Global Research

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

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

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

***

The following video is an interview of Philip Giraldi, former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer, with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

*

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 interview was first published on Judging Freedom.

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 a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

Google has sent a warning shot across the world, ominously informing media outlets, bloggers, and content creators that it will no longer tolerate certain opinions when it comes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Earlier this month, Google AdSense sent a message to a myriad of publishers, including MintPress News, informing us that, “Due to the war in Ukraine, we will pause monetization of content that exploits, dismisses, or condones the war.” This content, it went on to say, “includes, but is not limited to, claims that imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim-blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.”

This builds on a similar message Google’s subsidiary YouTube released last month, stating, “Our Community Guidelines prohibit content denying, minimizing or trivializing well-documented violent events. We are now removing content about Russia’s invasion in Ukraine that violates this policy.” YouTube went on to say that it had already permanently banned more than a thousand channels and 15,000 videos on these grounds.

Journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin was deeply troubled by the news. “It is really disturbing that this is the trend that we are on,” she told MintPress, adding:

It is a preposterous declaration considering that the victim is whoever we are told by our foreign policy establishment. It really is outrageous to be told by these tech giants that taking the wrong side of a conflict that is quite complicated will now hurt your views, derank you on social media or limit your ability to fund your work. So you have to toe the line in order to survive as a journalist in alternative media today.”

The most prominent victim of the recent banning spate has been Russian state media such as RT America, whose entire catalog has been blocked throughout most of the world. RT America was also blocked from broadcasting across the U.S., leading to the network’s sudden closure.

“Censorship is the last resort of desperate and unpopular regimes. It magically appears to make a crisis go away. It comforts the powerful with the narrative they want to hear, one fed back to them by courtiers in the media, government agencies, think tanks, and academia,” wrote journalist Chris Hedges, adding:

YouTube disappeared six years of my RT show, “On Contact,” although not one episode dealt with Russia. It is not a secret as to why my show vanished. It gave a voice to writers and dissidents, including Noam Chomsky and Cornel West, as well as activists from Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter, third parties and the prison abolitionist movement.”

Smaller, independent creators have also been purged. “My stream last night on RBN was censored on Youtube after debunking the Bucha Massacre narrative… Unreal censorship going on right now,” wrote Nick from the Revolutionary Black Network. “My video ‘Bucha: More Lies’ has been deleted by YouTube’s censors. The Official Narrative is now: ‘Bucha was a Russian atrocity! No dissent allowed!’” Chilean-American journalist Gonzalo Lira added.

Other social media platforms have pursued similar policies. Twitter permanently suspended the account of former weapons inspector Scott Ritter over his comments on Bucha and journalist Pepe Escobar for his support for Russia’s invasion.

A notice to MintPress from Google threatening demonetization

Those views are certainly currently in the minority, with testimonies from locals pointing the finger at Russian forces, who have carried out similar acts during other conflicts. Yet even the Pentagon has refused to categorically conclude Russian culpability without a full investigation.

Beyond Bucha, where the line is in terms of accepted speech is being kept vague, leading to confusion and consternation among independent media outlets and content creators. “This is going to limit reporting on the Ukraine crisis because people are going to be scared,” Martin said. “People [in alternative media] are going to opt to not publish or not report on something because of fear of retaliation. And once you start to get demonetized, the next fear is that your videos are going to get blanket banned,” she added.

While support for Russia has essentially been prohibited, glorification of even the most unsavory elements of Ukrainian society on social media is now all-but-promoted. In February, Facebook announced that it would not only reverse its ban on discussing the Azov Battalion, a Nazi paramilitary now formally incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard, but also allow content praising and promoting the group – as long as it was in the context of killing Russians.

Facebook and Instagram also instituted a change in policy that allows users to call for harm or even the death of Russian and Belarussian soldiers and politicians. This rare allowance was also given in 2021 to those calling for the death of Iranian leaders. Needless to say, violent content directed at governments friendly to the U.S., such as Ukraine, is still strictly forbidden.

The Media Demands More Censorship

Leading the campaign for more intense censorship has been corporate media itself. The Financial Times successfully lobbied Amazon-owned streaming platform Twitch to delete a number of pro-Russian streamers. The Daily Beast attacked Gonzalo Lira, going so far as to contact the Ukrainian government to make them aware of Lira’s work. Lira confirmed that, after The Daily Beast’s article, he was arrested by the Ukrainian secret police.

Meanwhile, The New York Times published a hit piece on anti-war journalist Ben Norton, accusing him of spreading a “conspiracy theory” that the U.S. was involved in a coup in Ukraine in 2014, while claiming that he was helping promulgate Russian disinformation. This, despite the fact that the Times itself reported on the 2014 coup at the time in a not-too-dissimilar fashion, thereby incriminating its own previous reporting as Russian propaganda.

If referencing The New York Times’s own previous reporting becomes grounds for suppression, then meaningful online discourse is under threat. As journalist Matt Taibbi wrote last week, the West is in danger of establishing an “intellectual no-fly zone,” where deviating from orthodoxy will no longer be tolerated.

An image shared in the NYT hit against Norton. Credit | Multipolarista

The invasion of Ukraine has also raised a number of troubling questions for Western anti-war figures: How to oppose Russian aggression without providing more political ammunition to NATO governments to further escalate the conflict? And how to critique and highlight our own governments’ roles in creating the crisis without appearing to justify the Kremlin’s actions? Yet this new perilous media environment raises a further quandary: How to express views online without being censored?

Google’s new updated rules are vaguely worded and open to interpretation. What constitutes “exploiting” or “condoning” the war? Does discussing NATO’s eastward expansion or Ukraine’s aggressive campaign against Russian-speaking minorities constitute victim blaming? And is referencing the seven-year-long civil war in the Donbas region, where the UN estimates that over 14,000 people have been killed, now illegal under Google’s policy of not allowing content about Ukraine attacking its own citizens?

For some, the answer to at least some of these questions should be an emphatic “yes.” On Thursday, journalist Hubert Smeets attacked longtime anti-war activist Noam Chomsky, explicitly accusing him of blaming President Zelensky and Ukraine for its fate. Chomsky has previously described Russian actions as incontestably “a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939.” Yet he has also for years warned that NATO actions in the region were likely to provoke a Russian response. If Google and other big-tech monopolies decide an intellectual giant like Chomsky’s voice must be suppressed, it will mark a new era of official censorship not seen since the decline of McCarthyism.

Old Propaganda, New Cold War

The United States was allied with the Soviet Union during World War II. However, as the Cold War began to set in, so did attacks on dissenting voices. The postwar anti-communist push began in earnest in 1947, after President Harry S. Truman mandated a loyalty oath for all federal employees. As a result, the political beliefs of two million people were investigated, with authorities attempting to ascertain whether they belonged to any “subversive” political organizations.

Those in positions of influence were most aggressively vetted, leading to purges of academics, educators, and journalists. Many of the most celebrated individuals from the world of entertainment – including actor Charlie Chaplain, singer Paul Robeson, and writer Orson Welles – had their careers destroyed because of their political beliefs. “Socialism was canceled, dissent was canceled after World War Two,” Breakthrough News host Brian Becker recently said, warning that this new Cold War with Russia and China could usher in a new McCarthyist era.

The old Cold War against Russia ended in 1991. However, the new Cold War arguably started 25 years later with the electoral victory of Donald Trump. On November 8, 2016, the Clinton campaign alleged that the Kremlin had used social media to spread fake news and misleading information, leading to Trump’s victory. Despite the lack of hard evidence, corporate media immediately took up Clinton’s message. Only two weeks after the election, The Washington Post published a report claiming that hundreds of fake news websites had pushed Trump over the line and that a credible group of nonpartisan expert researchers had created an organization called “PropOrNot” to track this effort.

Using what it called sophisticated “internet analytics tools,” PropOrNot published a list of over 200 websites that they claimed were “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.” Included on the list were publisher WikiLeaks, Trump-supporting websites like The Drudge Report, libertarian ventures such as The Ron Paul Institute and Antiwar.com, as well as a host of left-wing websites like Truthout, Truthdig, and The Black Agenda Report. MintPress News was also featured on the list. While there were some obviously fake-news websites included, the political orientation of the list was obvious for all to see: this was a catalog of outlets – right- and left-wing – that was consistently critical of the centrist Washington establishment.

A sure sign that you are reading Russian propaganda, PropOrNot claimed, was if the source criticizes Obama, Clinton, NATO, the “mainstream media,” or expresses worry about a nuclear war with Russia. As PropOrNot explained, “Russian propaganda never suggests [conflict with Russia] would just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia’s eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time.”

Despite the blatantly shoddy list, one that even included the websites of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, The Washington Post’s article went viral, being shared millions of times. PropOrNot’s list was subsequently signal-boosted by hundreds of other outlets. And despite calling for McCarthyist investigation into and suppression of hundreds of outlets, PropOrNot categorically refused to reveal who they were, how they were funded, or any methodology whatsoever.

It is now almost certain that it was not a neutral, well-meaning independent organization but the creation of Michael Weiss, a non-resident senior fellow of NATO think tank The Atlantic Council. A scan of PropOrNot’s website showed that it was controlled by The Interpreter, a magazine of which Weiss is editor-in-chief. Furthermore, one investigator found dozens of examples of the Twitter accounts of PropOrNot and Weiss using the identical and very unusual turn of phrase, strongly suggesting they were one and the same. Thus, claims of a huge [foreign] state propaganda campaign were themselves state propaganda.

The reaction to this crude “propaganda about propaganda” campaign was both swift and wide-ranging. In early 2017, Google launched Project Owl, a massive overhaul of its algorithm. It claimed that it was purely a measure to stop foreign fake news from taking over the internet. The main outcome, however, was a catastrophic, overnight collapse in search traffic to high-quality alternative media outlets – drops from which they have never recovered. MintPress News lost nearly 90% of its organic Google search traffic and Truthout lost 25%. Websites that were not on PropOrNot’s list also suffered devastating losses. AlterNet experienced a 63% reduction, Common Dreams 37% and Democracy Now! 36%. Even liberal sources only moderately critical of the status quo, such as The Nation and Mother Jones, were penalized by the algorithm. Google search traffic to alternative media has never recovered and has, in many cases, gotten worse.

Credit | WSWS

This, for Martin, is a sign of the increasingly close relationship between Silicon Valley and the national security state. “Google willingly changed their algorithm to backpage all alternative media without even a law in place to mandate them to do so,” she said. Other social media juggernauts, such as Facebook and YouTube rolled out similar changes. All penalized alternative media and drove people back towards establishment sources like The Washington Post, CNN and Fox News.

The consequence of all this was to retighten the elite’s grip over the means of communication, a grip that had slipped owing to the rise of the internet as an alternative model.

The “Nationalization” of Social Media

Since 2016, a number of other measures have been taken to bring social media under the wing of the national security state. This was foreseen by Google executives Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who wrote in 2013, “What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first.” Since then, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM have become integral parts of the state apparatus, signing multibillion-dollar contracts with the CIA and other organizations to provide them with intelligence, logistics and computing services. Schmidt himself was chairman of both the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and the Defense Innovation Advisory Board, bodies created to help Silicon Valley assist the U.S. military with cyberweapons, further blurring the lines between big tech and big government.

Google’s current Global Head of Developer Product Policy, Ben Renda, has an even closer relationship with the national security state. From being a strategic planner and information management officer for NATO, he then moved to Google in 2008. In 2013, he began working for U.S. Cybercommand and in 2015 for the Defense Innovation Unit (both divisions of the Department of Defense). At the same time, he became a YouTube executive, rising to the rank of Director of Operations.

