COVID-19 injections prior to 20 weeks are unsafe for pregnant women, but 12.6% of women who received it in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening. Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.21

Young children are also developing severe hepatitis and nobody knows why.22 COVID-19 shots have been linked to cases of liver disease23 and liver damage following the shots has been deemed “plausible.”24

Confirmed: COVID Shots Affect Menstrual Cycles

It’s clear that there are many unknowns about how COVID-19 shots affect pregnancy and reproduction, including their effects on menstrual cycles. Women around the globe have reported changes in their menstrual cycles following COVID-19 shots, and health officials have tried to brush off the reports or label them all as anecdotal.

But a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — and funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health — confirms an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.25

Clinical trials for COVID-19 shots did not collect data about menstrual cycles following injection, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) does not actively collect menstrual cycle information either, making it difficult to initially determine whether the shots were having an effect. Anecdotal reports on social media, however, are numerous and, according to the study, “suggest menstrual disturbances are much more common …”26

The Obstetrics & Gynecology study involved 3,959 individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 years. Those who had not received a COVID-19 shot noted no significant changes in cycle four during the study compared to their first three cycles.

Those who received COVID-19 shots, however, had longer menstrual cycles, typically by less than one day, when they received the shots. The longer cycles were noted for both doses of the injection, with a 0.71-day increase after the first dose and 0.91-day increase after the second dose.27

While the researchers described the change as not clinically significant, meaning it’s not notable from a health standpoint, there were some women who experienced even greater menstrual changes, particularly those who received two shots in the same menstrual cycle. These changes included a two-day increase in cycle length and, in some cases, changes in cycle length of eight days or more.

Pfizer Shot Only 12% Effective in Children

Adding insult to injury, research conducted by the New York State Department of Health shows the dismal reality about the effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children.28 From December 13, 2021 to January 24, 2022, they analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 year, 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%.29 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.30

In the younger age group, the shots provided almost no protection at all. And it’s not only children who are affected by the shots’ rapidly waning effectiveness. COVID-19 booster shots also lose effectiveness rapidly, with protection plummeting by the fourth month post-shot.31 One CDC-funded study involved data from 10 states collected from August 26, 2021 to January 22, 2022, periods during which both delta and omicron variants were circulating.

Visits to emergency rooms and urgent care facilities, as well as hospitalizations, among people seeking medical care for COVID-19 were analyzed. The study did not include milder COVID-19 cases, for which no medical attention was sought.

While initially vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated emergency department or urgent care visits and hospitalizations was higher after the booster shot, compared to the second COVID-19 injection, effectiveness waned as time passed since vaccination.32

Within two months of the second COVID-19 shot, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits related to COVID-19 was at 69%. This dropped to 37% after five months post-shot. The low effectiveness five months after the initial shot series is what prompted officials to recommend a booster dose — and the third shot “boosted” effectiveness to 87%.

This boost was short-lived, however. Within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.33

Considering the adverse effects and lack of effectiveness, many have called for an immediate withdrawal of the shots. IPAK believes the data are already compelling enough to withdraw the shots for vulnerable populations, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and those of child-bearing age.34

Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, spoke at the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting held April 23, 2021, and also called for “all gene therapy vaccines” to “be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts,” including fertility.35

*

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, 2, 4, 5, 6 Independent May 6, 2022

3 U.S. CDC, Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination May 10, 2022

7 U.S. CDC November 12, 2021

8 BitChute December 28, 2021

9 Odysee February 17, 2022

10 Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine February 2022

11, 12 Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6978 (2022)

13 KLIM News February 15, 2022, 6:45

14, 20 WND May 4, 2022

15, 16, 34 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law Volume 4:130-143 November 2021

17 The Naked Emperor Substack March 29, 2022

18 WND April 18, 2022

19 Rumble, The Red Line With Dr. Robert Malone, Part I February 3, 2022, 18:48

21 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law Volume 4:130-143 November 2021, Further Discussion

22 NBC News April 15, 2022

23 Journal of Hepatology October 4, 2021

24 Food and Chemical Toxicology June 2022, Volume 164, 113008, Section 11

25, 26, 27 Obstetrics & Gynecology: January 5, 2022 – Volume – Issue – 10.1097

28 medRxiv February 28, 2022

29, 30 CNBC February 28, 2022

31, 32 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: 11 February 2022

33 The New York Times February 11, 2022

35 Halt COVID Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Latest Bad News About COVID Vaccines: Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’
  • Tags: , ,

Pressure Mounts on Patel Over Assange Decision

May 24th, 2022 by Joe Lauria

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

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

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

***

At some point during the next nine days, British Home Secretary Priti Patel will decide whether or not to extradite imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States to face espionage charges for publishing accurate information revealing U.S. war crimes.

Pressure is building from both sides on the home secretary.  Press freedom and human rights organizations, a Nobel laureate, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, journalists and Assange supporters have appealed to Patel to let Assange go.

While it would be deemed improper for outside influence to be brought on judges, it would not be fanciful to imagine that behind the scenes Patel is getting the message from the U.S. Department of Justice and possibly from U.S. and U.K. intelligence services about what is expected of her.

The home secretary should know without prodding what the U.S. and British governments want her to do. Patel is a highly-ambitious politician who no doubt will calculate how her decision will impact her career.

“Politicians think about their next election, they think about their voters … that’s what makes them tick,” Kristinn Hrafnnson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, told Consortium News at a protest outside the Home Office in London last Wednesday. “For the first time it’s in the hands of a politician, and Priti Patel, if she wants to think about her legacy … she should do the right thing.”

“Politics is a strange beast,” Hrafnsson said. “Anything can happen. I’m hoping this is something that will be taken up in the Cabinet here. Let’s not forget that Boris Johnson was a journalist. He was part of the media community and should have better understanding of this case than many others.”

Patel is acting after the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of a High Court decision to overturn a lower court ruling barring Assange’s extradition on health grounds and the danger of U.S. prisons. The High Court decided solely on conditional U.S. promises that Assange would be well treated in custody.

With the courts no longer involved and the decision solely in Patel’s hands, the case now is purely political, meaning political pressure can be brought to bear on the home secretary.

“The home secretary has the discretion to block this extradition, and there is a lot of pressure from civil society and press freedom groups for her to do so,” said Stella Assange at a film screening on Thursday.

She said the “heaviest” pressure had come from Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, “urging Patel to block it.” Mijatovic wrote to Patel on May 10, saying:

“I have been following the developments in Mr Assange’s case with great attention. In the judicial proceedings so far, the focus has mainly been on Mr Assange’s personal circumstances upon his possible extradition to the United States. While a very important matter, this also means, in my opinion, that the wider human rights implications of Mr Assange’s possible extradition, which reach far beyond his individual case, have not been adequately considered so far.

In particular, it is my view that the indictment by the United States against Mr Assange raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including information that exposes human rights violations. The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Mr Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond.

Consequently, allowing Mr Assange’s extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom, and could ultimately hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies.”

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquive has also written to Patel. “I join the growing collective concern about the violations of the human, civil and political rights of Mr. Julian Assange,” the Argentine wrote. He called the extradition request “illegal and abusive” and said it imperiled press freedom and could bring “potentially fatal consequences” to Assange.

Amnesty International released a statement at the end of April calling on Patel to deny extradition. “If the Home Secretary certifies the US request to extradite Julian Assange it will violate the prohibition against torture and set an alarming precedent for publishers and journalists around the world,” Amnesty said. It went on:

“Prolonged solitary confinement is a regular occurrence in the USA’s maximum-security prisons. The practice amounts to torture or other ill-treatment, which is prohibited under international law. The assurances of fair treatment offered by the USA in Julian Assange’s case are deeply flawed and could be revoked at any time. Extradition to the USA would put Assange at risk of serious human rights violations, and hollow diplomatic assurances cannot protect him from such abuse.

If the UK government allows a foreign country to exercise extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction to prosecute a person publishing from the UK, other governments could use the same legal apparatus to imprison journalists and silence the press far beyond the borders of their own countries.”

“There has been a huge mobilization all over Europe in many countries and 1,800 journalists have written an open letter to Priti Patel saying that this case should be blocked because it affects their safety because of the implications for global press freedom,” Stella Assange said.

Reporters Without Borders submitted a petition to Patel on Thursday with 65,000 signatures. It was delivered to British embassies in eight countries, Assange said.  More than  700,000 Australians have also signed a petition.

New Australian Government 

The election on Friday of just the fourth Labor government in Australia since the Second World War may bode well for Assange. The new prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said publicly that Assange should be returned to his native Australia.

It is now up to the new prime minister to pick up the phone and call Joe Biden to tell him that “enough is enough” means the prosecution must be dropped and Assange sent home. He also knows Patel’s phone number.

“Albanese, I hope he will stick to his promises and convictions,” Hrafnsson said. But he is skeptical. “I’ve been a journalist for 30 years to rely on politicians is something … I’d rather be betting on the card table I guess.”

Cross Appeal

If Patel decides to extradite Assange it’s not the end of the legal road for Assange. He has the option of launching a “cross” appeal to the High Court. Though he won in magistrate’s court on health grounds and the condition of U.S. prisons, the judge ruled on every other point of law in Washington’s favor.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied that the case was a political offense in violation of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty; that it violated the U.S. first amendment and threatened press freedom; and that Assange’s rights to due process were violated when it was revealed that the C.I.A. had spied on privileged conversations with his lawyers and she ignored testimony that the C.I.A. had discussed kidnapping or poisoning Assange.

“The judges will have all the other elements, the important elements, that were discussed by the magistrate’s court but disregarded by the High Court because it was not the appeal point,” Hrafnsson said. The U.S. appeal was only about Assange’s health and U.S. prison conditions and Washington won because it convinced the judges of the credibility of its conditional assurances to treat Assange humanely.

Since Baraitser’s Jan. 4, 2021 decision, other facts have emerged that could form part of the cross appeal. The C.I.A. plot against Assange was further corroborated by U.S. officials in a Yahoo! Newsreport. A key U.S. witness on computer charges against Assange recanted his testimony. And Assange’s health has further deteriorated when he suffered a mini-stroke last October.

Assange’s legal team hopes the High Court will hear the cross appeal on at least some of the nine points it would raise. “If Priti Patel signs the extradition, then we will be given the opportunity to seek to appeal on all the points that were lost,” said Stella Assange. “It’s basically as if we had lost back in 2021. That’s the position we are in now. ”

*

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

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times.  He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe  

Featured image: Priti Patel. (Number 10/Flickr)

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 Health Organization (WHO) on Friday held an emergency meeting to discuss the outbreak of monkeypox after more than 100 cases were reported across 12 countries.

Days before the WHO convened, the Biden administration placed a $119 million order for monkeypox vaccines after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed six people in the U.S. were being monitored for the viral infection, and one person had tested positive.

Belgium on Sunday became the first country to introduce a compulsory 21-day quarantine for monkeypox patients after reporting four cases of the disease in the last week, Politico reported.

The 100 newly reported cases, or suspected cases, garnered attention because many of them do not appear to be linked to travel to Africa, where in some regions, monkeypox is endemic.

Cases were reported in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. No deaths are reported as of yet.

The number of identified cases in Europe is a record, described by Germany’s armed forces medical services as “the largest and most widespread outbreak … ever seen in Europe,” while its spread in the U.K. was described as “unprecedented.”

U.K. public health officials warned more monkeypox cases are being detected “on a daily basis” and that there “could be really significant numbers over the next two or three weeks,” though they did not specify what “numbers” would be considered “really significant.”

The manner in which monkeypox may have spread — through sexual health services and sexual contact between men — also may have helped to heap attention on this new outbreak.

Many of the recent cases were traced to two “superspreader” events that involved situations in which men came into close physical contact, including 30 monkeypox cases in Spain traced to a single adult sauna in Madrid.

Monkeypox cases reported in Belgium appear to be connected to a recent gay “fetish festival.”

For some, these developments may bring to mind the early onset of HIV, which at the time was connected to sexual contact among males, and to remarks by Dr. Anthony Fauci that he visited gay saunas and bars during the early years of the HIV outbreak to understand how the virus was spreading.

WHO Europe regional director Hans Kluge last week expressed concerns about transmission at “mass gatherings, festivals, and parties.”

However, other public health professionals said there is a low risk to the public and a low likelihood that the epidemic will last long.

Meanwhile, questions are popping up about the similarity between a March 2021 tabletop “simulation” of a monkeypox outbreak and a similar simulation in 2019 — Event 201 — which correctly “predicted” the COVID-19 pandemic

Monkeypox — what is it?

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 in monkeys, although they are not the source of the virus. It was first identified in humans in 1970.

The virus is particularly prevalent in Central and West Africa and is considered a rare zoonotic disease, which means that it is caused by germs that spread between animals and people.

Monkeypox typically is spread by wild animals, such as in instances when a human is bitten or comes into contact with animal blood or bodily fluids. However, human-to-human transmission, while rare, is possible.

The virus is known to enter the human body through broken skin, the respiratory tract, or the eyes, nose or mouth, for instance through large respiratory droplets or through contact — including sexual contact — with bodily fluids or lesions, or indirectly through contaminated clothing or linens.

However, “common household disinfectants can kill it.”

A prior outbreak — the first to occur outside of the African continent — occurred in the U.S. in 2003, linked to animals shipped to Texas from Ghana.

And in July 2021, monkeypox was confirmed in a Texas individual who had returned to Dallas from Nigeria, according to the CDC.

Symptoms of monkeypox infection tend to be mild, and include fever, rash and swollen lymph nodes, and occasionally intense headache, back pain, muscle aches, lack of energy and skin eruptions which can cause painful lesions, scabs or crusts.

There are two strains of monkeypox: the West African and Central African strains. The latter is known as the deadlier of the two, but the cases identified in the recent outbreak all appear to have been caused by the milder West African strain.

Did March 2021 ‘pandemic exercise’ predict monkeypox outbreak?

In October 2019, just weeks before the outbreak of COVID-19, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, along with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, organized “Event 201,” a “high-level pandemic exercise” that mirrored what later followed with COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2021, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), in conjunction with the Munich Security Conference, held a “tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats.”

This “fictional exercise scenario” involved the simulation of “a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months.”

According to NTI, this exercise, which was “[d]eveloped in consultation with technical and policy experts,” brought together “19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.”

The exercise culminated in a report, published November 2021, titled “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conference.”

This report contains key findings from the exercise, as well as “actionable recommendations for the international community.”

The outcome of this “exercise scenario” found the fictional pandemic, “caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight,” led to “more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”

The fictional start date of the monkeypox pandemic in this exercise was May 15, 2022. The first European case of monkeypox was identified on May 7, 2022.

Key findings from the report included:

  • The “need” for “a more robust, transparent detection, evaluation, and early warning system that can rapidly communicate actionable information about pandemic risks.”
  • “Gaps in national-level preparedness,” which will require national governments to “improve preparedness by developing national-level pandemic response plans built upon a coherent system of ‘triggers’ that prompt anticipatory action, despite uncertainty and near-term costs,” described as a “no-regrets” policymaking basis.
  • “Gaps in biological research governance” in order to “meet today’s security requirements” and be “ready for significantly expanded challenges in the future.”
  • “Insufficient financing of international preparedness for pandemics,” and a lack of financing for countries to “make the essential national investments in pandemic preparedness.”

Key recommendations included:

  • Bolstering international systems “for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins,” calling upon the WHO to “establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system” and the United Nations system to “establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin.”
  • The development and implementation of “national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response,” including the adaptation of the “no-regrets” approach to responding to pandemics via “anticipatory action” based on “triggers” that would automatically generate a response to “high-consequence biological events.”
  • The establishment of “an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances,” that would “support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle — from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.”
  • The development of “a catalytic global health security fund to accelerate pandemic preparedness capacity building in countries around the world,” which would include “[n]ational leaders, development banks, philanthropic donors, and the private sector” with the aim of establishing and funding “a new financing mechanism to bolster global health security and pandemic preparedness” and that would incentivize “national governments to invest in their own preparedness over the long term.”
  • The establishment of “a robust international process to tackle the challenge of supply chain resilience,” based on a “high-level panel’ that would be convened by the UN secretary-general “to develop recommendations for critical measures to bolster global supply chain resilience for medical and public health supplies.”

The above recommendations were borne out in practice during the simulated monkeypox pandemic scenario.

As stated in the report:

“In national pandemic response plans, specific readiness measures would be ‘triggered’ based on factors related to the potential severity of the outbreak, expected delays in situational awareness, and the time it would take to implement response measures and see results.”

What would be “triggered” bears a remarkable similarity to the COVID-19-related measures of the past two-plus years.

The report states:

“Although triggered actions would vary depending upon the particular needs of the country, in most cases the goals are the same: slow the spread of disease to buy time and flatten the epidemiological curve, while using that time to scale up public health and medical systems to keep up with growing caseloads and save lives.

“NPIs [non-pharmaceutical interventions] such as mask mandates and ceasing mass gatherings were deemed to be critical for blocking chains of disease transmission.

“Participants generally did not endorse travel restrictions such as border closures, but travel health screening measures [i.e., vaccine passports] were viewed as valuable.”

According to the results of the simulated scenario, the fictional countries that “prioritized keeping their economies open, undertaking little-to-no NPIs, and downplaying the virus and its potential impacts … have experienced much worse outcomes in terms of illness and mortality” than those fictional countries that “promptly adopted aggressive measures to slow virus transmission,” such as “shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates,” in addition to establishing “large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations.”

Gates Foundation, pharma execs, WHO participated in monkeypox pandemic simulation

Who took part in the NTI’s monkeypox pandemic simulation?

Key participants included:

  • Dr. Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, global head of Johnson & Johnson Global Public Health R&D and Janssen Research & Development.
  • Dr. Chris Elias, president of the global development division of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  • Dr. George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the Chinese CDC).
  • Dr. Margaret (Peggy) A. Hamburg, interim vice president for global biological policy and programs at NTI, a member of the global health scientific advisory committee for the Gates Foundation and a member of the board of GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance.
  • Sam Nunn, a former U.S. senator who is the founder and co-chair of NTI.
  • Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program and a highly visible figure during COVID-19 times.
  • Dr. Petra Wicklandt, head of corporate affairs for Merck.

Several of the participants listed above also “participated” in Event 201.

The authors of the report also stand out for their background.

For example, Dr. Jaime M. Yassif, vice president of NTI global biological policy and programs, holds a Ph.D. in biophysics from the University of California-Berkeley and a master’s degree in science and security from the King’s College, London, war studies department.

Yassif previously led the initiative on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness at the Open Philanthropy Project, including the management of nearly $40 million in biosecurity grants, the “initiation of new biosecurity work in China and India,” and “establishment of the Global Health Security Index.”

She also previously advised the U.S. Department of Defense on science and technology policy and worked on the Global Health Security Agenda at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-author Chris Isaac, program officer for NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs team, “has been involved with synthetic biology through the Internationally Genetically Engineered Machines Competition since the start of his scientific career” and “is an alumnus of the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.”

The report is the product of a partnership between NTI, co-founded by Nunn and Ted Turner, and the Munich Security Conference.

Both NTI ($3.5 million, for “vaccine development”) and the Munich Security conference ($1.2 million) received funding from the Gates Foundation.

The report itself was funded by the Open Philanthropy project, one of whose main funders is Dustin Moscovitz, co-founder of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg.

Open Philanthropy, over the past decade, has provided donations and grants to the following entities and for the following purposes:

  • $166.9 million for “global health.”
  • $90.2 million for “biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.”
  • $18 million for “global catastrophic risks.”
  • $40.2 to Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
  • $17.9 to NTI.
  • $2.2 to The Guardian.
  • $1.6 to Rockefeller University.