Jeff Bezos meets with Trump Defense Secretary James Mattis during a visit to west coast tech and defense companies. Jeff Bezos | Twitter

Other platforms have similar relationships with Washington. In 2018, Facebook announced that it had entered a partnership with The Atlantic Council whereby the latter would help curate the news feeds of billions of users worldwide, deciding what was credible, trustworthy information, and what was fake news. As noted previously, The Atlantic Council is NATO’s brain-trust and is directly funded by the military alliance. Last year, Facebook also hired Atlantic Council senior fellow and former NATO spokesperson Ben Nimmo as its head of intelligence, thereby giving an enormous amount of control over its empire to current and former national security state officials.

The Atlantic Council has also worked its way into Reddit’s management. Jessica Ashooh went straight from being Deputy Director of Middle East Strategy at The Atlantic Council to Director of Policy at the popular news aggregation service – a surprising career move that drew few remarks at the time.

Also eliciting little comment was the unmasking of a senior Twitter executive as an active-duty officer in the British Army’s notorious 77th Brigade – a unit dedicated to online warfare and psychological operations. Twitter has since partnered with the U.S. government and weapons manufacturer-sponsored think tank ASPI to help police its platform. On ASPI’s orders, the social media platform has purged hundreds of thousands of accounts based out of China, Russia, and other countries that draw Washington’s ire.

Last year, Twitter also announced that it had deleted hundreds of user accounts for “undermining faith in the NATO alliance and its stability” – a statement that drew widespread incredulity from those not closely following the company’s progression from one that championed open discussion to one closely controlled by the government.

The First Casualty

Those in the halls of power well understand how important a weapon big-tech is in a global information war. This can be seen in a letter published last Monday written by a host of national security state officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA directors Michael Morell and Leon Panetta, and former director of the NSA Admiral Michael Rogers.

Together, they warn that regulating or breaking up the big-tech monopolies would “inadvertently hamper the ability of U.S. technology platforms to … push back on the Kremlin.” “The United States will need to rely on the power of its technology sector to ensure” that “the narrative of events” globally is shaped by the U.S. and “not by foreign adversaries,” they explain, concluding that Google, Facebook, Twitter are “increasingly integral to U.S. diplomatic and national security efforts.”

Commenting on the letter, journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote:

[B]y maintaining all power in the hands of the small coterie of tech monopolies which control the internet and which have long proven their loyalty to the U.S. security state, the ability of the U.S. national security state to maintain a closed propaganda system around questions of war and militarism is guaranteed.”

The U.S. has frequently leaned on social media in order to control the message and promote regime change in target countries. Just days before the Nicaraguan presidential election in November, Facebook deleted the accounts of hundreds of the country’s top news outlets, journalists and activists, all of whom supported the left-wing Sandinista government.

When those figures poured onto Twitter to protest the ban, recording videos of themselves and proving that they were not bots or “inauthentic” accounts, as Facebook Intelligence Chief Nimmo had claimed, their Twitter accounts were systematically banned as well, in what observers coined as a “double-tap strike.”

Meanwhile, in 2009, Twitter acquiesced to a U.S. request to delay scheduled maintenance of its app (which would have required taking it offline) because pro-U.S. activists in Iran were using the platform to foment anti-government demonstrations.

More than 10 years later, Facebook announced that it would be deleting all praise of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani from its many platforms, including Instagram and WhatsApp. Soleimani – the most popular political figure in Iran – had recently been assassinated in a U.S. drone strike. The event sparked uproar and massive protests across the region. Yet because the Trump administration had declared Soleimani and his military group to be terrorists, Facebook explained, “We operate under U.S. sanctions laws, including those related to the U.S. government’s designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its leadership.” This meant that Iranians could not share a majority viewpoint inside their own country – even in their own language – because of a decision made in Washington by a hostile government.

War has come to alternative media.

We must say NO to censorship.

Help us rebuild alternative media!https://t.co/gKGTJu5bLZ pic.twitter.com/nGqTv5EbRs

— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) April 20, 2022

In this light, then, Google’s message to creators about victim-blaming Ukraine or trivializing and condoning violence is a threat: toe the line or face the consequences. While we continue to consider tech monopolies such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook to be private companies, their overwhelming size and their increasing proximity to the national security state means that their actions are tantamount to state censorship.

While fake news – including that emanating from Russia – continues to be a genuine problem, these new actions have far less to do with combatting disinformation or denial of war crimes and far more to do with reestablishing elite control over the field of communication. These new rules will not be applied to corporate media downplaying or justifying U.S. aggression abroad, denying American war crimes, or blaming oppressed peoples – such as Palestinians or Yemenis – for their own condition, but instead will be used as excuses to derank, demote, delist or even delete voices critical of war and imperialism. In war, they say, truth is always the first casualty.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image is from MPN

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

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

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

***

Bread & circuses keep the masses asleep…and they are taking away the bread.

As Biden announces food shortages are coming — prompting many to go stock up, and likely necessitating food rationing — two massive attacks are allegedly being perpetrated against our food supply: a “bird flu” epidemic is sweeping Europe and the US, again fuelled by PCR tests, forcing mass depopulation of poultry & “backyard flocks.”

And farms contaminated with PFAS (Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) are being shut down as it is finally revealed that the “Biosludge” applied to farms (including organic!) was the equivalent of salting the Earth to destroy food production.

In this Ice Age Farmer broadcast, Christian breaks it down and explores what is going to happen next: a great awakening.

*

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

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

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

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

***

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech.”—Benjamin Franklin

Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech.

Especially be on your guard when the reasons given for limiting your freedoms end up expanding the government’s powers.

In the wake of a mass shooting in Buffalo, NY, carried out by an 18-year-old gunman in military gear allegedly motivated by fears that the white race is in danger of being replaced, there have been renewed calls for social media monitoring, censorship of flagged content that could be construed as dangerous or hateful, and limitations on free speech activities, particularly online.

As expected, those who want safety at all costs will clamor for more gun control measures (if not at an outright ban on weapons for non-military, non-police personnel), widespread mental health screening of the general population and greater scrutiny of military veterans, more threat assessments and behavioral sensing warnings, more surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities, more “See Something, Say Something” programs aimed at turning Americans into snitches and spies, more metal detectors and whole-body imaging devices at soft targets, more roaming squads of militarized police empowered to do random bag searches, more fusion centers to centralize and disseminate information to law enforcement agencies, and more surveillance of what Americans say and do, where they go, what they buy and how they spend their time.

All of these measures play into the government’s hands.

As we have learned the hard way, the phantom promise of safety in exchange for restricted or regulated liberty is a false, misguided doctrine that serves only to give the government greater authority to crack down, lock down, and institute even more totalitarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.

Add the Department of Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board” to that mix, empower it to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.

Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

It’s been a long time since free speech was actually free.

On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.

That’s not a whole lot of freedom, especially if you’re inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous.

This steady, pervasive censorship creep clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness and inflicted on us by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) is technofascism, and it does not tolerate dissent.

These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. They’re laying the groundwork now to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

The internet, hailed as a super-information highway, is increasingly becoming the police state’s secret weapon. This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”

What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them.

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go and nothing left to say that cannot be misconstrued and used to muzzle us.

Yet what a lot of people fail to understand, however, is that it’s not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you think that is being tracked and targeted.

We’ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “hateful” thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.

With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”

Little by little, Americans have been conditioned to accept routine incursions on their freedoms.

This is how oppression becomes systemic, what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.

It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.

Diamond’s concerns related to Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, but it’s a powerful analogy for the steady erosion of our freedoms and decline of our country right under our noses.

As Diamond explains, “In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”

His answer: “I suspect that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper.”

Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Yet almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.

The same could be said of the America today: it, too, is being reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they are failing to preserve freedom for future generations.

In Easter Island’s case, as Diamond speculates:

“The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference.Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.”

Sound painfully familiar yet?

We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. It has vanished slowly, over the decades. Those who warned against the dangers posed by too many laws, invasive surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids and the like have been silenced and ignored. They stopped teaching about freedom in the schools. Few Americans know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if they have no rights at all.

The erosion of our freedoms happened so incrementally, no one seemed to notice. Only the older generations, remembering what true freedom was like, recognized the difference. Gradually, the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry became fewer, smaller and less important. By the time the last freedom falls, no one will know the difference.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls: with a thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother, but they add up.

Each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.

We are on that downward slope now.

The contagion of fear that has been spread with the help of government agencies, corporations and the power elite is poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.

America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on everything in its path.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, while we squabble over which side is winning this losing battle, a tsunami approaches.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

On May 16 2022, Finland and Sweden decided to become members of NATO.

This totally against the 1991 US / NATO promise to then Russian President Gorbachev, that “NATO will not move an inch eastward from Berlin”. Then total NATO members were 14, two in the Americas – US and Canada – and 12 in Europe. By late 1990’s, expansion started rapidly and today NATO counts 30 members, 28 in Europe and the same two in the Americas. Most of the new ones East of Berlin.

Finland shares a 1,340 km border with Russia. Thus, as a NATO country, it would become another real threat for Moscow. Also, during WWII, Finland allied with Nazi Germany fighting the Soviet Union, when the USSR lost some 27 million people, soldiers and civilians. Finland does not have a clean record vis-à-vis Russia.

On the other hand, Sweden shares no border with Russia and has not been at war with Russia in the last 300 years. Sweden like Finland, has not been threatened at all by Russia. So, Sweden teaming up with Finland against Russia – there is something quite weird going on. A country does not overnight seek or make an enemy, when there was absolutely not a minimum threat from the “assumed” enemy. What’s going on?

Given the circumstances of these two “neutral” countries suddenly changing from “neutral” to aggressive” against Russia, must have other reasons than Russia attacking Ukraine. Both of these countries know exactly the background for the Russian war on Ukraine.

While war should under all circumstances be avoided, and replaced by negotiations, one cannot ignore Russia’s worries – preoccupations enhanced by the fact that many proposals for negotiations advanced by Russia before the war were rejected by Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy.

Likewise, after the beginning of the armed conflict, proposal for Peace Talks, notably by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, were, though first accepted, then rejected, which made Mr. Lavrov assume that Mr. Zelenskyy is not his sovereign own man, but follows instructions. See his interview with Al Arabia media below.

Could it be, or is it highly probable that both Finland and Sweden were coerced by Washington, and likely by Europe / NATO to decide and ask for immediate NATO membership? Sweden, because of the North Sea, where Russia has a dominant presence?

The NATO czar, Stoltenberg, has repeatedly said that NATO would apply special measures (or create special rules?) to accelerate NATO membership for these two countries. He reiterated on several occasions that by June 2022 Finland and Sweden could already be active members. Normally, it takes at least a year for a new NATO member to enter the Alliance. So, what’s the hurry, if there is no threat?

Before the Ukraine-Russia war, and before the billion-dollars-worth western anti-Russia-Russia-Russia campaign, only about a third, max. 40% of the people of both countries, were somewhat favorable towards NATO – a clear minority.

After the beginning of the war, and the utterly distorted anti-Russia lie-propaganda campaign, the popular support for NATO-entry allegedly jumped to about 70%. Yet, this figure advanced by the two NATO candidate countries, would have to be scientifically verified, as both nations have a highly educated population. They know the risks they are taking by becoming de facto enemies of Russia by NATO membership.

Ukraine was a candidate for NATO long before the 2014 Maidan Coup. In fact, the Maidan Coup was an instrument to accelerate Ukraine’s NATO membership. Russia – President Putin – from the very beginning said Nyet to Ukraine NATO membership. Not only was he referring to the 1991 promise, but also to the Minks Agreement of 2014. After the US planned and directed Maidan Coup in Kiev, the Minsk Protocol was negotiated by France and Germany. Under the Minsk Accord, Ukraine was to remain neutral, de-militarized, no NATO ‘ever’. The Protocol also demanded a De-Nazification of Ukraine, as well as a special status for the two Donbas Republics, Donetsk and Lugansk.

De-Nazification refers primarily to the Nazi Azov Battalion(s) that were for the last 8 years lambasting and attacking mostly civilians in the two “independent” Donbas Republics, causing some 14,000 deaths, about one third of which are children.

Russia – President Putin and most of the Kremlin – are particularly sensitive to the Ukraine Nazis, as they collaborated with Hitler’s Nazi Germany in WWII, in the war against Russia, when some 27 million Russians were killed.

NATO knows about it. Therefore NATO, under the guidance of Washington and followed by Brussels, kept and keeps provoking Russia with first sending military “advisors” and clandestinely weapons to Ukraine.

For NATO countries a key objective is to conquer Russia – primarily for her riches in natural resources, as well as the enormous landmass, the globe’s largest country – and for the power the dominance of large and rich Russia would bestow in this sick western personal and corporate oligarchy.

In the preparation of the war, weapons were clandestinely delivered from the west to Ukraine. Now, weapon deliveries from the US and from European NATO countries in the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars-worth equivalent, are fully open. No secret. Not even hidden anymore. NATO countries feel they have the right to indirectly use Ukraine to fight Russia.

But what is RIGHT?

The last two decades at least, were exacerbated by the fake WEF (World Economic Forum)-imposed covid scare, lockdown, killing of the world economy, killing of common people’s livelihood, killing of children’s future – reflected in the skyrocketing teenager suicide rate and more untold misery; all of which eradicated the human notion of RIGHTS and WRONGS.

During this period, International Rule of Law has completely disappeared. Nobody respects it anymore. The judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) of The Hague, so far have not accepted any claim that goes against the interests of the Cabal, mostly Anglo Saxon-led westerners – plus the insanely wealthy financial corporations, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity – see this.

But now comes the hick. Just a little detail. According to Article 10 of the NATO Constitution, all 30 members of the Alliance have to agree to a new member.

Turkey, a key NATO member, in a particularly strategic geographic and geopolitical position, opposes entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO. And this under the pretext, so Turkish President Erdogan, that “the two Nordic countries are “guesthouses for terrorist organizations.” He [Erdogan] was referring to the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front (DHKP/C), which have been outlawed by Ankara”.

“These countries do not have a clear unequivocal stance against terrorist organizations. Sweden is the incubation center of terrorist organizations. They bring terrorists to talk in their parliaments… We wouldn’t say ‘yes’ to them joining NATO, a security organization… They were going to come on Monday to convince us. Sorry, they don’t have to bother,” Erdogan said.

The Swedish Foreign Ministry said on Monday [16 May 2022] that senior officials from Helsinki and Stockholm would travel to Turkey to discuss the matter. Erdogan, however, indicated at the press briefing that such talks would be senseless. See this from Le Monde International.

Turkey may be a NATO country, one of the most important ones for the Alliance, due to her geographically strategic location and position. However, Turkey is also an ally of Russia. And in recent months and years, Erdogan has been tilting more towards Russia, to the east in general, than to the west, towards her western NATO allies. Has Erdogan noticed how unreliable and deceptive, and trickery the West / NATO is and behaves around the world? It’s very likely.

Anticipating such a move, Jens Stoltenberg had already said days ago that if Turkey, or any other NATO member, would oppose entry of Finland and Sweden into the Alliance – NATO would apply special measures to overrule NATO’s Article 10. He did not elaborate what measures he would apply.

But in a world without rules, everything is possible.

When in 2017, Turkish President Recep Erdogan brokered a deal reportedly worth $2.5 billion with Russian President Vladimir Putin, for the purchase of the highly sophisticated Russian S–400 air defense system, there was talk of Turkey possibly exiting the Alliance. Indeed, Turkey has been “sanctioned” for doing so, and many, if not all, of the nuclear war-heads stationed in Turkey were removed and placed in Europe, most of them in Italy.

Might this be again a moment for Turkey to say and, indeed, decide to exit NATO and seek closer alliance with Russia and China – and the east in general?

The Eurasian Economic Commission might welcome a strategic Turkey in its fold. For Turkey quite a positive alternative option to the constant threats and sanctions by the west.

Would NATO fall apart, if Turkey decided to leave? Good riddance. That would be a blessing for 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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The latest mass shooter in Buffalo, New York was clearly a racist, and identified with Ukrainian and other neo-Nazis. But white supremacy has a stronger hold on European and U.S. society than is commonly acknowledged. The avowed racist is not the only problem.

The incidents of mindless, mass carnage in the United States have become so routine that they do not even make national headlines unless the incident has a potential attention-grabbing twist.

One of those dramatic twists is when the victims of a mass-shooting are from a common social identity and the perpetrator appeals to be motivated by hatred of the targeted group. This is what makes the shooting in Buffalo stand out. The authorities could not hide the fact that it was a hate crime and the media saw a juicy story, if only for a day or two.

🇺🇸#DISTURBING: Gunman live streamed shooting on Twitch under the name “jimboboiii” pic.twitter.com/nPYc80aV2P

— Intel Point ALERT (@IntelPointAlert) May 14, 2022

However, for those of us who are members of communities and peoples who are increasingly finding ourselves on the receiving end of state and private racially motivated violence, we have a life-or-death requirement to attempt to understand the complex political and socio-cultural elements that are producing this dangerous environment.. This understanding is not academic but represents a historical imperative for our communities and peoples in order for us to survive the end-days of global white supremacy.

It is important that we understand that the racist assault on the Black community in Buffalo did not occur in a socio-cultural or political vacuum.

The premeditated murder of thirteen human beings, eleven of them Black, by a young white man wearing a sonnenrad or black sun, one of the symbols of white supremacy that the white supremacists wear in Ukraine, had a perverted logic perfectly consistent with the values of the U.S. settler-colonial project. And while the liberal, white supremacist settler corporate press tries to muddle-up the connection between the Buffalo shooter and Ukrainian white supremacists, we must make the connection, including the attempts to obscure the relationship by the media, and we must be clear on its political implications.

When Cristoforo Colombo, better known as Christopher Columbus, the original genocidal gangster, “discovered” a route for a sea bridge between the kingdom of Spain and what became the “Americas,” it ushered in a new historical epoch that would see levels of human degradation, violence, and depravity unlike any other era of the human experience on this planet. At the center of the cosmology of these strange people from Spain and later from other parts of what became Europe was an ideal of human difference, at first informed by religion but very soon intersected with a process of racialization that hierarchize  race with so-called whites and white civilization at the top. That racial hierarchy, rationalized by some of Europe’s greatest philosophers from Locke and Immanuel Kant to Hegel, called into question or even excluded the non-European “others” as full human beings.

As Cedric Robinson argued, European racial consciousness did not emerge as some devious invention by capitalists to divide the working class. Instead, it represented a historically pre-conditioned consciousness of an incipient racialization in Europe that then as a result of the colonial encounter crystalized into a fully developed sense of race and racial hierarchy.

When Bartolome de La Casa made his famous argument that the Indigenous peoples who were being systematically destroyed by slavery were in fact human beings with souls and should not be subjected to inhumane treatment, the switch to enslaved Africans was seamless. Because even though the Indigenous were then seen as a lower form of human, they were eligible to be converted since they had a soul which meant they were at least partially human, but that consideration was not extended to the soulless Africans.

The military conquest of the lands of the Americas and the enslavement of the Indigenous and then the importation of slave labor from Africa created enormous wealth for Europe. Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein but particularly Walter Rodney in his masterpiece, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, demonstrated how colonial subjugation and plunder created a vast material gulf between the conquered, enslaved, and colonized peoples and Europe that further reinforced the racialized idea of European and normalized white supremacy.

From the settlers who shot and killed their way across the lands that were incorporated into the colonial United States, to the brutality, rape and terror of plantation slavery to the lynching and burning of Black communities, the denial of the value of Black life and indeed all non-European life, has been an enduring feature of the Pan-European colonial and settler-colonial project. So, should Dylan Roof who murdered nine Black people in Charleston, North Carolina or the murders by Payton Gendron in Buffalo be seen as aberrant behavior?

That is not to say that all Europeans would condone the wanton violence of spraying bullets at non-Europeans out on a Saturday afternoon just trying to shop. Most would condemn those actions. But this is where the contradiction at the heart of European liberalism comes in.

Morally, what is the difference between the attack on Libya by NATO, an instrument of white supremacist state power that resulted in up to 50,000 African people dying and was largely supported by the public in the West, and the mass shootings of Roof and Payton Gendron?

The Buffalo shooter was clear about where his sentiments were when he prominently and self-consciously displayed the same symbol of white supremacy that the Azov regiments and other white supremacists’ organizations wear in Ukraine. Yet, Biden who traveled to Buffalo and most of the political class along with the neoliberal media have gone out of their way to erase and/or rehabilitate the existence of those elements in Ukrainian society and in the state that are avowed white supremacists like the shooter.

When the largely peaceful Euromaidan demonstrations in Ukraine against the democratically elected government of Victor Yanukovych made a violent turn in late 2013, it was widely acknowledged that it was the neo-fascists element, especially elements from Western Ukraine who assumed the frontlines against the government and turned toward violence. After the coup of February 2014 when four known ultra-right nationalists secured governmental ministries in the new government, along with literal neo-Nazis in the parliament and in the security forces, press reports responsibly covered those developments.

Reports also begin to circulate about Ukraine becoming a symbol and, indeed, the epicenter for a resurgent transnational white supremacist movement. Those concerns were reflected in reports from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and were the object of discussions in the U.S. Congress.

Yet, that history and all of those concerns were minimized when the propaganda objective was to win the public over to supporting an escalating proxy war with Russia. The incredible irresponsibility of this propaganda tactic was reflected when merchandise from Azov appeared on Amazon and the reporting on Ultra-right and neo-Nazis in Ukraine was “disappeared” except to denounce any reference to fascists in Ukraine brought up by social forces opposed to the war as Kremlin talking points.

In fact, while knowing the history and reality of the ultra-right and neo-Nazi elements in Ukrainian society and state, the corporate media made heroes out of elements like the neo-fascist Azov battalion. Is it then hard to understand why an impressionable teen would be attracted to those courageous fighters, especially when he also shares their racial animus?

But instead of engaging in some principled reporting on the shooting in Buffalo, the neoliberal press decides to politicize the event to favor the political objectives of the democrat party by attempting to connect the shooter to Donald Trump and the entire MAGA movement that they are trying to criminalize. Even though the shooter himself made the connection with the movement in Ukraine. Of course, some are falling for it, including the liberal/left that had become cheerleaders for Ukraine, even as Ukrainian president Zelensky shuts down left parties, the press and gives a green light to repressing, including the murder, of any opposition to his policies.

There will be No Proletarian Internationalism or World Revolution Until Northern Leftists Defeat White Supremacy

Zelensky talks about the need to “defend the West,” “Europeanness,” “Western values,” and the liberal/left does not recognize the inherent assumptions of white supremacy in those terms. But Payton Gendron did and is why he enlisted in Zelensky’s fight not in Ukraine but in the middle of an African American community.