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at center of multiple tabletop exercises

NTI and the Munich Security Conference are not new to “tabletop exercises” — their report highlights previous simulations, including a 2019 report titled “A Spreading Plague,” and a 2020 report titled “Preventing Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.”

Other simulations in the recent past, in addition to Event 201, include:

  • Operation Dark Winter (June 2001, less than three months before the 9/11 attacks and subsequent anthrax scare, “examining the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland”).
  • Operation Atlantic Storm (January 2005, “designed to mimic a summit of transatlantic leaders forced to respond to a bioterrorist attack”).
  • The Clade X exercise (May 2018, “to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue in order to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail”). Yassif helped develop the Clade X exercise.

The common denominator among all of these simulations? The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which published a document titled “The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028,” comprising “a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future.”

Predictions for the future don’t end there, however. For instance, in September 2017, NTI and the WEF organized a roundtable discussion on the current state of biological risks presented by technology advancement in light of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

And in January 2020, NTI and the WEF again joined forces, issuing a report titled “Biosecurity Innovation and Risk Reduction: A Global Framework for Accessible, Safe and Secure DNA Synthesis.”

According to the report:

“Rapid advancements in commercially available DNA synthesis technologies — used for example to artificially create gene sequences for clinical diagnosis and treatment — pose growing risks, with the potential to cause a catastrophic biological security threat if accidentally or deliberately misused.”

Merck, whose head of corporate affairs participated in the monkeypox simulation, was the subject of an FBI and CDC investigation in November 2021 regarding 15 suspicious vials labeled “smallpox” at a Merck facility in Philadelphia.

Bill Gates no stranger to predicting the future

Bill Gates has himself been remarkably prescient with his predictions of future events.

Here are some of Gates’ predictions:

  • In a November 2015 TED talk, he stated “[i]f anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war. Not missiles, but microbes.”
  • In a 2017 speech at that year’s Munich Security Conference, he said “the next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus,” arguing in favor of the merger of “health security” and “international security.”
  • In May 2021, Gates said “[s]omebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus so that the cost, the chance of running into this is more than that of naturally-caused epidemics such as the current one … [t]he ways the humans interact with other species, these viruses are coming across the species barriers whether it’s bats or monkeys.”
  • In November 2021, Gates publicly pondered, “[y]ou say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that? There’s naturally-caused epidemics and bioterrorism-caused epidemics that could even be way worse than what we experienced today.”
  • In February 2022, Gates warned that the next pandemic “… won’t necessarily be a coronavirus or even the flu. It is likely to be a respiratory virus. Because, with all the human travel we have now, that’s the one that can spread in such a rapid way,” emphasizing the significance of providing sufficient funds to the private sector and academia to build better vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.
  • Earlier this month, Gates called for the development of a so-called “Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization” (GERM) initiative, stating that present WHO funding was “not at all serious about pandemics” and that $1 billion a year would be needed to operate this initiative.
  • Also this month, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced “a new financial commitment of up to US$125 million to help end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future pandemics,” with much of the money going toward “strengthening health systems in low-income countries, enhancing integrated disease monitoring, expanding access to pandemic tools, and helping countries manage COVID-19 alongside other pressing health needs.”
  • In his new book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic,” Gates argues that, despite COVID fatigue, the world must focus on preparing for future pandemics, regardless of whether a disease is circulating.

*

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

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Monkeypox Cases Spread, Report Shows Gates Foundation, WHO, Pharma Execs Took Part in Monkeypox Pandemic ‘Simulation’
  • Tags: , , ,

Another Orchestrated Health Crisis in the Works? Smallpox Vaccine to Protect against Monkeypox

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 23, 2022

The corrupt public health officials in the Western world, who are shills for Big Pharma as they share in the profits of the drugs that they approve, are about to inflict on humanity a worst castrophe than the Covid vaccine. 

How Many People Have Been Killed by the COVID Vaccine?

By Josh Mitteldorf, May 23, 2022

Several scholars and statisticians have used different methods to estimate how many Americans the vaccines have killed. I took a stab at it myself. Credible results fall in the range 250,000 to 500,000 people killed promptly by the vaccines, about ¼ to ½ the number that the COVID virus has reportedly killed.

Over 100 Monkeypox Infections Detected in 10 Countries as Unprecedented Outbreak Spreads Globally

By Evan Blake and Benjamin Mateus, May 23, 2022

Much remains unknown about what is causing the outbreak, which is the most geographically dispersed and rapidly spreading monkeypox outbreak since the virus was first discovered in 1958. In the coming days and weeks, more data and scientific understanding will emerge, but already there is profound concern within the scientific community and among the public, which has found wide expression on social media.

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

By James A. Lucas, May 23, 2022

The largest WWII casualties  were China and the Soviet Union, 26 million in the Soviet Union,  China estimates its losses at approximately 20 million deaths. Ironically, these two countries (allies of the US during WWII) which lost a large share of their population during WWII are now under the Biden-Harris administration categorized as “enemies of America”, which are threatening the Western World.

History of Ukraine’s Nazi Connection

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, May 23, 2022

Britain’s parliamentary warlords have to date gladly provided £2.1 Billion to fund the Ukrainian war effort rather than budgeting to fix the UK’s gutted NHS, declining educational system, historic poverty or ever-increasing homeless population. With the deplorable state of the UK in mind, why does the British public continue to ignore this national decline in favour of Ukraine’s factual allegiance to neo-Nazism?

The History They Don’t Teach You in School: America and Russia Have a Long History of Collaboration

By Nancy Spannaus, May 23, 2022

History shows that, from the period of America’s independence struggle to the time of President John F. Kennedy, American statesmen sought and achieved alliances with Russia (including in the Soviet period) in their common interest. In each case these statesmen were leading representatives of the American System of political economy.

Globalization and Rampant Racism

By Jim Miles, May 23, 2022

Words are important.  Using the word ‘rampant’ in the title gives the real image of racism:  not some narrow right wing ethos that surfaces occasionally into violence, but something that is “violent or extravagant in action or opinion, arrant, aggressive, unchecked, prevailing.” (Oxford English dictionary). All wars and significant amounts of domestic violence throughout the world can be accurately viewed through the perspective of racism, racism prevails.

How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 23, 2022

Skyrocketing prices and food shortages are already looming, and are likely to become worse in the coming months. At present, many parents across the U.S. are running from store to store in search of baby formula and finding only empty shelves. How did this happen?

Dr. McCullough: ‘Medical Crisis’ Is Being Exploited to Push Global Government

By Emily Mangiaracina, May 23, 2022

Since the early stages of COVID-19, McCullough has spoken regularly about the dangers of the COVID shots, and about the suppression of effective early treatment for COVID. However, he has been mostly tight-lipped on the reasons behind the seemingly ubiquitous push for dangerous jabs, and suppression of effective treatment.

The Anatomy of Inflation

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, May 23, 2022

In my latest Alternative Visions radio show I break down the various causes of US inflation and its evolution from the summer of 2021 when it emerged to the present (and coming months). False narratives by US politicians–inflation due to too much government relief spending in March 2021, due to ‘Putin’s war, or due to US households’ flush with savings and cash–are exposed for the economic ideology they represent.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Another Orchestrated Health Crisis in the Works? Smallpox Vaccine to Protect Against Monkeypox

How Many People Have Been Killed by the Covid Vaccine?

May 23rd, 2022 by Josh Mitteldorf

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 science-based world, in the world we all want to live in, this question would be answered directly by institutions and agencies eager to collect safety information on a new medical technology, even as it was being rushed to market. But this is not our world, and in reality we have to glean bits of information from diverse sources and try to compare their implications to converge on a consensus view.

Several scholars and statisticians have used different methods to estimate how many Americans the vaccines have killed. I took a stab at it myself. Credible results fall in the range 250,000 to 500,000 people killed promptly by the vaccines, about ¼ to ½ the number that the COVID virus has reportedly killed. 

This includes only people who die within a few days or sometimes weeks after vaccination. Long-term health effects from the vaccines are thought to be predominantly detrimental, but difficult to quantify because they are just beginning to become apparent.

Medical journals that are worse than useless

Such is the captured state of our most prestigious medical journals that this article appeared in Britain’s “best” medical journal last month. The message they want to propagate is that “most reactions were mild”. MedPageToday summarized the Lancet study with the headline, “6 Months of U.S. Data Support Safety of mRNA COVID Vaccines” — a statement that goes well beyond the (distorted) claims in the Lancet, as covered by the Children’s Health Defender here.

“Most reactions were mild?” Well, yes, that’s true in the sense that there were a whole lot more headaches than deaths, and more sore arms even than headaches. But look at the absolute numbers! Deaths from the COVID vaccine have been 90 times higher than the previous most deadly vaccine in history, Shingrix.

This practice of looking only at the ratios of different kinds of vaccine injuries and not the crucial issue of absolute rates was introduced into the FDA protocol just last year, undoubtedly because the mRNA vaccines could never have been approved if absolute rates of injury were considered.

A measure called PRR = proportional reporting ratio is a complicated statistical algorithm that effectively makes most readers’ eyes glaze over. But Matthew Crawfordis not most readers, and he pointed out last summer that PRR had this diabolical property that the absolute number of injuries appears in both the numerator and the denominator, so that PRR is completely insensitive to the actual rate of injuries caused by the vaccine.

Long-term harm — no data yet

Here, I focus only on the short-term risk of death from the vaccines.

There is good reason to suspect that the mRNA vaccines have detrimental effects on the immune system and, in some cases, on the heart, the nervous system, and the reproductive system. Seneff and McCullough (with other experts) analyzed mechanisms of immune suppression from the vaccines, with potential long-term consequences for cancer, infectious disease, and other aspects of health.

Another recent publication documents that the RNA from the vaccines can be reverse-transcribed, with potential to become a permanent part of a person’s DNA. The implication of these findings is that some vaccinated patients may continue to generate spike protein for the rest of their lives, and that there is a possibility their offspring might also carry genes for the spike protein.

Sen Ron Johnson and attorney Tom Renz have obtained statistics from the US Medical Military Epidemiological Database.

Figures for 2021 show large increases in several types of cancer, MS, inflammation of the heart, and a variety of chronic diseases. This has large but yet unmeasured implications for long-term health of the vaccinated.

Renz also announced last year that an anonymous whistleblower within CDC had leaked to him unpublished data from Medicare and Medicaid patients. Among this group (about 60 million people), there were 48,465 deaths within 2 weeks of vaccination. These were concentrated among the elderly, but the rate was far above background death rates for all age groups.

Actual data from people vaccinated more than a year ago is just beginning to be available, and there is no substitute for compiling symptoms and statistics in the real world.

Nevertheless, I don’t hesitate to say that it was the height of irresponsibility for Pfizer and Moderna and FDA to have distributed mRNA vaccines to billions of human experimental subjects without even considering the question how long the spike protein remains active in the minority of cases where the mRNA is not efficiently eliminated and whether the RNA can reverse-transcribe to become a permanent part of a person’s genome, and the FDA stepped far outside its role as watchdog and protector in the health marketplace when it authorized (then approved) COVID vaccines with no data on long-term health effects.

Pfizer’s data

The FDA originally asked to withhold, for up to 75 years, Pfizer’s data, submitted to them in support of approval of their vaccine. But now some of this data is being released over about a year. This first data dump reports 1,223 deaths worldwide following vaccination through February 28, and suggests that about ⅓ of them are in the US. Based on 38.4 million US Pfizer vaccinations during this time period (CDC data), Pfizer’s own figures suggest a prompt fatality rate of 10 per million vaccination doses.

That would scale to about 6,000 American vaccine deaths today, assuming the rate remained constant, based on 558 million vaccine doses delivered (according to CDC). This is much smaller than the number of deaths reported to date to VAERS (11,700 US) and VAERS is generally considered to be substantially under-reported — see below. Incidentally, CDC treats all these deaths as coincidence, and has acknowledged just nine deaths from COVID vaccines, none of them from Pfizer or Moderna.

Pfizer’s reported 1,223 deaths is almost certainly an undercount based on what we have seen from other sources. But for the FDA, it was an unprecedented level of risk. For example, when the swine flu vaccine was rushed out in 1976, the vaccine was pulled abruptly from the market after 53 people died. 53 deaths were enough to pull the plug on a vaccination program in 1976; but the Pfizer vaccine was authorized by FDA with 1,223 admitted deaths, and later approved after more than 10,000 deaths had been reported to VAERS.

VAERS

VAERS, the 30-year-old Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, though deeply flawed, may be the best resource we have. There have been 12,000 US deaths reported to VAERS following receipt of the COVID vaccines in 2021 and 2022. We know that reporting to VAERS is not only voluntary but cumbersome and that most harms from vaccines are never reported to VAERS.

So to get from 12,000 to the full number of deaths, we need to multiply by a compensatory “underreporting factor”, URF. For every reported death there are URF total deaths, reported and unreported. A Harvard Pilgrim Study in 2010 concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”, or URF>100, but we expect that a single URF is an oversimplification.

More serious injuries that begin immediately after vaccination are likely to be reported at a higher rate (lower URF) compared to milder injuries that become apparent only weeks or months after vaccination. Deaths are a special case — the most serious of “adverse events”, but no patient remains to report the issue. What is the URF for deaths?

In the past, CDC itself has estimated its underreporting factor. Here [2020], they come up with numbers from 1.5 to 8 for various conditions. No CDC estimate has been made since the mRNA vaccines appeared. There are credible charges that VAERS has deleted reports and that social and economic pressures are used to discourage reporting of COVID vaccine injuries in particular.

This article from Massachusetts General Hospital is limited to anaphylactic shock in response to the COVID vaccines. This is the most obvious and most immediate serious (life-threatening) side-effect of vaccination. The authors calculate an underreporting factor between 50 and 123.  Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford compute URF=41 based on this same MGH data and corresponding reports to VAERS.

Jessica Rose estimates the underreporting factor using Pfizer’s own data for the 15,000 subjects in their trial and comparing the rate of severe side-effects in Pfizer’s trial with the numbers subsequently reported to VAERS when the same vaccine was distributed to the public. She arrives at URF=31. 12,000 reported deaths for mRNA vaccines might then correspond to 370,000 actual vaccine deaths.

More ways to estimate the death toll from COVID vaccines

There are other methods we might use to estimate URF, the number of VAERS cases that go unreported for each one that is reported. One is to look at excess all-cause mortality from all causes in 2021 (when the vaccines were introduced), and compare it to 2020 and prior years; another is to look at data from other countries or whole-world data.

Mark Skidmore has taken a direct approach with a broad-based national survey.

A fourth approach, which I undertook myself, is based on data reported by life insurance companies indicating that death claims in the working-age population (18 – 65) were up.

Edward Dowd, a securities analyst, posted his analysis based solely on CDC all-cause mortality data that for millennials (age 25-40), all-cause mortality is up 84% during this year of vaccination compared to what would be expected based on recent previous years.

The percentage is larger for the young millennials because the baseline number is smaller. In other words, the expected death rate among 25-40 year olds is low, so vaccine injuries show up as a larger percentage, and the result is easier to see.

This is evidence that while COVID-19 kills mostly older people, roughly in proportion to their baseline demographic risk, the COVID-19 vaccines take a relatively greater toll on younger people. Older people have exponentially higher probabilities of dying of any cause, and the COVID virus mimics the natural background rate, killing older people far more often than younger people. The mRNA vaccines also kill older people more often than younger, but the probability is not so strongly skewed, so, compared to background rates, vaccine deaths in younger people scream from the rafters as a statistical anomaly.

Since the beginning of 2021, there have been a lot of “excess deaths” (more than in previous years), and the numbers are too glaring to hide. Of course, the mainstream press is not even asking the obvious question, “could these be connected to the COVID jabs?” Everyone agrees the number of deaths is far in excess of what can be explained directly by the COVID virus.

The excess mortality for young people provides clear and compelling evidence for vaccine fatalities. We can extrapolate roughly from data pertaining to the young to the population as a whole using the VAERS database to estimate what portion of the deaths are in each age range. (In doing this, we assume that the URF does not depend on age, even though we know intuitively that it is far more likely that a VAERS report will be filed for a 40-year-old death than a 90-year-old death.)

Outright denial from the usual sources

This Lancet article, sponsored by the Gates Foundation, offers a model to help us understand the factors leading to excess deaths at various places in the world. They use statistical methods to select relevant variables, but, as you might guess, some salient variables like “vaccination rate”, “lockdowns”, and “use of ivermectin” were not under consideration.

The article finds that in addition to 6 million people who died of COVID-19 in two years of the pandemic, there were 12 million excess deaths that could not be traced directly to the virus. Their estimate of 18 million worldwide excess deaths agrees pretty well with The Economist’s model, described below, which centered on 20 million, with wide margins.

This is a list of the variables considered by the Lancet/Gates study for explanation of the increase in all-cause mortality.

This kind of study is called a “multivariate regression”. A list of possible causes is first postulated, each of which is correlated with the outcome, and with each other. The statistical procedure then tells you quantitatively what percentage of the outcome is explained by each of the candidate causes.

In this case, the outcome is the difference between the death rate in 2020-2021 and death rate before 2020. The fact that billions of doses of an experimental vaccine were delivered to half the world population during 2021 and not at time before stands out as the elephant in the room, but assessing vaccine risk was not on the agenda of this list of authors.

The list of candidate causes that they came up with is implausible because none of these factors changed between 2020 and 2021, and the most dramatic increase in all-cause mortality occurred in 2021. I assume that mass vaccination with a hastily-tested experimental technology is the most plausible candidate for the 2021 increase in deaths.

Skidmore survey

Prof Mark Skidmore is the same man who uncovered $21 trillion [sic] missing from Pentagon accounting three years ago.

Late last year, he conducted a modest survey of just 3,000 people, designed to be a representative sample of Americans. Results were published here. Skidmore was recently interviewed on Rumble.

He asked subjects about family members and people who died of COVID-19 and in parallel asked about people in the same group who died of the COVID-19 vaccine. He found 55 people who reported a fatality from inoculations compared to 150 people who reported a fatality from COVID-19.

The implication is that COVID vaccines have killed 37% as many people as the COVID virus. (Because of the small sample size, the percentage could be as low as 26% or as high as 47%.) An additional, more contingent, step in the calculation is to then calculate 37% of government estimates of COVID fatalities nationwide (996,000) to conclude that 365,000 Americans have died (promptly) from the COVID vaccinations. Skidmore himself hedges this extrapolation, and suggests the number is 294,000 for calendar 2021.

Deaths from all causes are up in 2021, far beyond the highs of 2020

Several research articles have been written based on research from The Economist. Their modelers brought together real world data and projections to come up with the best estimate they could of the number of excess deaths during the pandemic—those due to the virus, and those due to other causes, principally the responses to the pandemic. They estimate (with wide margins of error) 20 million excess deaths over 2 years, with only 6 million caused by the virus directly.

You can see that only 6 million of the excess deaths occurred in 2020, and 14 million in 2021. The virus was with us in both years, and the worst of the lockdowns and economic hardship was in 2020. The thing that distinguishes 2021 is that 11 billion doses of an experimental vaccine were administered to 58% of the world’s population.

1.9 million people died of COVID worldwide in 2020, and 4.0 million in 2021. This accounts for 2.1 million of the 8 million difference. If w attribute the remaining 5.9 million difference between 2021 and 2020 to vaccines, we can divide by 11 billion doses to get a mortality risk per vaccination = 0.053%. This translates to just over 300,000 US deaths, based on 577 million US doses. (This is my own calculation, unpublished and unsourced.)

Of course, there were other causes of excess deaths besides vaccines: deferred medical attention while hospital staffs were COVID-spooked, deaths caused indirectly by lockdowns and economic hardship, suicides, overdoses, and deaths from addiction while people were isolated and depressed. I don’t subtract these from the calculation above because I presume they were present about equally in 2020 and 2021. There were already 6 million excess deaths in 2020 which included both direct COVID deaths and deaths caused by the COVID response. An important assumption in this calculation is that in subtracting 14 million 2021 excess deaths minus 6 million 2020 excess deaths = 8 million “excess excess deaths”, I presume to have accounted for everything except the vaccine deaths. To the extent this is not true, this calculation of vaccine risk is an overestimate.

“Life insurance CEO claims deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”

This is a huge spike, by historic standards. Life insurance statisticians estimated a 1 in 1,000 chance that the number would fluctuate by as much as 10%. Since 1950, the year-over-year death rate in the US has never before varied by more than 1%. Clearly, something dramatic happened in the third quarter of 2021.

I have taken this headline (“Life insurance CEO claims deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”) and translated into a very rough estimate of the absolute number of deaths.

The result I got was that a dose of one of the vaccines has a probability 0.036% of being lethal for the 18-64 age group. This translates to 201,000 Americans killed by the vaccines. This number is lower than most of the estimates above, probably because I have made a straight-line extrapolation from the employed and healthy 18-64 age group to the population as a whole. In fact, the probability of dying from the vaccine is greater for the elderly and people who are too sick to work.

Details of the calculation are at the end of this article.

The bottom line

We can say with some confidence that several hundred thousand Americans have been killed promptly by the COVID vaccines, and that long-term effects are yet to be counted. Even though we cannot pin the number down more exactly, we have confidence in the magnitude because so many independent calculations roughly agree. The magnitude of COVID vaccine deaths, even at the low end of our estimate, is unprecedented in American medical history, and it screams out for a change in course.

Details of my calculation based on 40% increase in Life Insurance claims

To compute the expected number of deaths among 18-64 year olds for a calendar quarter, I started with two demographic tables. One was the number of Americans in each 5-year age cohort — 20-24, 25-29…. etc, from Statista.com. The other was a life expectancy table from the Social Security Administration which lists the probability of a person age x dying before he or she reaches age x+1. Both these tables were divided M/F.

To make the two tables compatible, I averaged the one-year probability of death in 5-year aggregates. Then, I multiplied each 5-year average by the number of people in the age group, added M+F to get the total number of expected deaths in a year. I divided by 4 to get the number of deaths in a quarter = 174,000. 40% of that number is 69,500. This is the increase in all-cause mortality (in ages 18-64) reported by the insurance executives.

To extrapolate from 18-64 year olds to the population as a whole, we can use the VAERS data, reported by age, and summarized in the histogram (bar chart) above. From that chart, it appears that about 26% of the VAERS deaths are in the 18-64 age group. If 69,500 deaths is 26% of the whole, then the number of excess deaths in the entire population is 267,000. This is just the deaths in the third quarter. There were 66 million doses distributed in the third quarter. So if we attributed all these excess deaths to vaccines, this calculation would lead to an implausibly high risk of death: 267,000 / 66,400,000 = 0.40%, equivalent to over 2 million vaccine deaths for the whole country, all dates. This tells us that either the claim by insurance executives (40% excess mortality in the working age population) is exaggerated, or not all of these deaths follow promptly on vaccination. I also suspect that the vaccines are damaging immune systems, so that there are delayed deaths of people vaccinated months earlier. Some of the excess deaths in the third quarter are indeed vaccine deaths, but they come from vaccinations in the first and second quarters. The long-term effects of mRNA vaccines represent a frontier in our knowledge that we are just opening.

The population that the life insurance executives were attending to were predominantly people who worked for large employers, because it is those employers who bought group life insurance policies. According to President Biden’s mandate, these people would have all been vaccinated in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2021 in order to keep their jobs. I assumed one vaccination per individual in the life insurance group during the 3rd quarter. So the number of doses is presumed equal to the 18-64 population, which was 193 million. Dividing 69,500 deaths by 193 million doses, I calculated the probability that a vaccine dose is lethal = 0.036% in this age group.

A straight extrapolation to the whole US population (558 million doses) suggests that 201,000 Americans have died from the COVID injections. This doesn’t take into account the fact that the vaccine is more likely to kill elderly people than the 18-64 age group for which we have data.

*

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 Unauthorized Science.

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

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.

***

An unprecedented outbreak of monkeypox virus has officially spread to 10 countries outside of Africa, with 107 confirmed or suspected cases reported as of this writing, in the United Kingdom (9 cases), Portugal (34), Spain (32), France (1), Belgium (2), Sweden (1), Italy (3), Canada (22), the United States (2), and Australia (1).

Much remains unknown about what is causing the outbreak, which is the most geographically dispersed and rapidly spreading monkeypox outbreak since the virus was first discovered in 1958. In the coming days and weeks, more data and scientific understanding will emerge, but already there is profound concern within the scientific community and among the public, which has found wide expression on social media.

In preliminary posts, scientists speculate that the virus, which is endemic in parts of Africa, could have evolved to become more contagious and better suited to human-to-human transmission. In addition, nearly all people under 42 years old have not received a smallpox vaccine (which is 85 percent effective at preventing monkeypox infection) since smallpox was eradicated in 1980. As a result, they have no immunity, and younger adults can be infected as easily as children. Since 2017, annual monkeypox cases have been steadily rising in Africa.

The fact that this monkeypox outbreak takes place amid the deepening COVID-19 pandemic has caused unease among a growing number of people, particularly those who have been alerted to threats to public health by the COVID pandemic. Over the past two years, the criminal negligence and policies of deliberate mass infection by the majority of world governments have needlessly killed over 20 million people worldwide. If capitalist society has disastrously failed to stop the preventable spread of COVID-19, what will transpire in the coming weeks and months with new or previously rare infections?

Since the peak of the global Omicron BA.1 surge in January, nearly every government outside China has scrapped all mitigation measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, falsely claiming that the virus has become “endemic.”

In the US, the Biden administration is presently doing nothing to stop the growing surge of the highly infectious Omicron BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 subvariants, which have once again driven the 7-day average of daily new cases above 100,000.

Due to the deliberate undermining of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, world society is deeply unprepared for this latest infectious disease outbreak, which could potentially develop into another parallel global pandemic.

On May 13, the World Health Organization (WHO) was first notified of two confirmed and one probable case of monkeypox in the same household in the UK. A British citizen who traveled to Nigeria developed a classic monkeypox rash on April 29, and subsequently returned to the UK on May 4, is considered a likely index case. Upon his return, he was immediately isolated and contact tracing identified chains of transmission, though health authorities indicated that onward risk of infections from this case is minimal. The source of infection in Nigeria has not been determined.

Regarding the UK cases, the WHO has stated,

“In contrast to sporadic cases with travel links to endemic countries, no source of infection has been confirmed yet. Based on currently available information, infection seems to have been locally acquired in the United Kingdom.”

The emergence of multiple cases across different countries is deeply problematic. Dr. Jennifer McQuiston, the Deputy Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) division of high consequences pathogens and pathology, told STAT News,

“Given that we have seen now confirmed cases out of Portugal, suspected cases out of Spain, we’re seeing this expansion of confirmed and suspect cases globally, we have a sense that no one has their arms around this to know how large and expansive it might be. And given how much travel there is between the United States and Europe, I am very confident we’re going to see cases in the United States.”

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, added his concerns, stating,

“There could be dynamic transmission here that we just haven’t appreciated because of the potential number of contacts.”

In nearly every public statement by epidemiologists, they have all admitted to being bewildered by how entrenched the virus already is in communities, given that it is normally extremely rare. Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told STAT News,

“this is starting off with much more of a foothold, in a much more distributed way, and we don’t understand how it got into those networks.”

The monkeypox virus was first identified by Danish virologist Preben von Magnus in 1958 from crab-eating macaque monkeys used as laboratory animals, hence the name of the disease and the virus that causes it. Unlike the single-stranded RNA-based SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, the monkeypox virus is a double-stranded DNA zoonotic virus, one of the human orthopoxyviruses that includes the variola virus which causes smallpox.

The incubation period lasts about one to two weeks and symptoms of overt infection begin with fever, headache, fatigue, muscle aches and swollen glands. After a few days of high fever, distinct lesions appear, first on the face before spreading to other parts of the body. The lesions begin flat, then raise, containing fluid and pus. The lesions then scab over and can leave scars. The course of illness usually takes two to four weeks.

According to the WHO, human-to-human transmission is normally limited, requiring close contact with respiratory secretions or skin lesions of an infected person or recently contaminated objects. Saliva and respiratory droplet transmission are possible, placing health care workers and their family members at risk of infection. Some studies have shown that monkeypox could potentially be airborne, similar to SARS-CoV-2, although this has not been definitively proven.

Asymptomatic transmission is theoretically possible. Patients with monkeypox can suffer from secondary infections, respiratory distress, gastrointestinal disturbances, vision problems, and brain inflammation. Treatment is supportive.

The number of severe side-effects of the smallpox vaccine makes its use in a mass vaccination campaign problematic. However, due to the long incubation period for monkeypox, the smallpox vaccine can work as a post-exposure prophylaxis in a “ring vaccination” model.

Monkeypox is endemic to Central and West Africa and found mainly in the rainforest regions. There are two natural groups of viruses split into clades (groups with common ancestry) from the Congo Basin and West Africa. The first human transmission was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC, then known as Zaire) in a nine-year-old boy in a region where smallpox had been eliminated two years earlier.

Since its emergence in human populations, monkeypox outbreaks have been primarily limited to the African continent. In a World Health Organization (WHO) surveillance between 1981 and 1986 in the DRC, 338 confirmed cases and 33 deaths gave the Congo Basic clade a case fatality ratio of roughly 10 percent, similar to SARS-CoV-1. The clade that has caused the current outbreak in Europe and North America is the milder West African clade, with a fatality rate comparable to SARS-CoV-2.

The first monkeypox outbreak outside Africa occurred in the Midwest of the US in the spring of 2003. The zoonotic source was pet prairie dogs that had been infected by African rodents brought in from Ghana. Since then, there have been more frequent reports of cases across the globe.

An outbreak in Nigeria that started in 2017 has been ongoing. The UK reported its first case of monkeypox in September of 2018 from a Nigerian national, and three additional cases were identified that winter. In May 2019, a middle-aged man traveling from Nigeria was hospitalized with monkeypox in Singapore.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, three cases in a UK household with connection to Nigeria were identified on May 24, 2021. On July 16, 2021, an American traveling from Nigeria was hospitalized.

A report published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases in April 2021, by Dr. Raina MacIntyre of the Kirby Institute in New South Wales, Australia, detailed the emergence of monkeypox in Nigeria, noting, “[t]he effect of a decline in individual-level immunity among vaccinated persons, as well as population growth in the [smallpox] postvaccination era, has substantially reduced the overall population immunity level within the past 45 years.”

Critical to the current global outbreak of monkeypox was the ending of the mass vaccination program for smallpox after it was eradicated in 1980, leaving the youngest in the population susceptible to monkeypox.

MacIntyre et al. wrote, “This contemporary susceptible population is composed mainly of working adults who maintain wider social contact and are more likely to engage in activities that include risk of animal exposures, such as hunting, farming, or trading bush meat. In addition, the expanding unvaccinated population means that entire households are now susceptible to monkeypox instead of just children, which enhances the risk of human-to-human transmission. In fact, the index case in 2017 was part of a five-member family cluster of cases.”

These observations for the Nigerian population are just as applicable to the global population. In a world deeply interconnected by travel and commerce, local outbreaks in one country are no longer isolated events.

As with COVID-19, the emergence of monkeypox and the lack of any internationally coordinated response by health authorities to address the crisis speaks to a much broader decay of public health precautions under the impact of the deepening crisis of capitalism.

The past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic and the deepening propaganda campaign that workers must “learn to live the virus” underscores the inability of capitalism to protect the lives and livelihood of the world’s population against any such threat.

It is both possible and necessary to eliminate monkeypox, SARS-CoV-2 and myriad other infectious diseases worldwide, but this will only happen through the development of a mass revolutionary movement of the international working class, the overthrow of capitalism, and the building of a world socialist society which prioritizes social needs over private profit.

*

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: Close-up of monkeypox lesions on the arm and leg of a female child in Bondua, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia. http://phil.cdc.gov (CDC’s Public Health Image Library)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Over 100 Monkeypox Infections Detected in 10 Countries as Unprecedented Outbreak Spreads Globally
  • Tags:

History of Ukraine’s Nazi Connection

May 23rd, 2022 by Brett Redmayne-Titley

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 UK government is funding a Nazi regime in Ukraine rather than prioritizing its domestic national interests.

Britain’s parliamentary warlords have to date gladly provided £2.1 Billion to fund the Ukrainian war effort rather than budgeting to fix the UK’s gutted NHS, declining educational system, historic poverty or ever-increasing homeless population. With the deplorable state of the UK in mind, why does the British public continue to ignore this national decline in favour of Ukraine’s factual allegiance to neo-Nazism?

Answer: the lies of the British media.

It is high time to factually challenge the British media cover-up of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi connection by exposing the inconvenient truths regarding its allegiance to Nazi-inspired Ukrainian leader Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian Right Sector, and the Azov Battalion whose swastikas are steeped in the blood from the slaughter of 14,000 eastern Ukrainians.

 

 

The origin of the war in Ukraine and its propagation of neo-Nazism can be traced back to the 2014 Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” that saw America help overthrow the legitimately elected president Viktor Yanukovych and create the terror of Maidan Square. Months before, Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland had publicly stated that the US had spent US$5 Billion to support US-style democracy in Ukraine. When that “democracy” spiralled into predictable national violence much to the dismay of European leaders, Nuland famously stated, “Fuck the EU.” A three-word synopsis for US democratic diplomacy then and now.

Regionally and culturally Ukraine is divided East to West, on either side of the Dnieper River with the capital, Kyiv at the north end. Eastern Ukraine is primarily culturally Russian and has been for centuries. The 1939 Molotov/ Ribbentrop Pact divided Ukraine along new borders and today western Ukraine is far more aligned culturally and politically with western Europe and the US. For these reasons, western Ukraine has great animosity towards the East, hence the 2014 election was very close and violent.

Yanukovych was from the Donbas of far eastern Ukraine and until the 2014 election, the people of the city regions of Luhansk (LPR), Donetsk (DPR), and the Donbas had little to fear from the Ukrainian government. These regions are the important industrial, manufacturing and mining centres of Ukraine while the western half is far more agrarian. Regardless, east and west lived in relative harmony post-1939 until 2014. On Feb 20 that year pro-democracy snipers murdered in cold blood forty-nine innocent Ukrainians and four policemen in one night during the US-backed post-election protests against Yanukovych at Maidan Square.    

The murders- falsely blamed on Russia- had the intended effect of sending Ukraine into a tailspin of East vs. West anti-Russian ultra-violence. Yanukovych abandoned the presidency and went to Russia and the parliament installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as temporary president until new elections brought to power Petro Poroshenko who was aligned with US interests and did nothing to restrict the growing influence of the neo-Nazi Right Sector or Azov Battalion.

Thus began the Ukraine war.

For the western media to cover up the neo-Nazi connection in Ukraine is the biggest lie of this war. I have recently returned from two months of reporting in and around Ukraine. Certainly, both sides are guilty of atrocity but I have seen a different kind of barbarity by the AFU that is beyond the pale of war because the AFU and the Avovs consider and treat all Ukrainian Russians, Jews and even peace advocates as vermin. They have given up all morality. I can bear witness to the killings of the innocent, the torture and killings of prisoners, the firing on civilian targets, the mining of the humanitarian corridors to prevent escape, and the execution of anyone who suggests peace much less negotiation, and I have seen the Swastikas and pro-Nazi tattoos scrawled on the hands, arms, necks and chests of the AFU killers.

This is evidenced by a Ukrainian politician, Andriy Parubiy. He has served as Deputy Speaker and Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament from 2014 to 2019, and Secretary of National Security and the Defence Council of Ukraine. Andriy Parubiy is a Nazi. He has proudly proclaimed this many times before his parliament, before the Ukrainian military and the public on TV.

V Nuland and A. Parubiy

Parubiy at the House of Commons, Canada

When Poroshenko was elected, Washington used this opportunity to open the flood gates into Ukraine for US weaponry and military training in preparation for its eventual de facto assault on the East and Russian influence there. As such, Ukraine incrementally became the largest military in Europe. It was also at this time that the previously suppressed “Banderists” dominated the AFU and Ukrainian politics, much to the pleasure of the US and NATO.

The Right Sector is admittedly disciples of Stepan Bandera and exerts neo-Nazi influence as they act as a political watchdog propagating their philosophy across Ukraine. The AFU is not exclusively Banderist but the massive Azov battalion stationed in the east is predominately so. Like Bandera, they hate Ukrainian Russians and Jews. The United Nations Human Rights Commission reported that the Azovs have killed over 14,000 eastern Ukrainians since 2014, as the East begged Russia for military assistance to help their regional militias fight back.

To stop this slaughter in 2014 Russia brokered a truce called the Minsk Protocols which the AFU ignored. This was followed in 2015 by Minsk II which also had no practical effect on the AFU genocide. For seven years this terror continued unchecked as Washington salivated in the wings for more dead Russians.

In 2019 Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian and actor famous for his role in the TV series, Servant of the People, defeated Poroshenko in a landslide by promising peace by honouring the Minsk accords and controlling corruption and the rising violence of the Right Sector.  But it took mere months for the Ukrainians to become the brunt of this comedian’s dark joke that saw him become, not a leader for peace, but a US and Banderist puppet.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and its divestiture of its many satellite countries in 1990, NATO had promised not to expand into these countries. However, almost without exception NATO expanded and began to ring Russia with US weapons and NATO influence. With Ukraine being the launching point for past wars against Russia, the Kremlin had made it clear to the US that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line.

For the UK media to suggest that Russia was not incrementally provoked into defending both eastern Ukraine and its own national interests is to turn the truth on its head. With Spring being historically the best time to begin a war, during February Zelensky ordered the Azov Battalion and the AFU to begin amassing 100,000 troops and munitions towards the east in preparation for a massive attack designed to take back the autonomous eastern regions.

The DPR, LPR and Donbas militias again begged Russia for intervention but Putin still refused. Instead, the Russians tried diplomacy and repeatedly contacted Washington and Kyiv in an effort not to militarily intervene. The demands were simple and rational: Abide my Minsk I & II; not attack the East; de-Nazify the AFU and not join NATO.

The US and Kyiv did not so much as respond. In an effort to get a negotiated response, and with the AFU continuing to amass forces eastward, Russia began to prepare its army on the Russian/ Ukraine border. Instead of negotiating with Russia for peace, Ukraine and the western media falsely screamed “Russian aggression.”

Then on the last week of February Zelensky did the unthinkable. He informed the US that he was now willing to allow US nuclear weapons into Ukraine.

The next day, February 24th, the Russian army crossed into eastern Ukraine.  Thus began the Russian / Ukrainian war and the incredible barbarity of the AFU.

For the western media to cover up the neo-Nazi connection in Ukraine is the biggest lie of this war.

I have recently returned from two months of reporting in and around Ukraine. Certainly, both sides are guilty of atrocity but I have seen a different kind of barbarity by the AFU that is beyond the pale of war because the AFU and the Avovs consider and treat all Ukrainian Russians, Jews and even peace advocates as vermin.

They have given up all morality.

I can bear witness to the killings of the innocent, the torture and killings of prisoners, the firing on civilian targets, the mining of the humanitarian corridors to prevent escape, and the execution of anyone who suggests peace much less negotiation, and I have seen the Swastikas and pro-Nazi tattoos scrawled on the hands, arms, necks and chests of the AFU killers.