An exaggeration?

History will determine that. But what some of us see is a racialized discourse operating just below the surface in which Europe and Europeaness that Ukrainians strive for is also connected to a racialized trope of Europe being ontologically civilized while the less-white Slavs are barbarians, prone to irrational violence, like the Russians who decided “out of nowhere” to just attack Ukraine!

We also understand that downplaying the threat of a resurgent white supremacist fascism in its most sophisticated form represented by Zelensky who has become that slick, right-wing politician with politics as racist as Trump but without the crudeness who many feared could emerge in the U.S. No one could have anticipated that person would emerge in Europe as the lovable face of fascism.

Buffalo closes the loop that connects crude white supremacy with its more polished and dangerous expression. Both of these versions represent a consensus that is committed to using force and violence to ensure that white power will not to be “replaced.” This new consensus has created the ideological foundation for the legitimation of a cross-class white supremacist defense of something called European values and the interests of Europe. The lack of concern for the consequences of the war and sanctions on the rest of the world confirms that this consensus and the interests it defends are in contradiction to the interests of the non-Western global majority.

For us, Buffalo is not a wake-up call but a declaration 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.

This article was originally published on Black Agenda Report.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S. based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the Steering Committee of the Black is Back Coalition.

Featured image: Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron wore the black sun insignia used by Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalioon (Source: BAR)

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

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

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

***

Former President George W. Bush:

“The decision of one man [Putin] to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”

Invade Iraq or Invade Ukraine. “That is the Question”

See G. W. Bush Video Below where in his confusion, he accuses Vladimir Putin of “invasion of Iraq, I mean of Ukraine”.

This is not a slip of the tongue. In his subconscious mind he must have recalled his own “unjustified and brutal” decision as POTUS to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Former President George W. Bush: “The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.” pic.twitter.com/UMwNMwMnmX

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) May 19, 2022

Video of Bush’s Blunder at “Elections, A More Perfect Union”

3’01”

Bush Gets His Putins Mixed Up

During his election campaign in 2000, Bush got his “Putins Mixed Up”: 

Vladimir Putin, Jean Poutine and a French Canadian dish called “Poutine”.

Vladimir Putin became acting president of the Russian Federation upon Yeltsin’s resignation in December 1999, a couple of months prior to the outset of the 2000 US presidential election campaign. Putin was confirmed as President in May 2000.

So much for informed US foreign policy. Visibly, presidential candidate George W. Bush did not have the foggiest idea who was the head of state of the Russian Federation.

Moreover, he did not know the name of the Prime Minister of America’s northern neighbor Jean Chretien.

He thought that the Canadian Prime Minister’s name was Jean Poutine: 

Here is the video:

And there is A LOT MORE on the sheer stupidity of a former POTUS.

The Taliban. “I  Thought You Were Talking About a Rock Group”

And then there was another failure at the height of his election campaign: He thought the Taliban was a “rock group”:

When a Glamor correspondent asked Governor Bush what he thought about the Taliban, he just shrugged his shoulders, bemused. It took a bit of prompting from the journalist (“discrimination against women in Afghanistan”) for Bush to rouse himself: Taliban in Afghanistan! Absolutely. Reprisals. I thought you were talking about some rock group.  That’s how well-informed about the outside world the prospective U.S. president is. Even about very important present-day developments that are on everyone’s lips – that is, everyone with the slightest pretensions to culture; developments that he, if elected, will have to deal with.

Concluding Remarks

GWB was a proxy president, totally ignorant of geopolitics and US foreign policy.

He followed instructions.

Joe Biden has a higher IQ, But he is also a proxy.

He’s an instrument of Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

These are the politicians who are responsible for far-reaching decisions including the use of nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis as a means of “self defense”. See: Bush’s Nuclear Posture Review 2001.

Full Video of the Dallas Event

*

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

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

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

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

***

To our readers,

We’d like to extend our gratitude for your continued support in these challenging times.

As you may all know, Global Research has been unduly censored by the search engines, not to mention the recurrent smears by the “fact-checkers” and mainstream media platforms. In the past weeks, we have experienced a significant drop in our daily readership following a coordinated DDoS (“distributed denial of service”) cyber attack emanating simultaneously from five countries consisting of millions of so-called “malicious requests”.

While the attack was blocked by our security specialists, our readership has nonetheless been affected.

As it is our shared interest to pursue the truth for peace and justice, we would like to appeal to you to employ every creative and effective means to sustain our online presence.

• Crossposting Global Research articles on your blog sites,
• Forwarding Global Research articles to emails lists,
• Sharing Global Research articles on social media,
• Bringing the Globalresearch.ca Newsletter to the attention of friends and colleagues,
• Use the translate template on the top of our website to reproduce Global Research in as many foreign languages
• And more

We need every help we can get so take the liberty to cascade our daily publications in your own ways.

Moreover, we are active on social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). Please feel free to follow and share.

We see all your efforts and we appreciate every bit of them! 

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Thank you for supporting independent media!

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

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

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

***

Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has whipped up U.S. opposition against Vladimir Putin like a would-be Stonewall Jackson.

Even before the invasion, on February 22, 2022 Graham announced he’d be working with his Democratic colleagues to “create a task force of the Department of Justice, Department of State, Treasury, and maybe DOD to go after [Russian] oligarchs,” adding,

“I want to see cops take apartments, fine art, and seize yachts from a bunch of thugs and crooks. I want to put money on the table to have more weapons for Ukraine to fight. I want more protection when it comes to cyber, and I want to go at this big and I want to go at it hard.”

In the wake of the invasion, on March 3 Graham introduced a Senate Resolution condemning Vladimir Putin and other members of the Russian state as war criminals. The Resolution, which unanimously passed the Senate on March 15, also proclaimed support for investigations of Russian war crimes pending in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This proclaimed support comes despite the fact that the U.S. has repeatedly undermined the courts’ jurisdiction over itself and investigations it disproves of.

That same day, Graham took to Twitter to voice his desire that “somebody in Russia…take this guy out.” Graham’s comments drew the ire of even his fellow Russia hawks, with Ted Cruz (R-TX) calling Graham’s suggestion an “exceptionally bad idea.”

Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?

The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.

You would be doing your country – and the world – a great service.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 4, 2022

A week later, on March 10, 2022, Graham appeared on Fox News to pressure the Biden Administration into providing MiG-29 fighters to Ukraine through Poland. In his tough-guy tirade, he repeatedly called the Biden Administration “dishonorable,” saying it “folds at every turn” when it comes to Ukraine. Near the end of the interview, Graham doubled down on his call for regime change in Moscow:

They [the Biden Administration] had a plan where the Ukrainians would fight hard and fold in a week. They’d come in with some BS deal, the [Biden] administration, to carve up the Ukraine and say we saved the world from World War Three. That plan is off the rails now because the Ukrainians have taken the fight to the Russians. We overestimated the Russian capability. So their biggest nightmare in the administration is for this to end badly with Putin because they don’t have a plan for him to go. I want it to end badly for Putin because I want to get rid of him. [Emphasis added].

On March 16, Graham introduced an additional Senate Resolution urging the Biden Administration “to facilitate the transfer of aircraft, such as MiG-29s, and air defense systems to Ukraine.” In a corresponding press conference, he said:

How does this end? We cannot let Putin get away with this. After 20 years of murder and war crimes and thievery, it’s led to this moment. Every time he did something outrageous, the world complained, but not enough. Now he’s crossed the Rubicon where there’s no going back. If he’s still standing when this is over, then you can almost bet that Taiwan goes and that Iran will become more belligerent. [Emphasis Added]

The very next day, on March 17, Graham again took to Fox News. After poo-pooing the possibility of a nuclear exchange, he escalated his rhetoric:

If you’re looking for scum and traitors in Russia, Putin, look in the mirror. You’re the scum, you’re the traitor, you’re the guy who should be facing criminal charges, or be taken out…I don’t consider [Putin] a legitimate leader of Russia. Russia is suffering under Putin maybe as much as any other time in history. So, when I say he has to go, he has to go, because he is a war criminal. He’s a murderer, he’s a thief, he’s a disruptive influence. He wants to recreate the Soviet Union. The way he goes is when the Russian People turn on him. The purge I’m looking for is when the Russian People rise up and take him out…So yes, I want to give my voice to the idea that he’s not a legitimate leader. He’s a war criminal. He needs to  go and I’m urging the Russian People to bring that about, to end this reign of terror. That’s what I believe, I believe it with all my heart…  [Emphasis Added]

On March 24, in his next now regular Fox News appearance, Graham called for Joe Biden to repeat his regime change rhetoric. He said,

“[w]hat would I like the President of the United States to say? I believe Ukraine can win. I am committed to them winning. I will hold Putin accountable—he needs to go. He’s a war criminal on an industrial scale.”

Two days later, President Biden echoed Graham’s call for Russian regime change while delivering a speech in Poland. In his wandering, poorly-enunciated prose, Biden managed to call Putin a “butcher,” saying “for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” These comments were quickly walked back by his press corps and framed as a “gaffe.”

However, by April 5, citing the Bucha attack, President Biden doubled down, parroting Graham’s myriad calls for Putin to be tried for war crimes. Graham praised Biden’s remarks, saying:

“There can be no ‘forgive and forget’ when it comes to Putin. We must hold him accountable for the Rule of Law to mean anything.”

On April 22, after returning from a trip to Australia, Taiwan, and Japan to stoke American Cold War efforts against China, Graham again called for regime change in Moscow, saying:

“Right now, there should be nothing left on the table when it comes to Putin, and we should put every form of weapon within reason into the hands of the Ukrainians. They’re willing to fight.”

On May 10, Graham co-authored and introduced yet another Senate Resolution. The resolution, if passed, aims to denounce the Russia Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism and would call on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to designate it as such. To date, it is Senator Graham’s most dangerous concrete step towards regime change in Moscow.

In his press statement, Graham made it clear that the declaration intends to:

“let the Russian people know that our fight is with Putin, and as long as he is your leader, engaging in these activities, you will be isolated on the world stage.”

In conjunction with his press statement, Graham also penned an op-ed for Fox News in support of the Resolution. The op-ed, titled “4 reasons to label Putin’s Russia a state sponsor of terrorism,” does not, in fact, provide four reasons to do so, but instead lists four categories of sanctions Washington could impose through the designation:

First, it would restrict U.S. foreign assistance to Russia.

Second, it would ban U.S. defense and export sales to Russia.

Third, it would impose certain control over U.S. exports of dual use items.

Lastly, it would allow the U.S. to impose additional financial and other restrictions on Russia. Importantly, its designation is a clear message to the rest of the world that doing business with Russia is a bad idea and will come with severe consequences.

Graham’s op-ed accuses Putin of having “terrorized innocent civilians all around the world,” citing Russia’s involvement in Chechnya, Libya, and Syria.

Graham fails to note, however, that the U.S. has no moral standing to accuse Russia of war crimes, especially in Libya, where Washington’s overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi resulted in, inter alia, a humanitarian disaster and a civil war that would see the establishment of open-air slave markets.

In Syria, Washington’s efforts to overthrow Assad would see U.S. leadership, including Lindsey Graham, back ISIS. Senator Graham knows this because it was explained to him by then-Chairman of the U.S. joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, during a 2014 Senate testimony. Graham is also likely aware that the U.S. flew air support for ISIS in Syria.