Many facts are being covered up such as the network of US bio-weapons labs discovered across Ukraine and that the Ukrainian army is not winning this war, it is being decimated. Air Force, Navy, fuel refineries, supply and railway lines destroyed. 50,000 men dead with so many surrendering that the Russians are building larger POW camps. All men16-60 being- by law- conscripted as replacements. NATO munitions supplies destroyed as soon as they cross the polish border, and command and control communications centres are in ruins.

This day Boris Johnson‘s favourite democratic champion, President Zelensky signed a new law banning all opposition parties from existence after already arresting five generals and the main opposition leader, Viktor Medvedchuk as “anti-heroes” for the treasonous crime of suggesting peace.

Thus factually challenged here, the neo-Nazi connection properly exposed and the big lie of this war properly exposed is it not  time for an increasingly impoverished Britain to now demand of Mr Johnson, their parliament, and the British media the most fundamental, important and intelligent of age-old questions.

*

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.

Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last decade travelling and documenting the “Sorrows of Empire.” An archive of his many articles can be found at watchingromeburn.uk. He can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: 2015 march in Kiev to celebrate the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (pictured on black and red flag) (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.

***

Below are selected excerpts from an incisive opinion article published by The New York Post.

Our thanks to the NYP for having brought this to our attention.

***

Two decades ago, when I was 4 years old, my parents immigrated to Canada from India in search of greater freedoms, autonomy and economic opportunities. They’re core Canadian values — enshrined in our national anthem, which gloriously heralds “The True North strong and free.”

However, the past two years have seen a near complete erosion of the foundational liberal values that have attracted millions of immigrants like myself to this country.

Under the once-righteous guise of COVID safety and online protections, the Canadian government has taken its power to extreme levels once only imaginable — let alone permissible — in a dissent-stifling authoritarian state.

The control has extended to nearly every element of Canadian society, but nowhere more so than in our everyday personal lives.

Take my own case contending with Canada’s COVID bureaucracy a few months back.

I was returning to Canada from the US when multiple Air Canada employees refused to let me on the plane. Although I had a negative COVID test, the government was suddenly requiring even returning citizens to be vaccinated (unvaccinated foreigners were already barred from entering).

Since the most documented adverse effect associated with COVID vaccination — heart inflammation — is concentrated in young men ages 15 – 25, I chose not to get vaccinated. I am 21 years old, have already recovered from COVID and have no co-morbidities. I’m at low risk from serious COVID illness, which is why I remain unvaccinated. But this can make air travel difficult — especially in Canada.

Minutes before my boarding gate was closed, a sympathetic Air Canada staffer “begged” his manager to let me board the plane. “I just gave you a massive favor. No one else would do this,” he said as I finally made my way down the jetway.

In the Canada of Justin Trudeau’s making, you must now go to extreme measures simply to be allowed to return to your own nation. And for what?

COVID is just the beginning of the Canadian madness. The internationally recognized trucker protestsearlier this year were the most flagrant display of political control ever witnessed within the ranks of the Canadian government. After trying to dismiss the truckers as a “fringe minority” of “swastika wavers,”Trudeau manufactured a National Emergency in order to justify truly outrageous tactics. Not only did he suspend the insurance of the truckers’ vehicles, he regulated the cryptocurrency transfers and froze the bank accounts of folks simply donating to the trucker cause.

In my own small British Columbia town, Chilliwack (about an hour and a half from Vancouver), a single mother earning minimum wage who donated $50 to the Truckers Convoy allegedly had her bank account frozen.

But the crackdowns on truckers were just the tip of the iceberg.

I know a bank worker in my city who was fired for not getting vaccinated, despite working remotely. A food truck delivery driver in my city met the same fate. If any of this was about “science,” prior infection or regular COVID testing would have been a factor here, but they weren’t. Get the jab or get out.

Trudeau, who once professed to being cognitively unable to do basic math, has plunged the country into over $1 trillion in national debt for the first time in history. Everyday, that number surges by an additional $400 million. Canada is now at risk for stagflation: both economic stagnation and high inflation, as families are unable to meet their bills.

 

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.

Rav Arora specializes in topics of race, civil liberties, and spirituality. Follow him on Twitter @Ravarora1 and on Substack at ravarora.substack.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.

***

There was a time in the intelligence and diplomatic communities of the United States, when “intelligence” required study of the history and culture of other nations, and their historical relationship with our own country. The current conflict between the United States and Russia, dangerously escalating toward a potential World War III, begs for such an approach.

History shows that, from the period of America’s independence struggle to the time of President John F. Kennedy, American statesmen sought and achieved alliances with Russia (including in the Soviet period) in their common interest. In each case these statesmen were leading representatives of the American System of political economy.

These statesmen saw a common interest with leading Russians in developing their huge land masses through collaboration in scientific and technological ventures, raising the standard of living and conditions of life for their populations and assuring world peace.

Their successes, although constantly under assault and significantly sabotaged, were crucial in creating conditions for progress worldwide—as they intended. The stated commitments of the American System of Economics—advancing the productive powers of labor, scientific and technological progress, unleashing humankind’s creative powers of mind to “garden” the earth and the universe—led them to find common cause with Russian leaders who, for all their political differences with the United States, shared those aspirations.

In other words, collaboration with Russia on a principled basis is an American System tradition.

The three prime examples I will deal with here are Presidents John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In each case, their determination to develop our nation led them to seek alliances with Russia which had lasting positive effects.

While this article, a version of which was first published in 2017, is primarily addressed to an American audience, I believe it is also quite relevant for Russian readers as well.

First, Some Crucial Background

While it is beyond the scope of this article to deal in depth with the genesis of the pro-progress factions in both the United States and Russia, a few significant historical aspects should be noted.

The first was the influence of the great German philosopher/scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in both nations. The universal thinker Leibniz (1646-1716) headed an international network of scientists and statesmen who devoted themselves to building institutions that would serve the general welfare of their nations. He pioneered discoveries in economics as well as physical science, promoting the development of heat-based machines and scientific academies to foster such scientific work. He looked beyond ideology to find the higher principles upon which nations could be developed, as well as collaborate.

How was Leibniz connected to Russia and America? In Russia, he became an adviser to Czar Peter the Great, from which position he inspired the establishment of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1724), reshaped the structure of the Russian government, and promoted the remarkable development of industry in Russia under that Czar’s reign.

The institutions he created, especially the still-existent network of Russian academies of science, were crucial in producing the later collaborators with the United States. In America, Leibniz’s scientific and philosophical input came through the leaders of both the Massachusetts Bay Colony (such as Cotton Mather) and Philadelphia (led by William Penn’s secretary James Logan and the great American philosopher/statesman Benjamin Franklin).

Leibniz also had a more indirect influence through his follower Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss thinker whose writing on statecraft and international law had a major influence on Alexander Hamilton, among others.

A second major precondition for the policies of the three American System presidents we mention here was the critical role played by Russia in the formation of the League of Armed Neutrality, the 1780 pact among Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Prussia, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire to defend neutral shipping against the British Empire’s assaults on the French-American alliance in the American Revolutionary War. This action, while showing no political affinity of Empress Catherine the Great with the American republican cause as such, established a strong sense of sympathy and appreciation from the American side toward the Russians.

The third significant element involved the spread of American System economics to Russia. As early as 1792, Russian diplomatic circles were seeking access to Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, submitted to Congress the previous year. That report was then published in Russian in 1807, in a translation sponsored by the Ministry of Finance, with an introduction by Russian educator V.F. Malinovsky, who wrote, “The similarity of American United Provinces with Russia appears both in the expanse of the land, climate and natural conditions, in the size of population disproportionate to the space, and in the general youthfulness of various generally useful institutions; therefore all the rules, remarks and means proposed here are suitable for our country.”

The influence of Hamilton’s outlook persisted among Russian government circles, enhanced by the interventions of German adherents of the American System, like followers of Friedrich List, and finally coming dramatically into fruition in the late 19th century under Czars Alexander II and Alexander III.

We now turn to the first instance of documented close collaboration between Russian and American elites, that of John Quincy Adams.

John Quincy Adams and Russia

John Quincy Adams was the first ambassador to Russia, following the opening of diplomatic relations in 1807.

While in St. Petersburg, the capital of Russia at that time, he conducted a years-long dialogue on affairs of state, foreign relations and trade with Russian Chancellor Count Nikolay Rumyantsev. Rumyantsev’s devotion to American ideas and interests was such that, when he was ousted from office in 1813, he told Adams: “I could say that my heart belongs to America, and were it not for my age and infirmities, I would go now to that country.”

Image on the right: John Quincy Adams [Source: whitehouse.gov]

John Quincy Adams | The White House

Rumyantsev interceded to stop Denmark from aiding the British against America in the War of 1812, and even proposed to join the United States in its anti-British trade policy with South America—although this plan was nixed by the Czar.

In his subsequent career as Secretary of State (1817-25) and then President (1825-29), John Quincy Adams found his potential partners in Russia to be less amenable—Russia having acquiesced to the British and Austrian-engineered post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, but subsequent developments showed that the pro-American strain in Russian institutions was not dead.

For example, cooperation continued among engineering circles, particularly those involved in launching Russia’s railways. Engineer Pavel Melnikov was sent by Czar Nicholas I to the United States in 1839 to meet all the American railroad builders (the era of mass expansion of rail and canals began under Adams’ administration of 1825-1829).

His success is shown by the fact that he ended up hiring American engineers to help build the first major Russian railway, one from St. Petersburg to Moscow. World-famous railroad engineer George Washington Whistler ended up going to Russia to consult on the project; he died there in 1849, leaving a legacy of cooperation that lasted through the end of the century.

Abraham Lincoln’s Alliance with Russia

When Abraham Lincoln entered the office of the Presidency in the spring of 1861, Russian Czar Alexander II had just the day before abolished serfdom, which had held 20 million Russians in bondage to the land and its owners.

Biography of Alexander II, Russia's Reformist Tsar

Czar Alexander II at his desk. [Source: thoughtco.com]

Czar Alexander had been classically educated and was steeped in the ideas of the pro-American German poet of freedom, Friedrich Schiller. He also took power during the devastating British assault on Russia in the Crimean War (1853-56) and was painfully aware of the vulnerability which a society based on serfdom represented. (The United States supported Russia against the British in this war, although not with soldiers.) The new czar was determined to modernize Russia and, throughout his reign, which lasted until his assassination in 1881, encouraged and backed international collaboration that would help develop his nation.

Lincoln appointed the Kentucky anti-slavery politician Cassius Clay as his ambassador to Russia. From his post in St. Petersburg, Clay spread the word of the American System, especially the work of Lincoln’s chief economist, Henry Carey.

From the very start of the Civil War, the Russians expressed the “most cordial sympathy” for the Lincoln government. Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov wrote a highly publicized note to President Lincoln on July 10, 1861, in which he declared the Czar’s “sincere wishes” for U.S. success.

This was not just a sentiment. It was followed on October 29, 1862, by a formal Russian pledge never to act against the United States, and to oppose attempts of others to do so. The “maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation” was the Russian objective. It was also backed up by Russian refusal to join a British-inspired “mediation” effort between North and South, which would, in effect, have resulted in recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation.

U.S.-Russian Collaboration: An American System Tradition

Russian naval officers during their trip to the United States during the Civil War. [Source: americansystemnow.com]

The highlight of the close relations between Russia and the United States in this period was the deployment of the Russian fleet to both New York City and San Francisco in the fall of 1863. While these visits to “ports of call” were not explicitly intended as participation in the fighting (Russia insisted it was actually neutral in the Civil War), they provided enormous moral support for the embattled Union forces and Presidency. And, although they never had to carry them out, the Russian fleet in San Francisco had orders to defend U.S. forts from attacks by the Confederates, should they occur.

<p>The crew of the Russian frigate <em>Osliaba</em> during the American Civil War (Photo: Getty Images)</p>

Crew of the Russian frigate Osliaba while docked in New York harbor in 1863. [Source: usrussiarelations.org]

The Russian fleet was greeted in lavish style in New York City, with parades and a Grand Ball. When it went on to the port of Alexandria, Virginia, in December, Mrs. Lincoln herself joined the celebrations. San Francisco also put out the welcome mat, although in less lavish style. The fleets stayed in American waters until the spring of 1864.

<p>Cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln and Alexander II shaking hands as fighting and death take place around them (Photo: Getty Images)</p>

Cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln and Russian Czar Alexander II with fighting all around them. [Source: usrussiarelations.org]

Why was Russia so sympathetic to Lincoln’s United States? A pamphlet put out by the U.S. Naval Historical Foundation in 1969 cites the agreement between the two governments on getting rid of slavery, maintaining the Union, and supporting domestic manufactures through the protective tariff. The collaboration continued after Lincoln’s death, with visits to Russia by American military leaders, public figures, and engineers. The United States sent a naval force to Russia in 1866 after an assassination attempt against Czar Alexander II failed, and was greeted with a grand celebration. “May these two flags in peaceful embrace be thus united forever,” wrote Admiral Gustavus Vasa Fox, who led the 1866 U.S. naval force.

The Russians and the Americans saw their alliance as a stepping-stone to cooperation in economic development. In his Annual Address to Congress in 1864, President Lincoln touted the work under way on an overland telegraph linking the American and Asian continents across the Bering Strait. This link would be followed by the construction of the rail route, the Trans-Siberian Railway, which was accomplished under the leadership of Count Sergey Witte, an advocate of an American System approach.

Witte saw the completion of the railroad (1904) as “one of those world events that usher in new epochs in the history of nations and not infrequently bring about the radical upheaval of established economic relations between states.” He was thinking in particular of providing the basis for “recognition of tangible mutual interests in the field of the worldwide economic activity of mankind,” and the opportunity for “more direct relations with the North American states.” The railway would disclose a “solidarity of political interests” between Russia and the United States,” Witte wrote.

The route of Witte’s Trans-Siberian railroad, built with the aid of the United States. [Source: americansystemnow.org]

Among the significant Russian interlocutors with American scientists and industrialists was world-famous Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, then a member of the St. Petersburg Academy and government consultant, who visited the United States during the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. Mendeleev used his time in the U.S. to work with Thomas Edison, study the oil industry, and learn about the economics of America’s developing industries.

He was already familiar with the American System of Economics through his travels and time in Germany (through the List circles), but clearly developed them further during this trip. In 1891 he published a major piece on protective tariffs, which reflects the influence of his American collaborators.

Not to be overlooked in the 19th century, collaboration between the U.S. American System advocates and Russia was the Russian sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867. In Russia, supporters of the sale argued that Russia and the United States were natural allies in the Pacific Basin and that, if Great Britain were to try to seize “Russian America” (Alaska), the U.S. would be in a better position to defend it than Russia would. The British, for their part, were noticeably alarmed at the closeness of Russian-American collaboration.

FDR’s Policy Toward Russia

It was the United States that broke diplomatic relations with Russia (then within the Soviet Union) after the Bolshevik Revolution (1917). In early 1918, the Wilson administration invaded the country with six other nations in an attempt to restore czarist rule, but failed.

Though business activity certainly continued through the 1920s, official diplomatic recognition for the Soviet Union did not occur until Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared it in November 1933. FDR sidestepped the State Department professionals and braved significant public opposition in making this decision, but he refused to be dissuaded. The agreement was consummated in the Oval Office through personal diplomacy between FDR and Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov.

At the time FDR made this decision, all the other major powers had diplomatic relations with the Soviets, and he felt the United States could only lose by maintaining its isolation, commercially and strategically. Renewed relations were not easy, but when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, FDR moved immediately in support. He sent his personal emissary, Harry Hopkins, to Moscow to meet with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

This was followed by an official exchange of notes in August, in which FDR pledged support. Soon afterwards, the Soviets sent Washington a list of the supplies they urgently needed in order to carry out their defense. Despite continued opposition, FDR decided to use the Lend-Lease legislation, which had passed in March of that year (and was being used to supply Great Britain), to provide material support to the Soviets.

U.S.-Russian Collaboration: An American System Tradition

This statue stands in Fairbanks, Alaska, as a testament to U.S.-Soviet collaboration in World War II. [Source: americansystemnow.com]

Ultimately, the United States provided 250,000 tons of materiel, ranging from planes to tanks to foodstuffs, to the Soviet Union to aid in the war effort. The physical aid played a critical role in keeping the Russian resistance going. Meanwhile, FDR carried out personal diplomacy—through both Hopkins and Vice President Henry Wallace—to seek to establish a relationship with Stalin.

This was finally accomplished at the Tehran Conference in 1943, with the aid of humor at the expense of Winston Churchill. When Stalin burst out laughing at FDR’s ribbing of Churchill, FDR knew he had succeeded. FDR also went to bat against Churchill’s constant attempts to sabotage the invasion of France, the so-called second front, which the Soviets desperately needed in order to divert the Nazis from their mayhem in Russia.

FDR was convinced that patience and good will would make the Soviet Union a good partner in the post-war arrangements to keep world peace. As he said in Tehran, “we have proved… that the varying ideas of our nations can come together in a harmonious whole, moving unitedly for the common good of ourselves and of the world.” He had devised a plan for the United Nations that would recognize the Soviet Union as the great power it was.

Collusion with the USSR: Why did FDR's Vice President visit the GULAG and praise it? - Russia Beyond

Henry Wallace, FDR’s Vice President, third from left in front row, with Russian guides in Moscow in 1944. [Source: rbth.com]

The Soviets had borne the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, losing some 27 million people during the war. Had FDR lived into the post-war period, respect for that sacrifice and for the Soviet people would have dictated U.S. policy, and potentially cut the legs out from under the British initiative to go straight from the war against the Nazis to war against the Soviet Union.

The British, for their part, concentrated on destroying Soviet-American collaboration, which they considered a threat to their imperial interests. With Roosevelt dead, they succeeded, and the Cold War ensued. The American System’s albeit rhetorical posture to sovereignty, international relations, and progress was increasingly undermined, while the dangers to world peace escalated.

The JFK Echo

President John F. Kennedy attempted to continue the FDR/American System tradition in his brief presidency, including on the question of relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy’s decision to establish personal communication with Soviet leader Khrushchev upon taking office, played a critical role in allowing the Cuban Missile Crisis to be defused.

One of the most striking statements of Kennedy’s policy break with the Cold War mentality came in his June 10, 1963, American University speech, where he tackled the question of achieving world peace, and proposed the talks that ultimately resulted in the test-ban treaty. But, more interesting to us today than the final result is the approach which Kennedy took to dealing with the superpower which had—from Cuba to Berlin and elsewhere—become “the enemy.” I quote at some length:

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament—and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude—as individuals and as a Nation—for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward—by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable—that mankind is doomed—that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are man-made—therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable—and we believe they can do it again. …

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims—such as the allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars” …

[I]t is sad to read these Soviet statements—to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning—a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements—in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland—a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again—no matter how—our two countries would become the primary targets….

So, let us not be blind to our differences—but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the world.

The leaders of the Soviet Union were so impressed with this speech that they reprinted it in their press. The negotiations on the test-ban treaty did take place and succeed. Kennedy himself followed up with an offer on September 20 for joint work with the Soviets on space exploration.

What Will the Answer Be?

Kennedy was right. The current breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations is “man-made, and reversible.” The key is to revive those American System principles on the highest level, for they define the common interests which both nations (among others) have in cooperation for improving the lives of all people on earth through scientific and technological progress. Our history augurs it. Our future demands it.

*

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

Nancy Spannaus is the manager of the blog americansystemnow, which features many historical and topical articles on the political economy of the United States. She is also the author of the book Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles of the American System of Economics, available here. Nancy can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Statue of Abraham Lincoln and Czar Alexander II in Moscow that commemorates U.S.-Russian friendship in that period. [Source: twitter.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The History They Don’t Teach You in School: America and Russia Have a Long History of Collaboration
  • 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 corrupt public health officials in the Western world, who are shills for Big Pharma as they share in the profits of the drugs that they approve, are about to inflict on humanity a worst castrophe than the Covid vaccine. 

They are considering using smallpox vaccine to protect against monkeypox.  The New York Times, dependent as it is on pharmaceutical advertising, will support the next wave of orchestrated “health crisis” in service to vaccination profit.

Although complicit public health officials and Big Pharma will not admit it, many distinguished independent scientists have concluded that the Covid vaccine leaves the vaccinated immunocompromised. 

The smallpox vaccine was always dangerous even to those with good immune systems.  The result of giving smallpox vaccine to the immunocompromised could be to give them smallpox and thus reinfect the human population with a far more dangerous virus than Covid and monkeyvirus. 

The reason public health is threatened is not because of Covid or monkeypox or any other illness. 

Public health is endangered because public health authorities are marketing agents for pharmaceutical companies, and members of Congress are dependent on campaign contributions from Big Pharma for their reelections.  Those who are supposed to be watching out for the public’s health are instead watching out for their own interests.  This is why Covid with its masks, lockdowns, and untested vaccine was a catastrophe.

No one has explained why and how monkeypox, a problem in a small area of Africa, suddenly appeared all at once all over the Western world.  Was the virus released in order to continue vaccination profits and to further the pandemic controls that are on the verge of being handed to the World Health Organization? See this.

Are we about to experience another fear campaign?  Or is something even more evil in the works—population control by infecting the immunocompromised with smallpox?

The gullibility of Western peoples and the mendacity of their rulers is enormous.  No evil is beyond the likes of a Fauci.  The public has a perfect record of falling for every fear and brainwashing campaign.  Are we to expect another “health crisis” in the middle of a war in Ukraine that could widen, rising food and energy prices, rising national indebtedness, open European and American borders to immigrant-invaders whose care imposes high costs on European and American populations that cannot trust their own governments and whose living standards are falling?

Smallpox vaccination ceased four decades ago when the disease was wiped out.  Older generations who were vaccinated against smallpox are probably immune to monkeypox. Younger generations are not.  Most at risk are those whose immune systems have been compromised by the mRNA vaccines.

Here is some good solid information with which to arm yourself against the forthcoming lies from the New York Times and the rest of the presstitutes and from the many shills for Big Pharma.  Try not to be panicked a second time before we recover from the first: see Paul Alexander’s analysis:

Smallpox vaccine to prevent monkeypox could cause global smallpox (vaccinia) epidemic; I warn, do not be that stupid, understand you have damaged the immune systems of m (b)illions with COVID vaccines

Experts are saying the smallpox vax 85% effective in monkey pox; this is NOT good news, for millions/billions are now immunocompromised from COVID vax; smallpox vax, potential huge problems.

*

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.

***

It would be really difficult to believe that the United States is not in a proxy war with Russia if reports that it plans to send anti-ship missiles to Ukraine are true.

In fact, the State Department did not exactly deny this exclusive report from Reuters that Washington was readying to share the weapons capability to help “defeat Russia’s naval blockade…amid concerns more powerful weapons that could sink Russian warships would intensify the conflict.”

“As the conflict is changing, so too is our military assistance to deliver the critical capabilities Ukraine needs for today’s fight as Russia’s forces engage in a renewed offensive in eastern Ukraine,” a State spokesperson said on Friday.

The only thing that is being directly denied are assertions by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs adviser, who tweeted Friday that

the US is preparing a plan to destroy the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet. The effective work of the Ukrainians on [Russian] warships convinced [the US] to prepare a plan to unblock the [Ukrainian] ports. Deliveries of powerful anti-ship weapons are being discussed.”

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, asked about this at the briefing Friday, was adamant: “I can tell you definitively that that’s not true.” This unfortunately has the splitting hairs quality of the denial/non denial a couple of weeks ago when the Pentagon confirmed reports it was supplying targeting intelligence to the Ukrainian military but not specifically to sink Russian ships or kill its generals.

When asked whether the U.S. would be sending those anti-ship missiles, Kirby was more ambiguous:

We are — we are talking to the Ukrainians every day, as you know in fact, today’s another one of those days when the Secretary is going to talk to Minister Reznikoff about — we talked to them about their needs and our capabilities. And when we have decisions, we come right out here and we issue a press release and we tell you about that. So, I’m not going to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made. We’re doing the best we can to meet their — their capabilities in as near real-time as we can. And we keep trying to make those capabilities match what’s going on on the ground. And what’s going on on the ground right now is a very artillery heavy, long-range fire heavy fighting in the Donbas.

According to Friday’s report from Reuters, the U.S. is considering sending shorter range Harpoon anti-ship missiles, or the newer, longer range Naval Strike Missile, which can be launched from the coast and has a range of over 100 nautical miles. This missile is made by Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, but the company has teamed up with Raytheon for a more advanced application for the U.S. Navy.

The Washington response to the Reuters report has been tempered — we are dedicated to giving the Ukrainians everything they need. But the Ukrainian interpretation — the U.S. plans to destroy the Russian’s Black Sea fleet — is what the Russians are likely hearing. Moscow so far, has responded moderately: “You know, many weapons are being supplied to Ukraine from the West. And you know our attitude very well. There is nothing new about this,” said Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday. “The Russian military thoroughly monitors all these supplies and takes preventive measures.”

Also on Friday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanded that Russia lift its blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports in order for the country to export food and fertilizer, the shortage of which are creating crises across the globe.

“The Russian government seems to think that using food as a weapon will help accomplish what its invasion has not – to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people,” he said at the meeting called by the Biden administration. For their part, the Russians say they are willing to deal, as long as Western-imposed sanctions on Moscow are on the table.

Friday’s news indicates that Washington is edging closer to giving Zelensky more of what he has wanted in terms of long-range, heavy artillery and away from its insistence that the U.S. is averse to a more direct confrontation via proxy war with Russia. In that same Reuters’ report, sources said M270 or a similar rocket system like the M142 HIMARS would be considered for shipment to Ukraine once Congress passed a $40 billion supplemental funding bill.

Pushing forward with these more advanced weapons increases the odds of a wider war dragging NATO into the fray, and worse, nuclear conflict. If the U.S. has not yet decided to take this up a notch with anti-ship missiles, officials may want to consult more temperate voices before it reaches the point of no return. From my colleague Anatol Lieven:

US anti-ship missiles can do enormous damage to Russia’s Black Sea fleet; but they will not break the Russian naval blockade of Ukraine, because Russia has anti-ship missiles of its own, as well as air superiority, with which it can sink or intimidate ships trying to enter or leave Ukrainian ports. For the USA to break the blockade would mean deploying US warships as convoy escorts (as in the Persian Gulf during the — which would bring America into direct military confrontation with Russia.

This seems like the transfer of anti-ship missiles could set us on a slippery slope that Washington should want to avoid.

*

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: Llittoral combat ship USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) launches a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) during exercise Pacific Griffin. The NSM is a long-range, precision strike weapon that is designed to find and destroy enemy ships ((U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Kenneth Rodriguez Santiago)

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.

***

It was understandable why, on 29 November, 1947, the United Nations (UN) passed Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine and creating a Jewish state. In the wake of the Holocaust, there was a widespread sentiment that there should be some form of recompense to the Jews, even if it came at the expense of those who had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Nearly three-quarters of a century later, it is clear that this was a ghastly mistake. Even before the establishment of the Israeli state, some 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled. Since then, Israel has launched pre-emptive wars against all of its neighbours, but, above all, it has waged war on the Palestinians who remained in Israel and those who came under its rule when it occupied the portion of Palestine that it failed to capture in 1948, namely the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The time has come for the UN to recognise that Resolution 181 was a terrible mistake and to now revoke it and, with it, Israel’s legitimacy.

Israel’s targeted assassination of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, the subsequent police attack on her funeral and its brazen refusal to even open a criminal investigation, should be the last straw.

When we couple this with Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the latest being Masafer Yatta, this confronts us with a simple question: can Israel, as long as it is a Jewish state, ever live in peace with the Palestinians? Or are its only friends in the Middle East destined to be Arab despots?

For over 50 years, from The Roger’s Plan of 1969 via the Oslo Accords to John Kerry’s Peace Plan, Israel has made it clear that it prefers a Greater Israel to a peaceful settlement.

Even within the 1948 borders, Israel has been incapable of granting meaningful equality to its own Palestinian citizens. Even today, it continues to steal their land and pursues a policy of internal colonisation, which it calls “Judaisation”. How is Judaisation different to the policy of Aryanisation in Nazi Germany?

The 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law simply codified existing practices, making explicit what had always been implicit. Under this law, “Jewish settlement”, the colonisation of further Arab land, is a “national value”. This same law made it clear that only Jews were nationals of the Israeli state. Palestinians, including Arab citizens, were guests to be tolerated at best.

Israel is officially an apartheid state, and according to international law, apartheid is a crime. The UN has no alternative but to rescind Resolution 181. It is also evident that a Jewish state and a democratic state are mutually exclusive.

Just imagine that the British government had a policy of thinning out the black population of London with white Britons. This would be dismissed out of hand as racist, yet in Israel, this is the norm.

How can we account for the fact that half the Bedouin villages in the Negev are “unrecognised”, meaning they have none of the basic facilities that Jewish settlements have, such as government schools, running water or electricity? No polling booth is established in these villages. No matter how long residents have lived there, they are treated as squatters.

Al-Arakhib has been demolished over 200 times. Umm Al-Hiran was demolished in 2018 to make way for the wholly Jewish town of Hiran in its place. The Israeli state refused to contemplate a Jewish town co-existing side by side with an Arab village. As Adalah said:

“Israel’s demolition of Umm Al-Hiran Bedouin village & forced eviction of residents is act of extreme racism embodying colonialist land policies, backed by entire Israeli court system [sic].”

Israel, from its birth, has been an abnormal, settler colonial state where racism is the norm. Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed:

“Israel is not a state of all its citizens… Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people – and only it.” When MK Bezalel Smotrich addressed Arab members of the Knesset, telling them, “you are here by mistake – because Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and throw you out in 1948,” he said out loud what the Zionist “left” says quietly.

The question of whether, in a Jewish ethno-nationalist state, Palestinians can ever live as equals is a question that Western politicians prefer to avoid. The most basic and simplest of questions, when it comes to Israel, are too difficult for them. Instead, they retort with cries of “anti-Semitism”.

Zionist colonisation of Palestine began in 1882, nearly 60 years before the Holocaust. Today the Zionist movement weaponises the Holocaust against its critics. At the time, though, the Zionist movement saw the Holocaust as a distraction from its main goal – building a Jewish state.

The Palestine Jewish press even doubted the existence of the Holocaust, citing reports in the Nazi press to refute claims that the Jews were being exterminated: “Probably not even Goebbels in his wildest plans could have elicited the kind of treatment the Hebrew press accorded to information about the Holocaust.”

In a letter to President Roosevelt, the leader of American Zionism, Stephen Wise, admitted:

“It is indisputable that as many as two million civilian Jews have been slain. I have had cables and underground advices for some months, telling of these things. I succeeded, together with the heads of other Jewish organisations, in keeping them [the cables about the systematic mass murder] out of the press.”

Yoav Gelber, a history professor at Haifa University, observed:

“The fight on the Jewish front for the Zionist solution removed the Zionists and the Yishuv, even before the war, from rescue attempts and strategies not connected to Eretz Yisrael. This is shown by Weizmann’s refusal to attend the Evian Conference of 1938.”

Noah Lucas described:

“As the European holocaust erupted, Ben-Gurion saw it as a decisive opportunity for Zionism… In conditions of peace… Zionism could not move the masses of world Jewry. The forces unleashed by Hitler in all their horror must be harnessed to the advantage of Zionism… By the end of 1942… the struggle for a Jewish state became the primary concern of the movement.”

Albert Einstein gave a clear warning as to what would happen if a Jewish state were established. In a letter of 21 January, 1946, he warned:

“I am in favour of Palestine being developed as a Jewish Homeland but not as a separate state. It seems to me a matter of simple common sense that we cannot ask to be given political rule over Palestine where two-thirds of the population are not Jewish.” 

In his testimony on 11 October, 1946, before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Einstein confirmed: “I was never in favour of a state… I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and a narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.” Also in 1946, in a speech to the National Labor Committee for Palestine, Einstein expressed his fear about the damage that a Zionist state would do to Judaism: “I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks… A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualisation of our community which we owe to the genius of our prophets.”

It was not difficult to predict the path that Israel would take. The idea of “transfer” had been around as long as Zionism itself. Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land. The Nakba was inevitable.

Any student of European history should know that a Jewish state is a throwback to the Europe of the Middle Ages. The French Revolution of 1789 ushered in Jewish Emancipation and the separation of state and religion. Clermont Tonnerre declared in the Constituent Assembly: We must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and accord everything to Jews as individuals.” Zionism hated Jewish Emancipation because it would lead to assimilation. That was why the Zionists welcomed the 1935 Nuremberg Laws.

In the Europe of the 1940s, the Christian ethno-nationalist states – Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia – became the slaughterhouse of the Jews. Croatia was the only state under Nazi occupation that set up its own extermination camp, Jasenovac, for Serbs, Jews and Muslims. Slovakia was the first state to deport its Jews to Auschwitz. In a state where one’s civil and political rights depend on adherence to a particular religion, those not of that religion are bound to suffer.

Israel was born in violence and terror. The UN Partition Plan envisaged that Jerusalem would be subject to an international regime. This was unacceptable to the Zionists. When UN mediator Count Folk Bernadotte, who had rescued more Jews from the Nazis than the entire Zionist movement, visited Jerusalem in September 1948, he was assassinated.

MK Geulah Cohen of Lehi, the group that carried out the assassination, explained when asked if she still supported Bernadotte’s assassination: “There is no question about it. We would not have Jerusalem anymore.”

What is happening today in Israel is a product of a Jewish state. Sectarian violence and the continuing Nakba are integral to the state itself. Israel is a failed state whose only values are the worship of Jewish militarism. It is time it went.

*

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: Oslo Accords, the 25th Anniversary – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Resolution 181 Must be Repealed: The Creation of Israel and the Partition of Palestine Was a Terrible Mistake
  • Tags: , ,

Globalization and Rampant Racism

May 23rd, 2022 by Jim Miles

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.

***

Words are important.  Using the word ‘rampant’ in the title gives the real image of racism:  not some narrow right wing ethos that surfaces occasionally into violence, but something that is “violent or extravagant in action or opinion, arrant, aggressive, unchecked, prevailing.” (Oxford English dictionary).   All wars and significant amounts of domestic violence throughout the world can be accurately viewed through the perspective of racism, racism prevails.

It is a stubborn human trait,  a perseveration of the ability of greedy and powerful people to persuade, somehow convincingly, that there is some ‘other’ out there –  who [‘who’ is grammatically correct, but within this context ‘that’ would imply something ‘other’ than human] – that is to be reviled and over-ridden in pursuit of one’s own gain.   Many recent events have highlighted the ubiquity of racism, as have many events of the recent and historical past.

Assassination

In Palestine a well known and widely respected journalist and reporter was murdered by an Israeli sniper.   In Israel this is not unusual, that journalists are targeted, but it is significant in the obvious manner in which it occurred.  Marked clearly as ‘Press’, standing with others clearly marked similarly, Shereen Abu Aqleh was killed with a high precision shot that hit her in the face between her helmet and flak jacket collar.  Israel came up with the usual excuses, denials, obfuscations and only after some international blowback to consider an ‘investigation’, the likes of which never produce any justice, and which currently, according to Ha’aretz, the IDF will not undertake.

The Canadian government, in its obsequious acceptance of official Israeli excuses for its colonial settler society, did not acknowledge the criminality of the attack until the media showed photos of the IDF attacking the funeral cortege for the slain journalist.   Nothing unusual there, as Canada’s own racism, its own colonial settler past – and ongoing evasion of responsibility as far as restitution is concerned – is alive and well.  Canada supports Israeli racism and is fully involved with US racism, the latter especially in its foreign affairs as it participates in many different forms with the rampant racism of the US.

Mass murder? Domestic terrorism? White Racism?

In Buffalo, shortly before the murder of Shereen abu Aqleh, a young white man, apparently well versed in racist propaganda, killed ten people in Buffalo, New York.  President Biden said there was no harbour for  “hate-filled domestic terrorism” yet this was only one of dozens of mass shootings in the US annually.   With racism being an inbred component of US culture, this particular killing is noted for its total deaths and its specific targeting of black people.   Given past performance, to expect any change in US culture –  being its gun laws and the ever present right wing media outlets soft selling ideas like the current “replacement” theory – is an expectation of futility.

Denouncing this one incident so vociferously detracts in a way from the overall racist nature of US society and of US military adventurism overseas.

Military aggression

The prevailing manner by which the US determines its foreign policy is through military aggression:  overtly (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan); covertly (Iran, most of Latin America, many African countries); and politically (NATO expansion along with its overt military aspects in Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan and now Ukraine).  Recently this has spilled over into economic aggression through the “weaponizing” of the US$, the World Bank, the IMF, et al (the Washington consensus of international financial institutions) and the application of US sanctions.  Sanctions have been used frequently before, but never as widespread as they are currently applied, nor have they had the blowback that the weaponizing of the US$ is currently delivering to the global economy.

The US is the major sponsor of Israeli military actions, using Israel as a forward operating base in the Middle East. The “hate filled domestic terrorism” seen in Buffalo is perfectly acceptable when it happens in Israel.    The murder of Palestinians is an ongoing attribute of Israeli racism, as are the demolitions, imprisonment, night raids, attacks on children, and the many other ways Israel controls its apartheid policies.

End of racism?

At this point in history, if ever, the end of racism is not in sight.  That is to say that current geopolitical forces, current domestic forces – especially in the US and its allies – have no real interest in curtailing the underlying racism of their policies.  More and more frequently, as global financial, climatic, and military actions create an ever increasing population deprived of basic human rights and humane conditions of living, racism in its overt forms is likely to increase, supported by the underlying persistence of what appears to be, unfortunately, a very human trait.

Yet it is a trait that can be reduced through education and creating an equitable standard of living for all people of the world.  The minority that lives in the empires of consumption and greed and the desire for power over others needs to be arrested – however one interprets that word – and a fair distribution of the earth’s produce – in all its forms – needs to be created.

Along with that, humanitarian services – education, health care, worker’s safety and fair compensation – need to be made universal as a right.  Then and maybe only then can racism be tamed and the people of the world can interact culturally with respect for other cultures and in a society created for equitable and sustainable living on a healthy 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.

Jim Miles is regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Globalization and Rampant Racism
  • Tags:

How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster

May 23rd, 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.

***

In mid-February 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shut down Abbott Nutrition’s infant formula manufacturing facility in Sturgis, Michigan, resulting in a severe shortage of formula across the U.S., as labeling regulations bar most infant formula from other countries to be imported

May 16, 2022, the Biden administration announced it had reached a deal to reopen the Abbott plant in about two weeks, which should result in shelves being restocked in another six to eight weeks

The Biden administration is also loosening the regulations around foreign imports of infant formula, relaxing WIC restrictions on the types of formulas you can obtain, and cracking down on price gouging to discourage hoarding and reselling at higher prices

While that may solve the problem in the short term, it does nothing to address the underlying problem, which is the fact that the U.S. market is monopolized by three companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson and Gerber

Recipes for a superior and healthy homemade infant formula are included

*

Skyrocketing prices and food shortages are already looming, and are likely to become worse in the coming months. At present, many parents across the U.S. are running from store to store in search of baby formula and finding only empty shelves. How did this happen?