Further, as former FBI lawyer Coleen Rowley reported, U.S. leadership was involved in Chechnya. She writes: “the Chechen ‘terrorists’ proved useful to the U.S. in keeping pressure on the Russians, much as the Afghan mujahedeen were used in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan from 1980 to 1989.” Indeed, several U.S. politicians and neoconservative policy makers supported the Chechen cause.

Washington’s support for war criminals extends beyond the cases that Graham cites, most recently in its ongoing support for the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Azov battalion.

If Russia is declared a state sponsor of terrorism, it will be incredibly difficult to rescind the designation. There are only two ways to remove a nation from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. The first would require “a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the government of the country concerned.” Both options would require the President to certify and report to Congress that the subject nation has not provided any support for acts of international terrorism in at least the preceding 6-month period and that the government concerned has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future. Putin is unlikely to ever do this in a way that would satisfy President Biden or US officials.

Last Sunday, when speaking with Fox News Host Bret Baier, Lindsey Graham said: “there is no off-ramp in this war,” adding, “I want to triple down on beating Putin.” For Senator Graham, this is a desired result. If Russia is placed on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list, it would further commit the United States to a path of escalation with Russia.

Washington has arguably become a direct party to the War in Ukraine. The U.S. and its NATO allies are financing the war, supplying Ukraine with weapons and training its military. There are reports that Washington has helped Ukraine kill Russian Generals and sink the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. More broadly, there is evidence to suggest that the U.S. has sabotaged peace negotiations, effectively “ordering Ukraine to subordinate its goals to the larger Western Goals.”

Russian officials largely concur. On April 26, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said “NATO, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy. War means war,” The Speaker of the Russian State Duma said on May 7, “the U.S. is taking part in the military operation in Ukraine. Today, Washington is basically coordinating and engineering military operations, thus directly participating in the military actions against our country.” Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned May 12 that NATO is risking “a full-fledged nuclear war” by supplying Ukraine with weapons and intelligence.

Unfortunately, it appears Lindsey Graham’s May 10 Resolution has gained support. On Sunday, May 15, after returning from a surprise visit to Kiev, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called on President Biden to make the designation, saying “the President could do it on his own, and I would urge him to do it.”

If Graham and company are successful and the U.S. names Russia as a State Sponsor of Terror, Americans will be further committed to the spiraling escalation over Ukraine. It bears repeating that this policy could very well result in the destruction of the human race.

*

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

Patrick MacFarlane is the Justin Raimondo Fellow at the Libertarian Institute where he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy. He is a Wisconsin attorney in private practice. He is the host of the Liberty Weekly Podcast at www.libertyweekly.net, where he seeks to expose establishment narratives with well researched documentary-style content and insightful guest interviews. His work has appeared on antiwar.com and Zerohedge. He may be reached at [email protected]

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On Monday, large-scale NATO military training began in Estonia. According to the military alliance, the ‘Hedgehog 2022’ exercise is one of the largest in the Baltic nation’s history. The drills will involve 15,000 troops from 14 countries, including members of the military blocs as well as their partners.

Soldiers from Finland, Sweden, Georgia, and Ukraine will take part in the exercise, according to the Finnish public radio Yle. According to the broadcaster, the drills will encompass all branches of the armed forces and will entail air, sea, and land exercises, as well as cyber warfare training.

According to a NATO statement, the drills would also include the participation of the US Navy Wasp-class landing ship ‘Kearsarge.’ Both the military bloc and the deputy commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, Major General Veiko-Vello Palm, have denied that the maneuvers near the Russian border had anything to do with Moscow’s continuing military operation in Ukraine.

The drills began barely a day after Finland and Sweden officially announced their intentions to join NATO, and were planned long before the war in Ukraine erupted, according to Western sources.

However, the drills in Estonia are only one component of NATO’s large-scale military activities near the Russian border. Lithuania, another Baltic state, is hosting the ‘Iron Wolf’ exercise, which includes 3,000 NATO troops and 1,000 pieces of military equipment, including German Leopard 2 tanks.

NATO exercises in Poland

According to a NATO statement issued on Friday, two of NATO’s largest exercises – ‘Defender Europe’ and ‘Swift Response’ – are taking place in Poland and eight other countries, involving 18,000 troops from 20 nations.

“Exercises like these show that NATO stands strong and ready to protect our nations and defend against any threat,” the military bloc’s spokesperson, Oana Lungescu, said, adding that the drills “help to remove any room for miscalculation or misunderstanding about our resolve to protect and defend every inch of allied territory.”

The NATO Response Force is now participating in the ‘Wettiner Heide’ drills in Germany with a force of 7,500 people. The ‘Neptune series’ naval drills featuring the USS ‘Harry S. Truman’ carrier strike group, which will be placed under NATO command, are scheduled to take place in the Mediterranean Sea.

However, according to NATO, this will be only the second time since the Cold War’s conclusion that a US carrier group has been brought under the military bloc’s direction.

In June, the Baltic States and Poland will host what NATO describes as “Europe’s largest integrated air and missile defense exercise,” which would involve 23 nations.

NATO naval drills

Finland held NATO naval drills in late April. It is now also hosting a joint land exercise in which forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, Estonia, and Latvia are taking part.

Massive military drills are taking place amid rising tensions between Russia, NATO, and some of the military alliance’s allies. Finland, which shares a lengthy border with Russia, and Sweden agreed to reexamine their long-standing policy of non-alignment in the aftermath of the war on Ukraine.

The announcement provoked a surge of condemnation from Moscow, which warned that if Finland and Sweden joined NATO, it would have to respond. Moscow also thinks that NATO expansion is a direct danger to national security.

*

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

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

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

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

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

***

US aid to Ukraine has reached astonishing heights ever since Russia launched its military operation on February 24, with continuous streams of arms, ammunition and intelligence provisions flowing into the country. At a time when living costs is becoming increasingly unbearable for the average American, Congress is poised to approve more than $40 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine, an amount nearly three times greater than what the US has already committed. However, the efficiency of this aid is put into question considering systemic corruption in Ukraine and the short survival rate of Western weapons once they enter the country.

If Congress were to approve $40 billion, along with the $13.6 billion passed in March, the combined $53.7 billion is about 81% of Russia’s 2021 defense budget. Although it appears that the US is making a serious and committed effort for Ukrainian forces to overcome the Russian military, the difference this military aid would make is questionable since much of it will be destroyed by Russian aviation and missile strikes upon entry into Ukraine.

In March, Congress authorized $13.6 billion in aid, of which $6.9 billion will be sent through traditional foreign aid channels. This aid is supposed to go toward strengthening Ukraine’s security and economy, food assistance, healthcare and emergency assistance to refugees, as well as weapons. It is expected that the extra $40 billion, which will likely be approved by Congress, will be spent much in the same manner.

Ukraine has long been one of the more corrupt countries in the world, and there is no indication this has reversed just because of the war. In this way, it can be expected that much of the $53.7 billion will be stolen in corruption schemes orchestrated by Ukraine’s military, oligarchs and government officials. What is known is that $13.9 billion will indirectly go to the Kiev government so that ministries can continue to operate. $4.4 billion in emergency food aid will go to Ukraine (and other countries too). Finally, $900 million will go to housing, English language training, and trauma treatment for Ukrainian refugees.

According to The New York Times, the US has shown unprecedented generosity towards Kiev when Congress does not want to carry out critical economic stimulation measures. This is at a time when inflation is reaching unprecedented heights, fuel hits new records and grocery prices are unaffordable.

On May 12, Republican Senator Rand Paul opposed the bill to provide Ukraine with additional support. As he said: “We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the US economy.” None-the-less, despite Rand Paul’s opposition, the Senate will likely pass the aid bill as he is the only one who has spoken out against it.

Although the aid package undoubtedly appears generous, Washington never makes such actions just out of charity and it can be expected that all aid is conditional. In early May, Biden signed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 to expedite the delivery of US arms shipments to Ukraine.

The Lend-Lease Act was used during World War II to supply weapons to allied countries, partly on a reciprocal basis. The US supplied weapons, strategic materials, and food to Britain, the Soviet Union, the de Gaulle government in France, and China. But due to these aid packages, the UK owed $31.4 billion and the Soviet Union $10.9 billion. Although Washington canceled the UK’s debt, Russia only finished paying off the loan in 2006.

Kiev is not thinking about having to pay back all its debt as it expects that the West will cover the costs seeing as the Ukrainian economy has been struggling due to rampant corruption. Washington will inevitably claim compensation for the Lend-Lease Act – whether it be with the supply of cheap agricultural products, rights to build military bases on Ukrainian territory, the implementation of projects that benefit Western companies, or in a plethora of other ways.

Through such conditional aid, Ukraine is expected to continue its war effort against Russia instead of finding a peaceful solution. However, this will only prolong the suffering in Ukraine as this aid will make little difference considering a lot of the humanitarian aid will be stolen by corrupt officials and military aid will likely be destroyed by Russian forces as it enters the country – but Ukrainian taxpayers will still be expected to foot the bill.

*

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

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

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

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

***

Seeing Russia invade Ukraine, historically neutral Finland has undergone a late conversion and decided to join NATO immediately.

Why? Because NATO membership means the world’s strongest power, the United States, under Article 5 of NATO, would go to war against Russia, should it cross Finland’s border.

Nervous about Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s intentions, Finland wants America legally and morally bound to fight Russia on its behalf, should Putin invade Finland as he invaded Ukraine.

From the Finnish point of view, this is perfectly understandable.

But why would the United States consent to go to war with Russia, the largest nuclear power on earth, for violating Finland’s frontiers?

Finland is not Alaska; it is not Canada; it is 5,000 miles away. And no one ever asserted during the Cold War, or for the decades since, that Finland was a U.S. vital interest.

Why, then, would we consent, in advance, to go to war with Russia over Finland?

President Joe Biden said last week that NATO has an “open door” policy and Finland and Sweden are welcome, and he looks forward to their joining.

Consider what Biden is actually saying and doing here.

He is ceding to Finland, a country of 5.5 million people with an 830-mile border with Putin’s Russia, the right to obligate the United States of America to go to war with Russia, if Russia attacks Finland.

What patriot would commit his own country, in perpetuity, to go to war on behalf of another country not his own?

Why would America surrender to the Finns our freedom of action in deciding whether or not to fight a nuclear-armed Russia?

NATO is not a country club; it is a military alliance Putin regards as an enemy. Every member of that alliance is obliged to treat an attack on any one of its 30 members as an attack on all, and all are obligated to come to the defense of the nation attacked.

By welcoming Finland into NATO, Biden is offering Helsinki the kind of war guarantee Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave to Poland in the spring of 1939, which led to Britain’s having to declare war on Sept. 3, 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland.

How did that work out for Britain and the empire?

In his farewell address, President George Washington warned his countrymen against “permanent alliances.” In conscious echo of our first president, Thomas Jefferson warned against “entangling alliances.”

NATO is a military alliance that has been in existence since 1949. While it began with the U.S., Canada and 10 European nations, it ended the Cold War with 16. We have since added 14 more.

Six of the nations NATO added since the Cold War — Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania — were members of the USSR’s Warsaw Pact. Three of the newest NATO members — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania — are former republics of the Soviet Union.

The last quarter-century of NATO’s encroachment into Russia’s space and onto Russia’s front porch has been a leading cause of the worsening relationship between the world’s two great nuclear powers.

The repeated refusal of Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to rule out NATO membership for Ukraine was a primary cause of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This does not absolve Putin of culpability in launching the war on Ukraine, but it should tell us that any new members of NATO, in Russia’s “near abroad,” especially a new NATO member with an 830-mile border with Russia from the Baltic to the Arctic, is running a real risk and raising the possibility of war.

Indeed, with Russia’s war in Ukraine in stalemate, having failed to achieve its objectives in Kyiv, Kharkov and Odessa, Russian officials have repeatedly raised the prospect of a desperate resort to tactical nuclear weapons to stop the bleeding. “Escalate to de-escalate” is the slogan.

Bringing Sweden and Finland into NATO, which has already elicited rage from Moscow and ominous threats, is unlikely to reduce whatever pressure currently exists to escalate to nuclear war.

A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War ended, are we still expanding NATO?

Russia does not threaten the United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let them deal with it. Together, NATO Europe is far more populous and economically powerful than Russia, and militarily capable of providing for their own defense.

Why should this be our obligation more than 30 years after the Cold War — and counting?

With small but modernized military forces, Finland, if attacked, can resist Russia. Why, then, let ourselves be obligated to go to war on Finland’s behalf, a war that could result in an escalation to nuclear war, the avoidance of which was a goal of every president, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan?

Turkey is now warning that it may exercise its rights as a NATO member to veto membership by Sweden and Finland. Anyone think Turkish President Recep Erdogan would declare war on Russia, if it invaded Finland?

*

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

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

Featured image is by 652234 at Pixabay

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

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

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

***

The globalist takeover is coming at us from every possible angle. Whether we’re talking about biosecurity, finance, housing, health care, energy, transportation or food, all the changes we’re now seeing have one goal, and that is to force compliance with a totalitarian slave system

The global food system, and protein sources in particular, are currently under coordinated and intentional attacks to manufacture food shortages and famine

The globalist elite intend to eliminate traditional farming and livestock and replace it with indoor-grown produce and lab-created protein alternatives that they own and control

While the presence of hundreds of food brands gives the appearance of market competition, the reality is that the food industry is monopolized by fewer than a dozen companies, and all of them, in turn, are largely owned by BlackRock and Vanguard

Eventually, your ability to buy food will be tied to your digital identity and social credit score

*

The globalist takeover agenda is nothing if not comprehensive. They’re coming at us from every possible angle, and whether we’re talking about biosecurity, finance, housing,¹ health care, energy, transportation or food, all the changes we’re now seeing have one goal, and that is to force compliance with a totalitarian slave system.

In an April 27, 2022, blog post,² investigative journalist Corey Lynn takes a deep dive into the new food system being put into place, and how it is geared to control you.

“‘Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.’ This famous quote by Henry Kissinger is ringing more and more true by the week,” Lynn writes.³

“The globalists already control the majority of the money, are moving ever so swiftly to convert the energy system over into systems they are all invested in, and have been taking drastic measures to control the food industry while running much of it under the radar. If they control the seeds they control the food, and if they control the food they can use the digital ID to control consumer access to the food.

While a rash of fires suddenly destroy food processing, meat, and fertilizer plants, during a time where farmers are hurting and supply chain issues are kicking in, an entire traceable food infrastructure system has already been built in multiple cities and is making its way across the globe …

Union Pacific is mandating railroad shipping reductions by 20% impacting CF Industries Holdings, the world’s largest fertilizer company. Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street happen to be the top shareholders of Union Pacific, and BlackRock and Vanguard are in the top three shareholders of CF Industries Holdings.

By mapping some of the largest vertical farms, it reveals the crops, grocery stores involved, locations and billions pouring in by globalist investors and shareholders. It quickly becomes evident that this is the global plan to control all produce — ingredients that go into all food products.”

The Secret Monopoly

As noted by Lynn, this monopoly has been locked into place over the course of many years. Slowly but surely, the monopoly has grown, under the radar of public consciousness, which in turn has resulted in food getting simultaneously more expensive and less accessible.⁴

Now, as the final pieces are being put into place, many are waking up to the realization that we’ve been massively fooled and are now at the mercy of a figurative “handful” of unelected people whose megalomania is unsurpassed in human history.

While the presence of hundreds of food brands gives the appearance of market competition, the reality is that the food industry is monopolized by fewer than a dozen companies,⁵ and all of them, in turn, are largely owned by BlackRock and Vanguard. The growing fake meat market is similarly dominated by a very small number of large food giants⁶ which, again, are owned by BlackRock and Vanguard.

BlackRock alone holds $10 trillion in assets,⁷ up from $6 trillion in 2017.⁸ Combined, the three largest investment firms in the world, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, have ownership in nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.⁹

Through their investment holdings they secretly wield monopoly control over ALL industries, so the idea that there is competition anywhere in the marketplace is really just an illusion. You never learned about their ever-expanding monopoly because they also own the centralized media.

It’s hard to tell which of the two is more influential. Vanguard owns a large share of Blackrock. Owners and stockholders of Vanguard include Rothschild Investment Corp,¹⁰ Edmond De Rothschild Holding,¹¹ the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, and the Morgan, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller families.^12,13

Blackrock, meanwhile, has been called the “fourth branch of government,” as they are the only private firm that has financial agreements to lend money to the central banking system.¹⁴

Food Security Is Undermined by Patentable Food

In 2014, the U.S. Congress established the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research Act (FFAR) through the Farm Bill. After siphoning off $200 million in taxpayer funds to get the foundation started, FFAR became a nongovernmental not-for-profit organization. Bill Gates is one of its funders, and its first board of directors included deputy director Dr. Robert Horsch of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.¹⁵

The mission of FFAR is to “connect funders, researchers and farmers through public-private partnerships to support audacious research addressing the biggest food and agriculture challenges.”¹⁶ In reality, it’s been used to undermine food security by increasing reliance on gene-edited and patentable foods.

In April 2019, FFAR launched the Precision Indoor Plants (PIP) Consortium, a public-private partnership of indoor growers, breeders and genetics companies with the shared goal of advancing speed-breeding and altering plant chemicals responsible for flavor, nutrition and medicinal value. Five key crops being worked on are lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, cilantro and blueberries.

In August 2020, Monsanto/Bayer helped found a startup called Unfold, which develops new vegetable seed varieties specifically geared for vertical farms. According to Lynn, “GMOs already account for 75 to 80% of food Americans consume,”¹⁷ and once fresh produce is under patent, that percentage will inch closer to 100%.

The University of California is also working on plant-based mRNA vaccines. The idea there is to disseminate vaccines through the conventional food supply,¹⁸ which puts a whole new spin on the old adage to “Let thy food be thy medicine.”

“Bill Gates insists that droughts and climate change is destroying our ability to farm and that the future will consist of populations moving into metropolitan cities where indoor vertical farming is necessary to feed people.

If this is the case, why has he acquired 242,000 acres of farmland over the past decade while simultaneously investing in indoor vertical farming? Who gets to sit at the table with healthy produce served up by Gates while the rest of the population eats gene-edited produce from locked-down facilities, delivered to their local grocery store, and accessed only through a digital ID?” Lynn asks.¹⁹

“Meanwhile, the Consultative Group of International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) holds the world’s largest private seed banks consisting of 10% of the worldwide germplasm across the globe, which is controlled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and World Bank, managing 768,576 accessions of hijacked farmers seeds …

[W]hat’s going to happen to the farmers when these astronomically enormous indoor vertical farm facilities have taken over every major city, locked in contracts with all major grocery store chains, and are funded by some of the same billionaire globalists who are seeking to control human beings through every industry for their fourth industrial revolution?

It’s a legitimate concern. Add ‘gene-editing,’ ‘smart,’ ‘traceable,’ and ‘net zero’ to the production of these facilities, and the fact that they are still moving full speed ahead on digital IDs and currency, and it becomes even more concerning …

Whereas this provides a lot of explanation on the absolute intentional demolition to all of our farmers on the seed, vegetable, and produce front, people should also be aware of what’s been taking place with cattle ranchers and the globalists’ plan to take over the meat industry as well.”

Controlled Demolition of the Protein Supply Is Underway

As I explained in yesterday’s weaponized bird flu article, alleged outbreaks of bird flu and COVID-19 in food animals, along with drought and fertilizer shortages, have led to the mass culling of flocks²⁰and cattle herds²¹ around the world. So much so, we’re now told to expect egg,²² poultry and meat shortages.²³

Add to that a global fertilizer shortage that is limiting the amount of animal feed that can be produced this year, and the curious decision to limit U.S. fertilizer shipments on trains, which restricts distribution and raises the cost of what little remains. Experts predict it may take up to three years to replenish global grain stocks,²⁴ and in the meantime, farmers won’t have a readily available supply to feed their livestock.

Canada-based Nutrien Ltd., the world’s largest fertilizer company, recently warned the shortage is likely to extend into 2023. The price of fertilizer has also “skyrocketed to absurd heights that have never been seen before,” The Economic Collapse Blog reports.²⁵

The U.S. and U.K. are also paying farmers to not farm all their available land, California is paying farmers to grow less, ostensibly to save water, and the U.K. is encouraging farmers to retire by offering them a lump sum of £100,000 — all while publicly predicting looming food shortages.²⁶ On top of that, the two largest water reservoirs in California have also fallen to “critically low levels” and wildfires are devastating agricultural land across the western half of the U.S.²⁷

Food production is being blatantly attacked and irrationally restricted on so many fronts, it’s clearly an intentional demolition of primary protein sources²⁸ — meat, egg and dairy.

“February 1, 2016 the Good Food Institute was launched … with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Philanthropy Project, and Y Combinator, with the goal to ‘reimagine meat production,’” Lynn writes.²⁹

“In October 2021, the Good Food Institute celebrated the USDA’s $10 million grant for the creation of the first-ever National Institute for Cellular Agriculture at Tufts University so they can back researchers in manufactured meat.

To be certain all of these goals are locked into place and the UN 2030 agenda is achieved, disrupting the fertilizer industry, food supply chain, and a rash of coincidental fires to food processing plants sure would help to seal the deal, wouldn’t it?”

The Emperor Has No Clothes

In a blatantly self-serving gesture, Gates has publicly called for the West to quit eating beef and transition to lab-grown meats, ostensibly to address climate change. He’s also railed against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled, since labeling would slow down public acceptance.³⁰

Not surprisingly, Gates is financially invested in several faux meat companies.^31,32,33 As luck or godlike foresight would have it, he’s also invested in genetically engineered fertilizer alternatives.³⁴ Lynn writes:³⁵

“Bill Gates explained his love for fertilizer in 2018 while in Tanzania.³⁶ Coincidentally, Gates-led and Rockefeller-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has been an epic fail, with a first ever evaluation report³⁷ that came out on February 28, 2022 after a 15-year effort with bold claims to rescue Africa’s small farmers.

Their false promise to ‘double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020’ was removed from their website in June 2020 after an assessment by Tufts University revealed little evidence of progress, and in fact showed a 31% increase in hunger.

Evaluators stated there were many deficiencies and AGRA’s reporting and monitoring data was weak. Even the German government is considering pulling funding from AGRA over their pesticide use, which is ironic because Gates claims we need to remove pesticides in the U.S. and move to indoor vertical farming …

One of AGRA’s biggest achievements was their participation in 72 agricultural policy reforms in 11 African countries, pertaining to seed, fertilizer and market access. Laws were created to protect intellectual property rights for ‘certified’ seeds, as penalties were created for open-source seed sharing.