The shortage, it turns out, stems from the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shut down Abbott Nutrition’s facility in Sturgis, Michigan, back in mid-February 2022, after five infants were reportedly sickened with Cronobacter and Salmonella infections.1 Two of the babies died.

February 17, 2022, Abbott voluntarily recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare powdered formulas manufactured in the Sturgis facility. According to the FDA, the Sturgis facility failed inspection and was ordered to halt production until required sanitary measures were carried out.

The FDA inspection came on the heels of a whistleblower report,2 submitted to the FDA in October 2021, alleging several health and safety compliance issues at the Sturgis facility, including falsification of records; release of untested formula; undermining of an FDA audit in 2019; lax cleaning processes; and the failure to adequately trace its products.

Some members of Congress are now calling for an investigation to determine whether the FDA took sufficiently prompt action after receiving this information.3,4

Feds Fail to Address Industry Monopoly

May 16, 2022, the Biden administration announced5 it had reached a deal to reopen the Abbott plant in about two weeks, which should result in shelves being restocked in another six to eight weeks, but while that may solve the problem in the short term, it does nothing to address the underlying problem, which is the fact that the U.S. baby formula market is monopolized by three companies.6

Regulatory red tape also prevents the import of infant formula from other countries. As reported by The Defender:7

“The $45.4 billion U.S. baby formula market is controlled by three companies — Abbott, Mead Johnson and Gerber. A 2011 market analysis8 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows these companies accounted for nearly all U.S. formula sales …

Abbott Nutrition … dominates the market — the company’s sales accounted for roughly 43% of the formula market … according to a 2011 USDA report, which contains the latest available figures …

FDA regulations for baby formula9 make it nearly impossible for parents in the U.S. to buy infant formula produced outside the country … The issue is this: FDA rules bar formula imports from Europe if the product does not have FDA-compliant nutritional labels.

The formula may be perfectly safe and produced in accordance with European standards that are at least as stringent as U.S. health and safety requirements, but it can’t be imported because the FDA has not reviewed and approved what is printed on the package — a costly and time-consuming process for producers.”

US Response to the Crisis

House Democrats have now approved an emergency spending bill to allocate another $28 million to the FDA to allow it to hire more inspectors and prepare for future baby formula shortages. Some Republicans voiced opposition to the bill, saying it doesn’t contain any instructions for how the money is actually supposed to be spent, which would likely render it ineffective,10 and as of this writing, it’s still uncertain whether the bill will pass the Senate.11

May 18, 2022, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to increase production.12 The law allows the president to compel companies that supply various formula ingredients to prioritize the needs of formula manufacturers over other customers.

Commercial aircraft owned by the U.S. Defense Department will reportedly be deployed to pick up formula overseas and fly it back to the U.S., in an operation dubbed “Operation Fly Formula.” DoD contracts with other commercial air cargo will also be used to speed up imports and distribution.

That same day, the House also passed bipartisan legislation to allow WIC recipients to purchase any brand of formula.13 The Biden administration has also promised to crack down on price gouging to discourage hoarding and reselling at higher prices.14

While that’s all well and good, but the Biden administration was initially criticized for its tone-deaf response to the crisis. In “The Jimmy Dore Show” episode featured above, Dore replays Jen Psaki’s response to a reporter who asks where parents should turn if they cannot find formula for their babies. Psaki suggested they call their pediatrician.

And then what? What is the pediatrician supposed to do about it? Manufacture baby food? Do they have some sort of magic wand? Dore also points out she’s apparently unaware that millions of parents are uninsured or underinsured, and can’t afford to pay for pediatric visits to ask about how to feed their babies.

Three Key Problems

Three key factors have contributed to the current disaster, and none is being properly addressed. First of all, the market has been allowed to be monopolized by so few companies that the takedown of a single plant has the ability to threaten the lives of millions of babies.

Adding insult to injury, our corporate-captured government has implemented labeling regulations that effectively ban foreign imports of formula, even if they meet or exceed FDA nutritional requirements.

Far more importantly than either of those, however, is the fact that science — to say nothing of common sense — has been ignored for decades and corporate greed has been allowed to dictate infant nutrition instead.

Absolutely nothing can compare to breast milk, yet people have been brainwashed into thinking that manmade formula is better, and that breast feeding is somehow undignified and unnecessary.

Formula offered greater freedom for busy moms, and the promotion of the obnoxious idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful fueled the transition, making more moms defer to the bottle rather than their breasts. For years, women could even be fined for “public indecency” if caught breastfeeding in public.

Were breastfeeding the norm, the country wouldn’t be in a panic over low inventory of infant formula. Many children would also enjoy better health overall. The sad reality is that most commercial infant formula is complete junk food.

Most contain shocking amounts of sugar — typically in the form of corn syrup, which is the worst of all — and even far worse ingredients, including large amounts of dangerous linoleic acid from soy (the risks of which I detail in “Infant Soy Formula — A Risky Public Experiment”) and genetically modified ingredients (reviewed in this 2012 article). Infant formulas have also been found to contain hazardous contaminants, including glyphosate15 and perchlorate (rocket fuel).

We’re now also hearing about artificial breast milk, a brand-new industry heavily funded by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. A company called Biomilq is trying to create artificial breast milk from cultured human mammary cells.16 What could possibly go wrong with that? As of yet, however, artificial breast milk is not commercially available, so that’s a concern for another day.

All of that said, as it stands, the formula shortage is an absolute disaster, because while breastfeeding is the perfect option for most new mothers, it’s certainly not an option for anyone who didn’t breastfeed from the start, or who hasn’t breastfed for a number of weeks or months. You can’t just restart lactation at will. For that reason, telling mothers who already rely on formula to “just breastfeed” is ridiculous, because they can’t.

Breast Is Best

If you are a new mother and still lactating, then giving breastfeeding a try would be your best bet at this point. Breastfeeding has several benefits over formula,17 including reducing your baby’s risk of dying,18 improving your baby’s microbiome, thereby lowering their risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life.19

Exclusively breastfed babies also tend to have higher IQs than formula-fed babies.20 For an even more comprehensive list of benefits for both the baby and mother, see my 2018 article, “The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding.”

How to Make Homemade Formula

If the opportunity to breastfeed has already passed, your next-best option is to make your own infant formula.21 The Weston A. Price Foundation has been a leader in this for years. In the video above, former Weston A. Price chapter leader Sarah Pope demonstrates how to make the formula created by Mary Enig, Ph.D., published in the book, “Nourishing Traditions.”

However, based on my research into linoleic acid (LA), iron and other components, I have revised Enig’s original formula (which you can find on the Weston A. Price Foundation’s website22). In my view, it’s really crucial to NOT include any kind of iron or seed oils with high LA content, for all the reasons detailed in “Iron Overload Destroys Mitochondria and Sabotages Health” and “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”

I don’t have any children, but if I did and the child’s mother could not breastfeed, I would never use commercial infant formula as the recipe below is decidedly superior to commercial formulas and will give your child a major head start in life and preserve their health.

Dr. Mercola’s Preferred Healthy Homemade Infant Formula

This recipe will make 36 ounces. Place all ingredients in a clean glass or stainless steel container and mix well. To ensure your mixing bowl is properly sanitized, place it in boiling hot water for a few minutes. Remove with tongs and let fully cool before using.

To serve the formula, pour 6 to 8 ounces into a sanitized glass baby bottle, attach the nipple and set it in a pot of simmering water. Heat until the formula is warm but not hot to the touch. Always check the temperature of the formula before feeding using either the back of your hand or your tongue. Never ever heat formula in a microwave oven. You’ll need to make a batch every other day or so, but the formula can be frozen so you have a stash for emergencies.

Homemade Whey Recipe

To make homemade whey, start with plain unsweetened yogurt, raw milk or cultured milk. Rest a large strainer lined with a clean linen kitchen towel or several layers of cheese cloth over a bowl.

If you’re using yogurt, place 2 quarts in the towel-lined strainer. Cover with a large plate and leave at room temperature overnight. The whey will drip out into the bowl. Place the whey in sanitized glass jars and store in the refrigerator.

If you are using raw or cultured milk, place 2 quarts of the milk in a glass container and leave at room temperature for two to four days until the milk separates into curds and whey. At that point, pour the mixture into the towel-lined strainer and cover with a plate. Leave at room temperature overnight to separate the whey from the curd. (The whey will drip out into the bowl.) Store in clean glass jars in the refrigerator.

Dairy-Free Formula

If your baby has a milk allergy, you can make a liver-based formula as follows. This recipe, again revised from the original Weston A. Price recipe to remove iron and seed oils, will make 36 ounces:

*

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

1 U.S. FDA February 17, 2022

2, 3 Delauro.house.gov April 28, 2022

4 Politico May 16, 2022

5 Market Watch May 16, 2022, Updated May 17, 2022

6, 7, 17 The Defender May 16, 2022

8 USDA Economic Research Service August 2011

9 J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr October 2019; 69(4): 480-486

10 New York Times May 17, 2022

11 Bloomberg May 18, 2022

12, 13 New York Times May 18, 2022

14 Liberty Nation May 13, 2022

15 Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2018 Apr;35(4):723-730

16 Biomilq

18 Obstetrics & Gynecology Fall 2009; 2(4): 222-231

19 Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology October 16, 2012; 2: 94

20 BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2021; 21, article number 62

21, 22 Weston A Price How to Make Infant Formula

23 Kalone Supernatural Organic Non-Homogenized Milk

24 Piima Yogurt Culture

25 Amazon NOW Foods Lactose

26 Carlson Labs Cod Liver Oil

27 Amazon Sari Foods non-fortified nutritional yeast flakes

28 Great Lakes Beef Gelatin

29 Amazon Organic Acerola Powder

30 Amazon Lakanto Liquid Monkfruit Extract

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 kr

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.

***

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit from a whistleblower who revealed problems at sites that tested Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, alleged in a suit that was unsealed in February that Pfizer and associated parties violated clinical trial regulations and federal laws, including the False Claims Act.

In its motion to dismiss, Pfizer says the regulations don’t apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was executed under the department’s Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which gives contract holders the ability to skirt many rules and laws that typically apply to contracts.

That means that Jackson’s claim that Pfizer must still comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations “is simply wrong,” Pfizer said.

Warner Mendenhall, a lawyer who is working on Jackson’s case, said in a recent interview that Pfizer has “clearly not followed federal procurement laws.”

“And now they’re saying, ‘of course we didn’t follow federal procurement laws, we didn’t have to—this was just for a prototype,’” he added.

Mendenhall, who declined an interview request, said lawyers for Jackson are working on figuring out legal ways to counter Pfizer’s argument.

“We may lose on this issue because their contract imposes … none of the normal checks and balances on quality control and consumer protection that we fought for decades in this country,” he said.

The contract in question was outlined in a base agreement and a statement of work for the agreement, which was signed in the summer of 2020.

The government agreed to pay up to $1.9 billion for 100 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine pending U.S. regulatory clearance. That included the manufacturing of the vaccine on top of researching and developing it.

The contract was granted under the “prototype” provision, which falls under the OTA. The rules for prototypes state that just one of four conditions must be satisfied. The condition that was satisfied in the Pfizer contract was the involvement of a “nontraditional defense contractor.”

Federal law defines nontraditional defense contractors as “an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed” a contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense for at least one year preceding the solicitation of the OTA agreement. Pfizer has dozens of contracts with the military.

That means the government certified “an absurd fiction” to use an OTA to grant the contract, Kathryn Ardizzone, counsel with Knowledge Ecology International, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The Department of Defense and other government agencies have increased the use of the OTA over time. Thirty-four such agreements were hammed out in fiscal year 2016; by fiscal year 2018, that number was 173, according to the Government Accountability Office (pdf).

Because the agreements shield contract holders from some regulations and laws,

“the increasing use of OTAs, which includes in contexts where it’s inappropriate to do so, is undermining the rule of law and jeopardizing the public’s interests,” Ardizzone said. The Pfizer contract is an example of an inappropriate context, because the contract “was not about producing a prototype,” she asserted.

As far as Pfizer’s argument, about the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) not applying to the agreement, it’s not clear that is the case.

The base agreement only mentions the regulations pertaining to the handling of classified information. The statement of work does not mention any.

“I’m not sure what it means when an OTA is silent on a regulation that appears in the FAR,” Ardizzone said. “That would be up for the judge to decide, and it might side with Pfizer since the prevailing view is that FAR regulations do not necessarily apply for an OTA.”

Pfizer, in its motion to dismiss, noted that the government did not join Jackson’s suit—it was filed on the government’s behalf—nor have regulators rescinded clearance of its vaccine, which was authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late 2020, after Jackson revealed issues at sites managed by Ventavia Research Group, a Pfizer subcontractor.

“The agreement makes no mention of the FDA regulations and FAR provisions cited in relator’s complaint,” Pfizer said. “The agreement instead conditions payment, more simply, on Pfizer’s delivery of an FDA authorized or approved product. Pfizer’s vaccine has satisfied that condition since December 2020, as the complaint acknowledges, and the vaccine continues to satisfy that condition today. The Court should reject Relator’s express certification claim for this reason alone.”

*

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.

Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news. He is based in Maryland.

Featured image is from Health Thoroughfare

The Anatomy of Inflation

May 23rd, 2022 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

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 my latest Alternative Visions radio show I break down the various causes of US inflation and its evolution from the summer of 2021 when it emerged to the present (and coming months). False narratives by US politicians–inflation due to too much government relief spending in March 2021, due to ‘Putin’s war, or due to US households’ flush with savings and cash–are exposed for the economic ideology they represent.

Why inflation will continue at high levels and even escalate this summer are explained. And why Fed rate hike policies now underway, designed to destroy Demand, won’t dampen inflation; nor lead to a ‘soft landing’ of the US and global economies.

Dr. Rasmus dissects the various causes of inflation in the US over the past year, explaining it is mostly Supply side driven and not consumer Demand.

Following last spring 2021 reopening of the US economy, some price increases followed due to more wage in come as workers went back to work. That was a moderately rise, however.

The big escalation of inflation began last September due to global and US domestic Supply chain problems which was followed by price gouging by monopolistic US corporations many of which had no supply issues (ex: bakery-cereal and meat packing companies, oil companies, etc.).

In 2021 Supply was responsible for at least 3/4s of the inflation. Overlaid on these forces in 2022 were three additional causes: first, commodity inflation due to Ukraine war and Biden sanctions depressing supply of oil, gas, industrial metals, certain agricultural goods; second, rising unit labor costs by US businesses due mostly to collapsing US productivity (worst since 1947) passed through to prices; third, emerging inflationary expectations (the latter a Demand factor). To address this anatomy of inflation, the Fed is raising interest rates at a record pace, addressing Demand but unable to address Supply causes. Recession will follow (as in 19981-82). Rasmus further explains how the US exports both its inflation and recession to emerging market economies via a currency crisis now underway.

Listen below.

*

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.

Jack Rasmus blogs at http://jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern time. Join him at twitter for daily updates at @drjackrasmus.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The WHO “Stealth Coup” to Dictate Global Health Agenda of Gates, Big Pharma

By F. William Engdahl, May 22, 2022

Acting on an initiative from the Biden Administration, by November 2022, conveniently at the onset of the next flu season in the northern hemisphere, the World Health Organization, barring a miracle, will impose an unprecedented top-down control over the national health regulations and measures of the entire planet.

Analysis of the Election Results in Lebanon: Biggest Winners and Losers

By Steven Sahiounie, May 23, 2022

The Lebanese Parliamentary elections were held on May 15, with 128 seats filled in a sectarian voting system unique to Lebanon. The country is suffering from the worst economic crisis in the world in the last 150 years, according to the World Bank. In 2019, street protests began against the political elite, who were seen as corrupt, and the root cause of the country’s political, economic, and social failure.

How to Prevent and Treat COVID Jab Injuries

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 22, 2022

For the last two years, Dr. Michelle Perro has been in the trenches treating COVID-19 complications, not only from the infection but also from the jab, which is far more problematic and deadly.

War in Eastern Ukraine Looks a Lot Different in Person Than It Does on CNN

By John Parker, May 22, 2022

I had just left the Lugansk People’s Republic, making my way to an interview in Moscow, when I saw a May 11 CNN story claiming Russia had targeted civilians in the Ukrainian city of Odessa. This was after the bombing of a hotel and shopping center there. When such structures are bombed, one assumes that they were filled with civilians.

Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why

By William M Arkin, May 22, 2022

Russia’s conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Vladimir Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader’s strategic balancing act. If Russia were more intentionally destructive, the clamoring for U.S. and NATO intervention would be louder.

Video: Iran: Digital Food Rationing Rolls Out Using Biometric IDs Amid Food Riots

By Ice Age Farmer, May 22, 2022

Iran is set to be the first country to roll out a food rationing scheme based on new biometric IDs. Where vaccine passports failed, food passports will now be eagerly accepted by hungry people who can’t afford rapidly inflating food prices. This is the realization of a longstanding agenda by the Rockefeller/UN/WEF crowd to, as Kissinger put it, “control food, and control people.”

What’s Behind the Outbreak of Sudden, Severe Hepatitis in Kids?

By Dr. Julie Comber, May 22, 2022

As researchers seek answers to why in recent months more than 500 previously healthy children worldwide have developed sudden-onset, severe hepatitis, two leading hypotheses have emerged linking the outbreak to adenovirus and coronavirus. In a May 18 update, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it is investigating 180 cases of hepatitis in children, up 71 from the 109 cases the agency reported on May 5.

Video: Dr. Syed Haider: Healing Vax Injuries and Long COVID

By Dr. Syed Haider and Kristina Borjesson, May 22, 2022

As the numbers of vaccine injured and long covid sufferers rise after taking injections of pharmaceutical products that long ago met the FDA’s death and injury threshold for declaring a drug too dangerous for public consumption, all too few physicians are effectively addressing their devastating health issues. Dr. Syed Haider, who treats these patients, explains what he’s used that works, which in some cases includes Ivermectin, that has shown to be very effective.

How Has Monkeypox Spread All Over the Globe at Lightning Speed?

By Michael Snyder, May 21, 2022

What in the world is going on? In the past, we were told that monkeypox was not a major concern because it was so difficult to spread it from person to person. But now monkeypox seems to be spreading like wildfire.  On May 7th, the very first case in the western world in 2022 was confirmed in the United Kingdom.

What’s the Deal with Germany?

By Mike Whitney, May 22, 2022

Why is Germany sending weapons to Ukraine? Don’t they realize these weapons will be used to kill Russian soldiers? Don’t they realize these weapons will be given to Nazi combatants who tattoo swastikas on their arms and march in torchlight parades? Don’t the German people care about that?

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The WHO “Stealth Coup” to Dictate Global Health Agenda of Gates, Big Pharma

The Age of Imran Khan

May 23rd, 2022 by Saad Rasool

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.

***

Imran Khan is almost 70 years old. But that’s not what this is about. My humble contention is that we, in Pakistan, live in the age of Imran Khan.

I belong to a generation that was born in the 1980s. Growing up under the overarching shadow of Zia-ul-Haq and the Afghan War, as far back as memory stretches, the only ‘national hero’ that one can remember is the great Imran Khan. Well, him and

Sultan Mohammad Golden—the daredevil stuntman, who flickered for a while, and then faded away.

But even as others faded away, Iman Khan did not.

Initially, Imran Khan was just our cricket captain. An international playboy with a litany of supermodel girlfriends. For those growing under Zia’s regime, this image of Imran Khan was almost an act of defiance to Pakistan’s repressive status quo of the time. At the twilight of the 1980s, as Pakistan came out of shade of military rule and into light of democracy, Imran Khan continued to be the generational representation of modernism. Rubbing shoulders with British Royalty, being celebrated as a sports icon across the world, Imran Khan was the ‘correct’ ambassador of a progressive, modern and educated Pakistan.