Imagine being a farmer, homesteader or gardener and having to share and trade seeds on the black market so you don’t get penalized. Anyone who believes they won’t try this in the U.S. is kidding themselves, especially since the globalists hold the largest private seeds banks, and invest in the largest commercial seed companies …

On March 17, 2022, a notice was published³⁸ to the U.S. Federal Register seeking comments by May 16, 2022 on Competition and Intellectual Property System: Seeds and Other Agricultural Inputs. Remember to read through the proper lens when reviewing this notice that derived from an executive order signed by Biden in July, 2021 on promoting competition in the American economy.

Their ultimate goal — every human being, every piece of food, resource, and product on this planet will be tracked and traced via blockchain. This isn’t a theory — it is their goal. In July, 2021, the FDA released their ‘New Era of Smarter Food Safety’ which consists of using tech-enabled traceability for a digital, traceable food system, from farm to plate using blockchain.

A digital identity to grant access to establishments, control financial spending, and trace everyone’s moves has been rolling out on multiple fronts, including the vaccine ID passport. Eventually they will try to move toward a chip, as it will be easier with biometrics being installed everywhere …

There is no way to sugarcoat this system they are implementing. Whereas vertical farming is brilliant in many ways, and could be beneficial on a smaller scale in communities, the fact that this is the global agenda to remove farms and control all produce by the globalists themselves, makes is incredibly concerning …

We must work together to find a way forward and continue to say no to the digital ID they are creating to control our access and spending, while building self sufficiency and security together.”

For solutions to this rapidly approaching dystopian future, review my previous article, “Why Food Prices Are Expected to Skyrocket,” and Lynn’s article “Finding Sources of Fresh Food.”³⁹

Part of the answer is to grow your own food, to the best of your ability. Another part is to support local growers by buying their produce, or else they’ll get pushed out. Starting local co-ops and community gardens can also go a long way toward creating food security in the long term.

At the same time, we also have to reject globalist solutions like fake meat, gene-edited beef, GMO foods and all the rest of it. It’s time to recognize that none of their solutions are for our benefit. They’re for our detriment. The World Economic Forum has declared that by 2030, you will own nothing. They mean it. They will take everything from us, including the right to grow our own food, if we let them.

*

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

Notes

¹ Investment Watch June 11, 2021

^{2, 3, 15, 17, 18, 19, 29, 33, 35} Corey’s Digs April 27, 2022

⁴ Civil Eats February 17, 2021

⁵ Sparkline Capital September 16, 2020

⁶ Civil Eats September 22, 2021

⁷ Jacobin March 22, 2022

⁸ Financial Post December 4, 2017

⁹ The Conversation May 10, 2017

¹⁰ Fintel Rothschild

¹¹ Fintel Edmond De Rothschild

¹² SGT Report May 6, 2021

¹³ Lew Rockwell April 21, 2021

¹⁴ Humans Are Free May 5, 2021

¹⁶ About FFAR

²⁰ The Guardian April 28, 2022

²¹ Farm Progress February 24, 2022

²² Local News 8 April 25, 2022

²³ Parade March 25, 2022

^24, 25, 27 The Economic Collapse Blog May 8, 2022

²⁶ Off Guardian April 25, 2022

²⁸ Ice Age Farmer April 8, 2022

³⁰ Technology Review February 15, 2021

³¹ CNBC July 3, 2021

³² Beef Central February 17, 2021

³⁴ Business Insider March 6, 2019

³⁶ Gates Notes November 14, 2018

³⁷ USRTK March 17, 2022

³⁸ Federal Register March 17, 2022

³⁹ Corey’s Digs May 9, 2022

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

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

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

***

The latest release of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents raises questions about how frequently adverse events experienced by clinical trial participants were reported as “unrelated” to the vaccine.

The 80,000-page document cache released May 2 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer trials conducted at various locations in the U.S.

The documents also include the “third interim report” from BioNTech’s trials conducted in Germany (accompanied by a synopsis of this report and a database of adverse events from this particular set of trials).

The FDA released the documents, which pertain to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the vaccine, as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of doctors and public health professionals, submitted the FOIA request.

Adverse events during Pfizer vaccine trials in the U.S. usually reported as ‘unrelated’ to vaccination

Pfizer conducted a series of vaccine trials at various locations in the U.S., including the New York University Langone Health Center, Rochester Clinical Research and Rochester General Hospital (Rochester, New York) and the J. Lewis Research, Inc. Foothill Family Clinic (Salt Lake City, Utah).

The Pfizer documents released this month by the FDA included a series of CRFs for patients who suffered some type of adverse event during their participation in the COVID-19 vaccine trials.

As the documents reveal, despite the occurrence of a wide range of symptoms, including serious cardiovascular events, almost none were identified as being “related” to the vaccine.

Such serious yet “unrelated” adverse events included:

• Acute asthma exacerbation
• Aortic aneurysm (listed as a pre-existing condition)
• Appendicitis (requiring hospitalization)
• Atrial defibrillation
• Cardiac arrest and acute respiratory failure, requiring hospitalization, sustained by a patient who then was “lost” (could not be located for continued participation in the trial)
• Chest pain (requiring hospitalization, later listed as cardiac ischemia)
• Coronary artery occlusion (listed as both serious and life-threatening)
• Injuries sustained from a fall
• Intermittent non-cardiac chest pain (requiring hospitalization)
• Left breast cancer (listed as a pre-existing occult malignancy)
• Neuritis (peripheral nerve Injury), listed as “unrelated” to the vaccine but related to the blood draw during vaccination
• Pulmonary embolism and bilateral deep venous thrombosis
• Respiratory failure (requiring hospitalization)
• Right ureteropelvic junction obstruction (requiring hospitalization, listed as congenital)
• Small bowel obstruction, listed as “unplanned,” and a panic attack

Of the CRFs found in the documents released this month, only one adverse event is clearly specified as being related to the vaccination: a participant who suffered from psoriatic arthritis, with no prior history of the condition.

In addition, several CRFs indicated exposure during pregnancy (see here and here), or during a partner’s pregnancy (see here and here). However, the documents provided do not appear to have provided any follow-ups regarding any outcomes or potential adverse events for the participants, their partners or their newborn babies once born.

In some instances, while the CRFs claimed the adverse events suffered by patients were not related to the vaccine, their cause was unspecified, simply indicated as “other,” while in another case, a participant’s “unplanned” small bowel obstruction and panic attacks were listed as being unrelated to the vaccination despite no relevant medical history pertaining to the SAEs (severe adverse events) in question.

Did Pfizer hide critical information from regulators?

It is difficult to draw concrete conclusions about any specific case from the data provided by CRFs and vaccine trial summaries.

However, what raises eyebrows is the very large number of adverse events — often serious and often requiring the hospitalization of the patients involved — that were determined to be “unrelated” to the administration of the COVID vaccine.

Previously released Pfizer documents also included discrepancies in the recording of adverse events.

According to investigative journalist Sonia Elijah, these discrepancies include:

• Trial participants were entered into the “healthy population” but were, in actuality, far from healthy.
• SAE numbers were left blank.
• Barcodes were missing from samples collected from trial participants.
• The second vaccine dose was administered outside the three-week protocol window.
• New health problems were dismissed as “unrelated” to the vaccination.
• A remarkable number of patients with an observation period of exactly the same duration — 30 minutes, with very little variety in observation times and raising questions as to whether patients were adequately observed or were put at risk.
• Oddities pertaining to the start and end dates of SAEs – for instance, a “healthy” diabetic suffered a “serious” heart attack on October 27, 2020, but the “end” date for this SAE is listed as the very next day, even though the patient was diagnosed with pneumonia that same day.
• Impossible dating: in the aforementioned example of the patient who sustained a heart attack and pneumonia, the individual in question later died, but the date of death is indicated as the day before the patient was recorded as having gone to a “COVID ill” visit.
• Unblinded teams, who were aware of which patients received the actual vaccine or a placebo, were responsible for reviewing adverse event reports, potentially leading to pressure to downplay COVID-related events in the vaccinated, or to indicate that adverse events were related to the vaccine.
• Other adverse events were indicated as “not serious” despite extensive hospital stays, of up to at least 26 days in the case of one patient who suffered a fall which was classified as “not serious,” yet facial lacerations sustained as a result of the fall were attributed to hypotension (low blood pressure).

Many of these practices seem to appear in the trial-related documents released this month.

Medical and scientific experts who spoke to The Defender expressed similar concerns about what this month’s tranche of documents reveals, and addressed cases of “disappearing” adverse events.

Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, remarked:

“I’m most concerned about ‘disappearing’ patients. One cannot conduct a valid trial and simply omit the results that they don’t like!

“With the stories about Maddie de Garay and Augusto Roux surfacing, I have to wonder how many other participants were dropped in order to hide vaccine adverse events/effects.

“If you look at the data in VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System], COVID-19 vaccines are the most dangerous ever introduced into the population.”

Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, said:

“The ‘unrelated’ label the investigators use to divert attention from AEs [adverse events] is a powerful point that stands on its own. We haven’t pushed back on this enough.

“Equivalently, we can say that the meager and short-lived benefit of these shots is also ‘unrelated’ using their ‘standards.’ On what grounds can they say that their product is preventing infection (which it isn’t anymore), or death (marginally)?

“They cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim a benefit through short-term outcomes while denying that side effects of any kind are related to their product.

“That’s the whole point of doing a trial. You cannot prove causation, only statistically significant correlation.”

Setty provided further context for his remarks in an April 2022 article for The Defender and in a March 2022 presentation, in which he discussed the number of these adverse events and how Pfizer swept them away (timestamp 24:00).

In Setty‘s view:

“There’s a high likelihood of malfeasance going on. [Pfizer whistleblower] Brook Jackson says the PIs [principal investigators] were unblinded. If true, it would make it very easy for the investigators to bump up the AEs in the placebo group while ignoring some of the AEs in the vaccine group.

“Pfizer claims that 0.5% of placebo recipients suffered a serious adverse event compared to 0.6% in the vaccine group. This is how these events were obscured.”

The extant body of evidence indicates Pfizer “is hiding critical information from regulators,” Setty said:

“The clincher is in the memorandum to the VRBPAC [Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee] (Table 2, efficacy populations), where they show us that five times more people in the vaccine group were pulled out of the trial than the placebo within seven days of their second shot for ‘important protocol deviations.’

“In a trial that big the chances that could have happened coincidentally is infinitesimally small (less than 1 in 100,000).

“Moreover, months later, the same thing happened in the pediatric trial (Table 12). This time, six times more children were pulled from the trial after their second dose.

“There are, of course, procedural differences when administering a placebo versus the mRNA vaccine, but why didn’t it happen after the first dose as well?

“Mathematically, that is about as close as you can get to eliminating any ‘shadow of doubt.’ With a formal allegation by a trial coordinator that states the same thing [referring to whistleblower Brook Jackson], we can be assured Pfizer is hiding critical information from regulators.”

BioNTech trials in Germany claim few adverse events ‘related’ to vaccine

The BioNTech trial in Germany tested various dosages of two COVID-19 vaccine formulas, labeled BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 — the latter granted EUA by the FDA.

The latest cache of Pfizer documents suggests a pattern, similar to the one in the U.S. trials, of not reporting adverse events as related to the vaccine.

According to the third interim report, dated March 20, 2021, among trial participants who were administered the BNT162b2 candidate vaccine granted EUA in the U.S.:

• 87% of younger participants reported solicited local reactions, and 88% reported solicited systemic reactions, with 10% reporting solicited systemic reactions of Grade 3 or higher.
• 87% of younger participants experienced “mild” solicited local reactions, and 35% experienced “moderate” solicited local reactions.
• 88% of younger participants experienced “mild” solicited systemic reactions, and 38% experienced “moderate” solicited systemic reactions. As stated in the report:

“The most frequently reported solicited systemic reactions of any severity were fatigue (n=40, 67%), followed by headache (n=32, 53%), malaise (n=24, 40%), and myalgia (n=23, 38%). The remaining symptom terms were less frequent.