If all that wasn’t enough, in 1992, on a breezy night in Melbourne, Imran Khan’s popularity grew to unprecedented heights, as his cornered-tigers won Pakistan its maiden cricket world championship. This may not mean much in countries that have multiple sports icons. But in Pakistan, a cricketing hero—the first to win the World Cup—would naturally become a permanent iconic part of national history.

For most men, in most countries, this would have been the crowning glory. The rest of Imran Khan’s life could have been spent making celebrity appearances, and partying through the chaos of Pakistan’s unpredictability. But that would be most men. Not Imran Khan.

In Pakistan, during the 1990s, my generation—then in middle/high-school—spent a significant part of our time volunteering for Shaukat Khanum Hospital’s fund raising. Selling ‘tickets’—Rs10 a pop—to parents and relatives, this generation followed Imran Khan to his dream of a ‘free cancer hospital’. Selling fifty tickets got you a cap. Selling a hundred got you a ball. And in each school, there that one student—envy of everyone else—who sold enough tickets to get a cricket bat signed by Imran Khan himself.

That was the Holy Grail; something that Bollywood’s Rekha also wanted, but didn’t have. Because it was the age of Imran Khan.
Completion of the Shaukat Khanum Hospital, in 1996, coincided with the launching of the next (even bigger) chapter in the age of Imran Khan; a political party—the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf—which had no more than a snowflake’s chance in hell to make any impact in Pakistani politics.

The great Imran Khan was advised against politics. This is a not a game of cricket, he was told. Politics, especially in Pakistan, is a contact sport. It wasn’t for Imran. He couldn’t fathom, and certainly not prevail, in the myriad of compromises that is Pakistani politics.

To be honest, this wasn’t bad advice. Within a year of Imran Khan launching his political party, in the 1997 elections, Khan was faced with a rude awakening. He may have been a king in the cricket stadium, but in the political arena, he was a mere bystander.

Whereas Nawaz Sharif and Benazir won close to 70 percent of the votes between them, Imran Khan got a mere 1.7 percent of the votes. He was a footnote in that election; not even. In the next election, in 2002, he won a single seat (his own). And was ridiculed across Pakistan for having wasted his stardom in the muddy waters of Pakistan politics.

This rude awakening would have been enough for a lesser man. It was clear: Imran Khan could not bend himself to fit in the corridors of political power. He did not have the finesse to negotiate his path to power. He may become some version of Asghar Khan, at best… but no more. Khan should have given up. Smarter and more seasoned political pundits advised him to stop. To relent. To see the writing on the wall. Many had already written his political obituary. They ridiculed his ideas, and laughed at the notion of him succeeding. But Khan, the resilient Kaptaan, believed that his time will come—even though there was no logical reason to do so. Why? Because he knew a secret that the rest did not: that we live in the age of Imran Khan.

During the 2008 election campaign, Kaptaan decided to boycott the elections (claiming irregularities and pre-poll rigging). In fact, Kaptaan tore his nomination papers, during a press conference, in the run-up to the 2008 elections. And suddenly, Kaptaan and his PTI had no presence, at all, in the Parliament. Political wizards swore that this would be the last of Kaptaan. That by boycotting the elections, he is going to drive away the few remaining members of his political clique (PTI wasn’t much of a ‘political party’ at the time). People urged him to leave politics, and instead focus his attention on social-work, where he had tasted mild success. It was good advice. There was every reason for Kaptaan to quit. His days of politicking were, for all intents and purposes, over. His message had failed. And so had he.

But, as I said, Kaptaan knew a secret that the rest did not: that we live in the age of Imran Khan.

And then, suddenly, on an October night in 2011, Kaptaan witnessed his (illogical) perseverance being rewarded. And we all witnessed a miracle in Lahore. As usual, political pundits had speculated that it would be small and meaningless. Ruling parties had dismissed it as the fading cries of dying political party. Everyone, with their gaze towards the Minar-e-Pakistan and abated breath, waited to find out if the day would mark the end of Imran Khan’s promise, or witness the birth of a new political force.

And then it happened: they came in groups of tens and twenties and hundreds—on donkey-cards and Land-Cruisers, from affluent living-rooms as well as dusty fields, some bare-footed and others in Prada shoes—till the swell of humanity became the PTI ‘tsunami’. They waited patiently and danced for hours in anticipation of one person alone: Imran Khan. There was no Shah Mehmood Qureshi, or Jehangir Tareen, or Aleem Khan on the stage. In fact, this ‘tsunami’ had gathered to celebrate the antithesis of what these individuals stood for. The moment was a fracture in the fabric of our political history, and marked the inception of a new hope.

Kaptaan’s PTI did not win the 2013 general elections, but emerged as a political force to be reckoned with. And in 2018, was elected the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

If anyone thought that becoming Prime Minister was going to be the peak of Khan’s popularity… well, they were wrong. Because, it is not about being the Prime Minister; we live in the age of Imran Khan.

Khan, was removed from office this year, allegedly at the back of a US-orchestrated coup. And if anyone thought that that would be the end of Imran Khan, think again. Whether or not he was the generational icon earlier, now, in the post-PM phase, the age of Imran Khan has finally arrived.

As we gain some time and distance, and (puny) leaders will fade away from national memory, history will write its own (unforgiving) verdict on this period of time. And just as the 30s and 40s were the age of M. Ali Jinnah, the 60s and 70s were the age of Bhutto, this period—our generation’s footprint—will be remembered as the age of Imran Khan.

*

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 Multipolarista

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bruising the Major Parties: Arise Australia’s Independents

What We Learned from Hating the Unvaccinated

May 23rd, 2022 by Susan Dunham

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 battlefield is still warm, following Canada’s war on the unvaccinated. The mandates have let up, and both sides stumble back into something that looks like the old normal — except that there is a fresh and present injury done to the people we tried to break. And no one wants to talk about it.

Only weeks ago, it was the admitted goal of our own leaders to make life unlivable for the unvaccinated. And as a deputized collective, we force-multiplied that pain, taking the fight into our families, friendships, and workplaces. Today, we face the hard truth that none of it was justified — and, in doing that, uncover a precious lesson.

It was a quick slide from righteousness to cruelty, and however much we might blame our leaders for the push, we’re accountable for stepping into the trap despite better judgement.

We knew that waning immunity put vast numbers of the fully vaccinated on par with the shrinking minority of unvaccinated, yet we marked them for special persecution. We said they hadn’t “done the right thing” by turning their bodies over to state care — even though we knew that principled opposition to such a thing is priceless in any circumstance. And we truly let ourselves believe that going into another ineffectual lockdown would be their fault, not the fault of toxic policy.

And so it was by the wilful ignorance of science, civics, and politics that we squeezed the unvaccinated to the degree that we did.

We invented a new rubric for the good citizen and — failing to be one ourselves — took pleasure in scapegoating anyone who didn’t measure up. After months of engineered lockdowns, having someone to blame and to burn simply felt good.

So we cannot hold our heads high, as if believing we had logic, love, or truth on our side while we viciously wished death upon the unvaccinated. The best we can do is sit in the awareness of our rabid inhumanity for having cast so many aside.

Most of us who pilloried the noncompliant did it because it seemed like certain victory, like the unvaccinated would never make it through unbroken. Indeed, the promised new normal looked unbeatable, so we sided with it and made punching bags out of the holdouts.

But betting against them has been a scathing embarrassment for many of us who’ve now learned that the mandates only had the power we gave them. It was not through quiet compliance that we avoided endless domination by pharmaceutical companies and medical checkpoints at every doorway. It was thanks to the people we tried to tear down.

So for those of us not among the hopeless few that pray for the return of mandates, we might find some inner gratitude for the unvaccinated. We took the bait by hating them, but their perseverance bought us the time to see we were wrong.

It seems right now like the mandates will return, but this time there’s hope that more of us will see them for what they are: a rising authoritarianism that has no concern for our wellbeing. If there’s an enemy, it’s the confidence game of state power and the transparent attempt to tear us apart. Heeding that looks like our best shot at redemption.

*

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.

Follow me on Instagram for my latest articles and shareable excerpts. IG: @susankaydunham

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

The Lebanese Parliamentary elections were held on May 15, with 128 seats filled in a sectarian voting system unique to Lebanon. The country is suffering from the worst economic crisis in the world in the last 150 years, according to the World Bank. In 2019, street protests began against the political elite, who were seen as corrupt, and the root cause of the country’s political, economic, and social failure.

The Lebanese diaspora is estimated to be as high as 14 million, but only 225,114 had registered to vote in this election. There were 1043 candidates, which included 155 women to fill the seats for a four-year term.

The absence of the Future Movement in this race was a major change, as former Prime Minister Saad Hariri had announced his withdrawal from politics, and his party did not participate in the election.

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker participated in a ZOOM symposium for the Washington Institute entitled “Hezbollah-Shia Dynamics and Lebanon’s Election: Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Implications”. Schenker openly admitted the dangerous role played by the US administration in causing Lebanon’s economic collapse and maintaining the US financial and economic siege on the country.

The US policy in Lebanon was to create chaos which was to weaken the Lebanese resistance to the occupation by Israel, who is the main US ally in the Middle East.

The Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections said about 80 percent of the population faces poverty as a result of the economic crisis. Candidates and party supporters have been accused of trying to buy their way to victory by offering cash bribes to undecided voters. Paying for votes appears commonplace in the electoral districts where competition is fierce, especially Beirut I, Beirut II, Zahle, Keserwan, Jbeil, Batroun, Koura, Bsharri, Zgharta, and Chouf Aley.

The political elite, otherwise referred to as the traditional parties, were collectively the biggest losers in the election.  Fouad Siniora, who is well known for being accused of corruption, and had served for years as a minister as well as Prime Minister in the past, was a big loser in this election.  Perhaps, the biggest loser could be identified as Prince Talal Arslan, who had served for 30 years in parliament.

Samir Geagea, of The Lebanese Forces, emerged with the largest number of deputies and is now the largest Christian party in parliament for the first time. Geagea is famous for having been convicted of the 1994 bombing of a Maronite Christian church–which killed 11 people, and the coldblooded slaying of a rival, former militia leader Dany Chamoun, his wife, and two young sons in 1990.

The winners in this election were the new faces, ready to bring the demands of the 2019 protest movement to the chamber floor, and chosen by the voters to serve in response to years of corruption by the political elite, who were shocked by the outcome of this election.

The important next step in the process of forming a parliament and government is to choose the Speaker of the Parliament. Nabih Berri has served in that position for 30 years, and while he might again serve in that important position, it is not a forgone conclusion.  The Vice Speaker of the Parliament must also be decided upon.

Equally important, is to choose a Prime Minister, and this must be done by a consensus of the majority; however, a majority may not exist.  In that case, no government can be formed.  It may come down to regional powers forcing an acceptable choice to be made.

In October, President Michel Aoun’s term will expire. This vacancy will leave a gap in the government.  There is a distinct possibility arising, in which Lebanon has no President, nor a  government for months, and maybe longer. The reason would be there could be no majority in the Parliament, which would result in no consensus on who should be President of Lebanon.  However, that deadlock could be solved by the intervention of foreign powers; such as France, the US, or Saudi Arabia.

Hezbollah and their allies lost their parliamentary majority. Hezbollah, and its ally Amal, have won all 27 seats allotted to the Shiite sect.  They received more than 350,000 votes from Shiites, which means the Shiite community still supports Hezbollah and is still committed to resistance to the Israeli occupation. This furthermore means, there are no seats in the Parliament that are Shiite, but against Hezbollah.  The US has had a plan to turn Shiites against Hezbollah, but the plan has failed to produce results.

Hezbollah might not enjoy a majority in domestic politics, but they do hold the majority in the area of national defense.

About 12 seats went to new candidates who are young people seeking change and are not affiliated with the political elite, or the older traditional parties.  But, can they affect a change?

If these new fresh faces in the Parliament, who are not tied down to corrupt practices, can unite then they stand a small chance of in succeeding effecting necessary changes in Lebanon.  However, we can’t forget that as much infighting there has been among the traditional parties, at the end of the day they have been able to hammer out deals behind closed doors to solve issues and deadlocks.  The question will be, if these new members of Parliament will be capable of unity, and negotiating tough issues. Experts anticipate the new legislative body will be fractured and passing needed bills will be a struggle.

It will be very difficult to remove Riad Salameh from his position as Governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon because the ‘Lords of Corruption’ is protecting him. The US Ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, said, “…any political retaliation against the Governor of the Banque du Liban, Riad Salameh,” will have major consequences.

Lebanon’s financial prosecutor, Judge Ali Ibrahim, decided to retract Salameh’s subpoena, and the Judge’s action was based on not only personal or internal considerations but also on the US intervention to protect Salameh.

Ambassador Dorothy Shea also told OTV it was a mistake to scapegoat any one person or institution for Lebanon’s economic collapse in response to a question about the role of central bank Governor Riad Salameh, who she said: “enjoys great confidence in the international financial community”.

Despite the US government’s support of Salameh, France, Germany, and Luxembourg have seized properties and frozen assets worth 120 million euros ($130 million) in a major operation linked to money laundering in Lebanon which belongs to Salameh and his family.

The new Parliament may take action against Riad Salameh, to calm the Lebanese street soon. The corrupt political elites will do so to protect themselves, and they will offer up Salameh as the sacrificial lamb, to pay the price of all.

Lebanon’s electrical grid has collapsed and many have no access to electricity for daily life.  A plan was devised to use the existing Arab Gas Pipeline, from Egypt to Lebanon, to deliver fuel to be converted into electricity.  Even though part of the pipeline runs through Syria on its way to Lebanon, the US Ambassador to Lebanon had supported the plan.

However, Republican members of the US Congress refused to agree to the plan because of the US Congressional sanctions in place against Syria.

Two Egyptian and Jordanian diplomats visiting Washington, in connection with the proposed use of the Arab Gas Pipeline, pressed President Joe Biden’s administration for further assurances they would not be affected by the sanctions but failed to receive them.  The Republican party could take control of Congress in the November midterm elections, and that would prevent any exemptions to the sanctions to help Lebanon.  Republicans in Congress have sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying that the proposed pipeline would violate the sanctions against Syria.  The US Republican party flexes its muscles in Lebanon to deprive the Lebanese people of turning on a light in their own homes.

*

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 is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Analysis of the Election Results in Lebanon: Biggest Winners and Losers
  • 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.

***

At the onset of the Russian incursion into Ukraine I argued in my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: How The Ukraine Conflict Is Designed To Benefit Globalists‘ that US boots would be on the ground within a few months. I was wrong – As it turns out, US and European military boots were ALREADY on the ground. Ukraine was a proxy war from the very beginning.

But what is a proxy war, really? It means that Russian troops are fighting Ukrainian soldiers that are intermingled with western “advisors” and most likely US and European special forces, not to mention US intelligence operatives utilizing all the information gathering technology at the disposal of the Department of Defense. In other words, Russian soldiers are being killed by Western assets. Some pro-Ukraine people might ask why this is a problem?

To understand the gravity of this situation we have to first examine the historical significance.

The closest event in history that I could approximate Ukraine to is Vietnam, when communist elements within the country were receiving constant aid, weaponry and even some troops from China, along with monetary and technological aid from the Soviet Union. Vietnam was essentially a “safe” arena or cage match between the West and Communism; a place where the paradigm players could fight it out without risk of a larger nuclear exchange. The globalists could sit back, relax and watch the show while Americans sacrificed their lives over a conflict that did not need to exist.

Ukraine is similar, but the stakes this time are much higher. This is probably why the mainstream media and the White House have been in full denial that Ukraine is a proxy war at all, and have consistently downplayed the complex involvement of Western military assets. The fact is that Ukraine would have fallen completely by now had it not been for the fact that Russia is not really facing Ukraine; it is facing a proxy force of US and European support elements feeding intel, weaponry and likely direct kinetic support.

In my article ‘Ukraine Learns The Value Of An Armed Citizenry, But Far Too Late,’ published on March 2nd, I noted that the Ukrainian “militia” programs being instituted at the last minute while Russia troops swiftly marched across the Donbass were a side show. The media was acting as if citizens with no more than a couple of weeks of training were going to make some kind of difference in the war; this was nonsense. In my view, the insurgency narrative was meant as cover for well trained Western assets already in place with advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft technology. As I stated in that article:

“Today, as Russia invades, the Ukrainians don’t even have basic [defense] measures in place. Their ability to hold off the Russians at all is predicated on American missile systems like the Javelin which are being steadily funneled into the Ukrainian military.

Also, the methods which Ukrainian forces are using to ambush Russian armor columns are rather advanced and familiar. I suspect the possibility that there are outside military “advisers” (perhaps US advisers) on the ground right now in Ukraine. The advanced guerrilla-style ambush tactics and the results look similar to training that is often given to Green Berets or SAS. The UK did send anti-tank weapons along with a small group of “trainers” to Ukraine in January.

Maybe I am mistaken, but if this is the case it would be diplomatically disastrous if such adviser teams were ever discovered to be involved in the fighting…”

Not long after I wrote this, a stream of information leaks revealed that US and EU military involvement was far deeper than I had expected.

French journalist and Le Figaro senior international correspondent Georges Malbrunot came back from Ukraine with revelations that Americans are “directly in charge” of the war on the ground. He added that he and the volunteers he was with “almost got arrested” by the officials and that they were forced to sign a contract “until the end of the war” which denied then the right to tell the public about the circumstances they witnessed.

Citing a French intelligence source, Malbrunot also tweeted that British SAS units “have been present in Ukraine since the beginning of the war, as were the American Deltas.”

This was obvious from the advanced tactics being used by “Ukrainian” forces to stall the Russian advance, but the first hand accounts confirm the problem is real. The New York Times and other media outlets have been publishing rare admissions of US involvement in intelligence sharing with Ukrainians which have led directly to the deaths of multiple Russian generals as well as the destruction of major assets such as troop transport planes and the Russian flagship Moskva.

In the meantime, Pentagon officials and Joe Biden have incessantly denied that Ukraine is a “proxy war.” If it’s not a proxy war, then I don’t know what is. Without US, UK and EU involvement, there is NO WAR. It would already be over and Ukraine would have surrendered weeks ago.

People can argue whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. As I have mentioned in multiple articles, I have no feelings either way because the entire event appears to be a distraction from the much more important threat of global economic decline and the inflationary crisis. The thing to remember here is that this is indeed a proxy war and that the very presence of American and European military assets on the ground in Ukraine could be used as a rationale by Russia to expand their operations far beyond the Donbass region.

Not only that, but it also justifies wider tactics that directly target the US and Europe. For example, a proxy war allows Russia to reasonably argue in favor of completely cutting off the EU from oil and natural gas resources, which Europe relies on for around 40% of its energy needs. It justifies Russian economic strategies including alliances with China to cut out the US dollar as the world reserve currency. And, I continue to expect cyberwarfare attacks sometime this year as a result of the Ukraine situation. At the very least, such attacks will be blamed on Russia and China whether or not they are actually responsible.

Does the presence of US and European troops in Ukraine mean a global nuclear war is imminent? It;s unlikely. Just as Vietnam did not lead to a nuclear war between Russia, China and the US despite the NVC receiving steady supplies and training from Soviet and Chinese forces, there is minimal chance that global nuclear war will erupt from the Ukraine. Mutual destruction does not serve the interests of the globalists, at least not if they hope to predict the outcome in the slightest.

That said, I would not be surprised to see at least one mushroom cloud somewhere in the world this decade within a regional conflict. Also, world war does not have to become nuclear to be disastrous.

Sadly, because of Hollywood movies a large number of people have misguided notions of what World War III might actually look like. Entertainment media always depict WWIII as happening in a flash, an instant in which missiles are launched and a broken civilization of survivors is left to pick up the pieces. What they never show is a long grinding war of financial attrition, supply chain disruptions, cyber attacks, and drawn out regional battles in which Americans are shipped overseas to die for no purpose other than to pretend that these territorial disputes are somehow “our responsibility.”

What I see in Ukraine is the beginnings of a war unlike any other; a war in which the weapons are primarily indirect and financial rather than kinetic. Because of global interdependency in trade many Western nations have been left utterly defenseless in this kind of conflict. We don’t have the ability to fight back because our economic systems are built around a model that demands we abandon domestic production and rely on the resources and industry of other nations.

This is never more true than in our relationship with China, which controls around 20% of all export goods into the US. China has closely allied with Russia. This is not going to change because they know that there is nothing the West can do to about it; there is far too much economic leverage involved. Furthermore, the events in Ukraine are probably a precursor to China’s own invasion of Taiwan.

If this is the plan, then China would have to wait for optimal weather conditions after the monsoon season, sometime in September. This would start with missile bombardment and infrastructure attacks, followed by an amphibious assault sometime in early October.

The proxy war in Ukraine is a key moment in history going forward (along with the potential invasion of Taiwan), because it offers global power interests with dreams of a “Great Reset” the ability to offload the worldwide economic crisis they created years ago onto the “tides of fate.” They can say that the collapse only happened because of the hubris of sovereign nations and “meaningless borders.” If the US and Europe are directly involved in the killing of Russian troops, and this is widely exposed, then the Russian side of the narrative become clarified and the Western side becomes muddled. Direct Russian retribution becomes logical and rational rather than the crazed reaction of a nation led by a madman as the mainstream media claims.

Both sides of the Kabuki theater have to feel as though they are justified in escalating a small war into a world war. That is how this has always worked. When the working class population gets a little too unruly and the threat of rebellion against the establishment is at hand, the elites start a war. It’s like clockwork. This tactic weakens the general population, wears down the number of fighting age men that might have otherwise presented a threat to the ruling class and creates enough fear and panic to convince the public to trade away more of their freedoms.

The wild card right now is the US and European populations, and to some extent the Russian citizenry, and how they respond. The old joke is “What if they held a war and nobody showed up to fight?” This is a potential reality right now as it is in the hands of the public how far the Ukraine issue goes. Are most Americans and Europeans willing to send their sons and in some cases daughters to fight and die over the Donbass? Are Russian citizens willing to fight and die beyond the borders of Ukraine?

A lot of people are engaging in big talk lately, but is this really the hill they are ready to die on? I think not. Why? Because deep down most people know that this war is a farce, a play on the global chess board by elitists with nefarious aspirations. They know that the reasons for the war are not pure, on either side. They virtue signal in favor of Ukraine, but they will never be willing to go and risk their lives for Ukrainian soil. Nor are they willing to risk a family member’s life for Ukraine.

I suspect that the globalists know this by now, as the narrative has been shifting away from trying to convince Americans that open military involvement is needed. They will switch to the economic side of the conflict in the hopes that fiscal disaster will fog the minds of the public and make them more willing to support wider war tomorrow.

*

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 Alt-Market.us


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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.

***

President Joe Biden is resisting demands from Kiev to supply long-range rocket launchers to the Ukrainian military, Politico reported, suggesting the White House is concerned the weapons could be used for strikes inside Russia.

Ukrainian officials have requested increasingly advanced weaponry from Washington in recent months – even before Moscow’s invasion commenced earlier this year – and are currently urging the US government to send M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), among other hardware.

While Biden was reportedly willing to consider the request during a trip to Germany last month, where dozens of countries met to discuss aid for Ukraine, a congressional staffer told Politico the plan is not moving forward.

“There was momentum on it at Ramstein, but that seems to have cooled,” they said, adding that “There’s definitely a frustration building” among officials in Kiev over a perceived reluctance to send heavier arms.

The staffer did not offer a reason for the change of heart, but according to three other sources cited by the outlet, Kiev believes the White House is “holding back over worries the weapon could be used to launch strikes inside Russia, thereby expanding and prolonging the conflict.”

Though the war raging in Eastern Europe has largely been confined to Ukrainian territory and separatist-controlled areas in the Donbass region, a number of mysterious blasts have erupted on Russian soil over the last month, including in the Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk regions bordering Ukraine. Kiev has stopped short of taking credit for the apparent attacks, but US officials have confirmed that Ukrainian forces were behind at least one of the incidents.

Depending on the munitions used, the M270 MLRS has a range of between 20 and 40 miles, though more advanced rockets can travel up to 100 miles, potentially putting them far beyond the range of the American M-777 Howitzers supplied to Ukraine in recent weeks. Even with special rocket-assisted rounds, the latter artillery pieces have a maximum range of just over 18 miles. The M270 is also a self-propelled platform and was specifically designed to evade Russian artillery strikes, capable of rapidly firing up to 12 rockets before moving to a new position.

Washington has sent billions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in late February, including attack helicopters, artillery, tank-killing Javelin missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft platforms. Moreover, a massive new aid package currently moving through the Senate will bring total US assistance since March to nearly $54 billion if passed, much of it devoted to arms and other military gear.

Despite the complaints from Ukrainian officials, however, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland recently suggested Kiev may be receiving US-made multiple-launch rockets after all, telling European Pravda in April that “we already supply MLRS systems.” The comments prompted speculation that Washington could be sending the M142 HIMARS, a lighter-weight, wheeled variant of the M270. President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly mentioned both systems by name in public appeals for additional armaments.

An unnamed White House official cited by Politico also indicated that Biden’s reluctance to send the M270 did not mean a final decision had been made, stating that Washington and Kiev are still “in active discussion” about the weapon.

*

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.

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute.

Will Porter is the assistant news editor of the Libertarian Insitute and a staff writer at RT.

Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter host Conflicts of Interest along with Connor Freeman.

Featured image is from TLI

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.

***

Politicians thoroughly enjoy times of war. Periods of bellicosity are when the most power-hungry members of the political class indulge in their most depraved political fantasies. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been no exception to this trend.

Western politicians have been taking advantage of the largest conventional military conflict on European soil since World War II to crack down on civil liberties at home and drag their countries closer to an open conflict with a nuclear power. The domestic measures Western governments have pursued have been particularly breathtaking.

For example, the European Union has already banned Russian state media outlets such as RT and Sputnik for allegedly spreading disinformation. In the United States, which has stronger free speech protections, the assaults against freedom of expression had taken a more corporate hue. For example, Big Tech juggernauts such as Google have enthusiastically blocked channels receiving funding from Russia.

Even more egregious have been the actions of EU and North Atlantic Treaty Organization members such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These countries have criminalized any behavior that could be construed as being in support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Similarly, Latvia has created a police hotline where citizens can report individuals who manifest support for Russia’s military action in Ukraine. Several German states have pushed the envelope even further by prosecuting individuals who display the Z symbol connected to Russia’s military campaign.

The corporate press and governments are setting a startling precedent. The definition of “pro-Russia” content could be potentially broadened to attack antiwar activists and noninterventionists who are skeptical of Western countries trying to get involved in the Russo-Ukrainian war.

While the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific, there need to be honest discussions about this invasion and what led up to it. International relations scholar John Mearsheimer has talked about how US foreign policy moves such as NATO expansion helped create the conditions for the present great-power tragedy. For simply putting forth an alternative theory for what caused the present security crisis, Mearsheimer was nearly subjected to a struggle session by University of Chicago students, who adamantly refused to entertain the professor’s contrarian views.

Given the recent trajectory, it would not be a stretch to suggest that even realist critiques of Western foreign policy could be subject to social and political sanctions. The simple act of pointing out that the US’s geopolitical ambitions have played a significant role in creating the present instability could be treated as “pro-Russian” speech if deep state proponents have their way.

Dissidents getting punished for their antiwar views is nothing new in American history. Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs learned this the hard way during World War I. To make sure that America’s war effort went unchallenged, the Wilson administration passed the Espionage Act in 1917, followed by the Sedition Act in 1918.

These bills imposed harsh criminal penalties. On June 16, 1918, Debs gave a speech in Canton, Ohio, imploring attendees to resist the World War I draft. Debs’s actions eventually landed him in trouble with the law, and he was charged with ten counts of sedition. The socialist activist received a prison sentence of ten years and faced a lifetime of disenfranchisement.

It took a pardon from President Warren G. Harding, one of the presidents most pilloried by court historians, to finally get him out of jail, and Debs was released toward the end of 1921.

Later, during the Vietnam War, there were several cases of the FBI surveilling antiwar groups or even infiltratingthem to hinder their effectiveness. As Randolph Bourne proclaimed in an unfinished manuscript, “War is the health of the State.” It remains so, as Western governments are working overtime to augment their power during a great-power conflict.

Self-proclaimed liberal democracies already showed their true colors during the covid-19 pandemic, when they treated their citizens like mere cattle to be poked and prodded by whimsical technocrats. Now, as the Russo-Ukrainian War rages on, they’re further manifesting their pent-up tyrannical desires.

An integral part of the West’s unique value proposition is its respect for civil liberties, something countless societies have never enshrined in their governing documents. But now that has drastically changed. The haughty rhetoric coming from Western governments about being profreedom is vacuous at best when their actual behavior is observed.

The irony here is that the West has fallen down the classic “you become what you fight” path. The very Western countries that pound their chests about their exceptionalism are now morphing into the countries they rail against.

Politics is not without a sense of irony.

*

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.

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. Sign up for his mailing list here. Contact him via Facebook or Twitter. Get his premium newsletter here. Subscribe to his Substack here

Featured image is from Mises Wire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Russo-Ukrainian War: A New Opportunity for Demagogues to Destroy Freedoms at Home

How to Prevent and Treat COVID Jab Injuries

May 22nd, 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 introduction of the experimental COVID jabs has opened the eyes of many to the fact that there are fundamental flaws with the vaccine program — not just with the mRNA shots, which have never existed before, but also with conventional vaccines

Toxins in food, water and air; vaccines, mRNA shots, electromagnetic field exposures and more, are making children sicker than any generation before them

When trying to prevent and/or treat a COVID jab injury, there are five toxic components that need to be addressed: spike protein toxicity, PEG, inflammation from the nanolipid, graphene oxide and nanotoxicity

A key tool in Dr. Michelle Perro’s treatment arsenal is spike protein-binding therapies like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

Other helpful remedies include fibrinolytic enzymes like lumbrokinase, NAC, pine needle tea, curcumin, zeolite and symptom-specific homeopathics

*

For the last two years, Dr. Michelle Perro has been in the trenches treating COVID-19 complications, not only from the infection but also from the jab, which is far more problematic and deadly.

Perro went to Yale as an undergrad, and then to Mount Sinai Medical School. She completed her postgraduate residency training in pediatrics at Bellevue Hospital in New York City. She now sees patients with an integrative approach, educates regarding GMOs, pesticides and environmental health and is working on her second book in California, where the pediatric population is highly vaccinated.

Perro’s Journey

During the first 40 years of her career as a pediatrician, she didn’t question the validity of vaccines. “Thinking that we would intentionally harm children is a very difficult reach,” she says. “It’s out of reach of many pediatricians.”

However, by the early 2000’s, she began to see a significant uptick in autism, and that led her down the proverbial rabbit trail to vaccines.

“[The rise in autism] correlated with my understanding of GMOs and pesticides,” she says. “However, when you start looking at one toxicant, you look at other toxicants, and that’s where I got into the field of environmental toxicity, including our food, air, water, EMFs, you name it …

Now I’m an advisor for NAEM [the National Academy of Medicine], and I’m working on a pediatric environmental health questionnaire. I wrote an Environmental Health Bill of Rights for children. So, I’m deep into this now — not just focusing on vaccines, but the global issue of protecting children from environmental toxicity …

 Over 25 years ago, I became a homeopath, and then an integrated physician. I don’t talk about being a homeopath because it’s not taken well by a lot of my peers, but most of my treatment successes have been from homeopathy.”

Old Truths Are Being Re-Revealed

Interestingly, the introduction of the experimental COVID jabs has really opened the eyes of a large percentage of the population to the fact that there are fundamental flaws with the vaccine program as a whole — not just with the mRNA shots, which have never existed before, but also with conventional vaccines.

Dr. Maurice Hilleman, for example, a former head of Merck who developed polio vaccines, has admitted these vaccines were contaminated with dozens of viral pathogens, including simian virus 40 (SV40), which can cause cancer.

“This idea of vaccination contamination was exposed again in 2017, when they found nano contamination with heavy metals in 43 out of 44 vaccines in a study out of Italy,” Perro says.

“And these nanoparticles, because of their size, are inflammatory. They cross the blood brain barrier. And I am sure, without a doubt, that’s what’s linked to this neuroinflammatory process that we see with kids on the spectrum, the rise in ADHD and another neurosensory/ neurocognitive issues.”

Glyphosate Worsens Aluminum Toxicity

Perro also cites research showing glyphosate shuttles aluminum across the blood-brain barrier in six different ways. So, glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and aluminum are synergistic.

This, too, is likely part of the equation, because children are highly exposed to glyphosate through food, which then shuttles the aluminum from their childhood vaccines straight into their brains. Aluminum is added to many vaccines as an adjuvant, because it elicits a stronger immune response.

This, in turn, results in higher antibody titers, which is how they measure vaccine effectiveness. The problem is, by stimulating the humoral antibody system only, and not the cellular immune system, you create an imbalance that can eventually lead to immune dysregulation, with the worst outcome being cancer.

In short, vaccination is not nearly as effective as the multifaceted immune response you have when exposed to natural infection. This is even more true for young children. As explained by Perro:

“It really speaks to why children are immunologically different than adults. Children are not mini adults, because they have that other arm of the immune system, the innate immune system …

Children have a very robust innate immune system, and they have a thymus, which involutes with time as adults — ours are long gone. Because of this innate immune system, and increased NK [natural killer] cells, they’re able to fight COVID.

That’s why children do so well with this virus. [They have] robust innate immunity, which is totally bypassed when you give somebody a vaccination. Dr. [Anthony] Fauci himself said in 2004 that natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity.”

Pediatric Side Effects From the COVID Jab

Once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID jab for children, aged 12 to 17, it didn’t take long before Perro started seeing injuries in her practice.

“I was amazed at how many kids were injured … The types of reactions I started seeing were initially neurologic. Some of them in the beginning were simple but concerning, like tinnitus, which is ringing in the ear, and that could be horrific for a kid …

I had a musician who goes to Julliard, and he had severe acute onset [of tinnitus] after the first the Pfizer [shot]. It got worse after the second. I have colleagues who saw Guillain-Barre ascending paralysis … I saw cardiac [problems], myocarditis for sure, and abnormal heart rate responses like tachycardia and increased heart rate …

I saw POTS — postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome — something very common in Lyme disease that is very difficult to treat. Another weird thing I saw was this one child with rhabdomyolysis, where he had massive breakdown of his muscle tissue, which is a very rare event in childhood.

Then, I started seeing people develop symptoms who were unvaccinated, including myself. I got ‘spiked.’ That’s what I call it, ‘getting spiked.’

[I saw] teenage girls with heavy menstrual bleeding, prolonged bleeding, and other menstrual irregularities. There was a smattering of rashes, urticaria, hives — a bizarre host of rashes.

So, this is the kind of stuff we started seeing, and this began happening last June [2021], after ACIP, the American Committee of Immunization Practice, said, ‘Yep, 12-year-olds can be vaccinated [against COVID]’ …

Once again, we as clinicians … have to sort out how to fix it with tools not in the traditional toolbox. That’s what we’re faced with …

There is a bigger agenda here, because clearly these vaccines are dangerous for kids. There’s no doubt. The data is irrefutable, and yet we’ve proceeded. So, we’re dealing with other agendas here … I think parents need to rise up and protect their children, because this is not going away. If anything, it’s ramping up.”

Preventing and Treating COVID Jab Injuries

When trying to prevent and/or treat a COVID jab injury, there are five toxic components that need to be addressed:

  • Spike protein toxicity
  • PEG
  • Inflammation from the nanolipid
  • Graphene oxide
  • Nanotoxicity

Each of these can be modulated in a variety of ways. “That’s why we have to use an entire menu of things when treating a reaction from the COVID vaccine,” she says. A key tool in Perro’s treatment arsenal is spike protein-binding therapies like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. She explains:

“If you’re making spike [protein], even though kids don’t have a lot of ACE2 receptors, those spikes are everywhere. In mice, it is shown that they cross the blood-brain barrier. They’re disseminated, and then they tend to focus in your area of weakness.

They go into fat-loving tissues, they go into the ovaries, they seem to go everywhere. So, binding the spike protein, that’s one aspect, and there are different things you can do, both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical.

My favorite is ivermectin for the spike. I was giving kids 12 milligrams, initially, once a day. I went up to 12 mg twice a day for Omicron, but it depends on the size of the kid. For bigger kids, it’s 18 mg twice a day.

I didn’t see any toxicity with ivermectin. I’ve used ivermectin before, mostly for parasitic infections, and I never had any problem with ivermectin. I have not used hydroxychloroquine before, but now, for Omicron, I would use hydroxychloroquine, 200 mg twice a day.

I use a lot of quercetin and zinc together … To decrease inflammation, especially IL6, you also want to use a lot of immunomodulators, and a lot of supplements can do that.”

What’s in Perro’s Toolbox?

In addition to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to bind the toxic spike protein, and quercetin and zinc to boost immune function, Perro also uses the following remedies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, and the prevention and treatment of COVID jab injuries:

I would also recommend getting plenty of sunshine, as infrared rays, especially the near-infrared spectrum, triggers melatonin production in your mitochondria. Melatonin is a potent antioxidant, and it increases glutathione, which is crucial for efficient detox. Melatonin also increases mitochondrial efficiency and energy production in the form of ATP.

Of course, eating organic is key since GMOs also have been demonstrated to decrease glutathione — the master antioxidant — and increase oxidative stress, which is the basis for all chronic disease. If you’re prone to sun burn, it could be a sign that you’re eating too many seed oils high in linoleic acid (LA), so to reduce your tendency to get burned, cut out all seed oils from your diet.

That includes restaurant foods, processed foods and condiments in particular, but also conventionally raised chicken and pork. A very low, virtually zero seed oil diet is probably one of the best ways to prevent sunburn, as well as chronic degenerative diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Adding in more whole food vitamin C can also be helpful for preventing sunburn. Acerola cherry (Barbados cherry) contains some of the highest amounts of vitamin C.

More Information

As noted by Perro, recognizing there’s a problem is always the first step. So, first, we have to recognize that our children are under toxic assault, and in many instances, the harming of children’s health appears to be intentional.

Step 2, then, is for parents to take back control and remove the systems that have taken over and are harming their children. While that may sound like an unsurmountable task, it doesn’t have to be. It begins with cleaning up your family’s diet, using food as medicine, growing some of your own food and getting back to basic principles of health and health care.

“We have to get them out of this infantilized system where people feel they have to run to the physician for every bruise, cut and boo-boo, ‘Quick, call the pediatrician!’

Not so. Parents have lost that ability and we have to regain it. Think about when we were kids. How often did you go to the doctor? I think I went once as a child. Our parents had some knowledge, so we need to regain that.”

Perro also believes we must begin to create parallel systems and structures, as suggested by Mattias Desmet, Ph.D. The power of this strategy was demonstrated by Vaclav Havel, a political dissident who eventually became the president of Czechoslovakia.

A parallel structure is any kind of business, organization, technology, movement or creative pursuit that fits within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within a totalitarian world.

To learn more, see DrMichellePerro.com, and GMOscience.org, which is the nonprofit she cofounded in 2014. Also keep your eyes peeled for her next book, “Making Our Children Well,” which is scheduled to be published sometime in 2023.

*

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 Children’s Health Defense