“For nausea, headache, fatigue, myalgia, chills, arthralgia and malaise each symptom was assessed as severe in <10% of participants.”

• 43% of younger participants reported a total of 51 unsolicited TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events, referring to conditions not present prior to treatment or that worsened in intensity after treatment) within 28 days of the first or second dose, nine of which were deemed to be “related” to the vaccination. One participant in this category sustained a TEAE assessed as Grade 3 or higher, but “which was assessed as not related by the investigator.”
• TEAEs among younger participants included hypoaesthesia, lymphadenopathy, heart palpitations, external ear inflammation, blepharitis, toothache, non-cardiac chest pain, cestode infection, oral herpes, tonsillitis, neck pain, insomnia, anosmia and dysmenorrhea.
• No unsolicited treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) or deaths were reported among younger participants, but one discontinued participation due to moderate nasopharyngitis.
• One younger participant “discontinued due to a moderate AE (nasopharyngitis).”
• 86% of older participants reported solicited local reactions, with 6% reporting solicited local reactions of Grade 3 or higher, 78% reporting “mild” solicited local reactions and 36% reporting “moderate” solicited local reactions.
• 72% of older participants reported solicited systemic reactions, with 11% of these participants sustaining solicited systemic reactions of Grade 3 or higher, 69% sustaining “mild” solicited reactions and 36% sustaining “moderate” solicited reactions.
• 33% of older participants reported a total of 20 unsolicited TEAEs, four of which were determined to be “related” to the vaccination. Among older participants, 8% reported a TESAE of Grade 3 or higher, with “one event assessed as related by the investigator.”
• One older participant was reported to have sustained a “not related TESAE” (an ankle fracture).
• TESAEs among older participants included back pain, chest pain, facial injury, increased lipase, increased amylase, muscle spasms, musculoskeletal pain, tendon pain, orthostatic intolerance, renal colic, seborrhoeic dermatitis and “painful respiration.”

Among trial participants who received the BNT162b1 candidate vaccine (not granted EUA):

• 86% of “younger participants” reported solicited (expected) localized reactions (remaining in one part of the body), with 18% reporting Grade 3 or higher solicited local reactions, 86% of younger participants reporting “mild” solicited local reactions and 54% reporting “moderate” solicited local reactions.
• 92% of younger participants reported solicited systemic reactions (spreading to other parts of the body), with 44% reporting Grade 3 or higher solicited systemic reactions, 90% reporting “mild” solicited systemic reactions and 74% experiencing “moderate” solicited systemic reactions.

The report states:

“The most frequently reported solicited systemic reactions of any severity were fatigue (n=68, 81%), headache (n=66, 79%), myalgia (n=51, 61%), malaise (n=50, 60%), and chills (n=47, 56%). The remaining symptom terms were less frequent.

“For nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia, arthralgia and fever each symptom was assessed as severe in ≤10% of participants.”

• 45% of younger participants reported a total of 83 unsolicited (unexpected) TEAEs within 28 days of receiving the first or second dose.

A total of 51 of these unsolicited TEAEs were reported as “related” to the vaccination, while 2% of participants sustained Grade 3 or higher TEAEs (four in total), “of which three events were assessed as related by the investigator.”

No unsolicited TESAEs or deaths were reported in this category.

• According to the report, among younger participants, TEAEs included:

“‘General disorders and administration site conditions’ reported by 9 participants (11%),” including influenza-like illness and injection site hematoma.

“‘Nervous system disorders’ reported by 10 participants (12%),” including presyncope, hyperaesthesia, paraesthesia, and headache.

“‘Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders’ reported by 9 participants (11%),” including cough and oropharyngeal pain.

Other symptoms included back pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, cervicobrachial syndrome, taste disorder, sleep disorder, depression, hallucination, dysmenorrhoea, pruritus and pityriasis rosea, while one participant required the excision (removal) of a papilloma.

• One younger participant discontinued participation in the trial, “due to a moderate AE (malaise),” while another participant discontinued participation “due to dose-limiting toxicity.”
• 83% of “older participants” reported solicited local reactions, but none were reported as Grade 3 or higher, while 83% of solicited local reactions were “mild” and 42% were “moderate.”
• 92% of older participants reported solicited systemic reactions, with 28% of participants experiencing Grade 3 or higher solicited systemic reactions, 89% experiencing “mild” solicited systemic reactions, and 61% experiencing “moderate” solicited systemic reactions.

According to the report:

“The most frequently reported solicited systemic reactions of any severity were headache (n=29, 81%), fatigue (n=27, 75%), myalgia (n=18, 50%), and malaise (n=18, 50%). The remaining symptom terms were less frequent.”

• 36% of participants reported a total of 24 unsolicited TEAEs within 28 days of the first or second dose, nine of which were assessed as “related” to the vaccination.

Of the participants in this category, 11% reported TEAEs of Grade 3 or higher (four events in total), with one of these events assessed as “related” to the vaccination.

• TEAEs reported by older participants included oropharyngeal pain, nasopharyngitis, bladder dysfunction, sleep disorder, musculoskeletal pain and musculoskeletal chest pain, pollakiuria, migraine, syncope and alopecia.
• One older participant receiving the BNT162b1 candidate sustained a TESAE (syncope), and there were no deaths in this category.

Of note, none of the participants for either vaccine candidate were pregnant, which raises questions about recommending and administering the vaccine to pregnant women despite the absence of any clinical trial data.

As the documents show, a wide range of adverse effects were reported, including cardiovascular and nervous system conditions, most of which were determined to be unrelated to the vaccination itself.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

This important peer reviewed scientific study was first published in May 2021, five months after the commencement of the Covid vaccination program.

Its findings have since then been corroborated by numerous studies, many of which have been featured by Global Research.

The vaccine is more dangerous than the virus.

The vaccine should be withdrawn immediately

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 19 2022

***

Abstract

Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA. However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns. In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail. We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.

Among these potential induced pathologies, we discuss the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein.

We also present a brief review of studies supporting the potential for spike protein “shedding”, transmission of the protein from a vaccinated to an unvaccinated person, resulting in symptoms induced in the latter.

We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission.

We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.

Introduction

In this paper we will be briefly reviewing one particular aspect of these unprecedented events, namely the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines against the targeted class of infectious diseases under the umbrella of “SARS-CoV-2.” We believe many of the issues we raise here will be applicable to any future mRNA vaccine that might be produced against other infectious agents, or in applications related to cancer and genetic diseases, while others seem specifically relevant to mRNA vaccines currently being implemented against the subclass of corona viruses.

While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention. It is our intention to review several highly concerning molecular aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology, and to correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.

Read the full article here.

Below is Dr. Stephanie Seneff’s video interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

The Biden administration may be struggling in its efforts to fight security-related misinformation. The Washington Post sources claim the Department of Homeland Security has “paused” a Disinformation Governance Board just three weeks after its April 27th announcement. Officials reportedly decided to shut down the board May 16th, but that decision appears to be on hold after a last-minute effort to retain board leader Nina Jankowicz. She resigned from the board and the DHS today (May 18th).

While the leakers didn’t directly explain why the Disinformation Governance Board was frozen, they claim the White House neither had clear messaging nor a defense against misinformation and threats levelled against Jankowicz. The board was meant to examine approaches for fighting viral lies and had no power over content, but far-right influencers and outlets misrepresented it as a censorship tool and villainized Jankowicz. The campaigns led to harassment and threats against the board leader — in other words, the board was the victim of the very sort of attack it was supposed to prevent.

We’ve asked the DHS for comment. In a statement to the Post, the department said the board’s role had been “grossly mischaracterized” and that Jankowicz had been targeted by “unjustified and vile personal attacks and threats.” Previously, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and White House press secretary Jen Psaki have respectively tried to clarify the board’s objectives and debunk falsehoods with little effect.

There is a chance the board could survive depending on a Homeland Security Advisory Council review. If the reports are true, though, the US government may have to rethink its anti-disinformation efforts if they’re going to survive both criticism and internal scrutiny.

Update 5/18 2:20PM ET: Homeland Security provided its full statement to Engadget. The department defended both the board and Jankowicz, and noted that its Advisory Council will conduct a “thorough” review to improve its anti-disinformation efforts as well as increase transparency. Final recommendations are due within 75 days. You can read the full statement below.

“DHS created an internal working group called the Disinformation Governance Board to ensure the Department’s disinformation-related work protects free speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. It was intended to ensure coordination across the Department’s component agencies as they protect Americans from disinformation that threatens the homeland – including malicious efforts spread by foreign adversaries, human traffickers, and transnational criminal organizations. The Board has been grossly and intentionally mischaracterized: it was never about censorship or policing speech in any manner. It was designed to ensure we fulfill our mission to protect the homeland, while protecting core Constitutional rights. However, false attacks have become a significant distraction from the Department’s vitally important work to combat disinformation that threatens the safety and security of the American people.

“To help instill trust in our work, Secretary Mayorkas has asked former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to lead a thorough review and assessment, conducted through the bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). This assessment will focus on answering two pivotal questions. First, how can the Department most effectively and appropriately address disinformation that poses a threat to our country, while protecting free speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. Second, how can DHS achieve greater transparency across our disinformation-related work and increase trust with the public and other key stakeholders. The Secretary has requested the HSAC’s final recommendations within 75 days. During the HSAC’s review, the Board will not convene and its work will be paused, but the Department’s critical work across several administrations to address disinformation that threatens the security of our country will continue.”

*

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

Will a Weaponized Bird Flu Become the Next Pandemic?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 18, 2022

In early April 2022, news of a highly pathogenic bird flu ripping through chicken and turkey flocks in the U.S., triggering the slaughter of millions of these animals, was reported.^2,3 Historically, however, the bird flu has never posed a threat to mankind — that is until scientists started tinkering with it, creating a hybrid with human pandemic potential.

Video: Pfizer Has a Criminal Record. Is It Relevant?

By US Department of Justice, May 19, 2022

In September 2009, Justice Department attorneys and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a news conference “dealing with a health care-related settlement”.

Newest Military Killer/Surveillance Drones in U.S. Domestic Airspace

By Barry Summers, May 18, 2022

April 1^st was a good news/bad news kind of day for U.S. military drone-maker General Atomics. First, it was reported that the government of Australia had revealed that they were canceling the planned purchase of 12 MQ-9B SkyGuardian drones, made by General Atomics (GA). Since the deal would have been worth a cool one billion dollars to GA, this was definitely the bad news.

Turkey Sponsored Terrorists in Northern Syria Attack Bus with 12 Dead and 14 Wounded

By Steven Sahiounie, May 18, 2022

A Syrian military bus was attacked on Friday, which killed 12 soldiers and wounded 14, between the towns of Nubl and Al Zahra, west of Aleppo at 9:30 am.  The attack was carried out by the Turkish sponsored ‘Sultan Shah’ terrorist group, which used a TOW anti-tank rocket. The Obama administration, by act of the US Congress, sent the Radical Islamic terrorists based in northwest Syria the US made TOW anti-tank missiles.

Pentagon-Funded Think Tank Simulates War with China on NBC

By Caitlin Johnstone, May 18, 2022

NBC’s Meet the Press just aired an absolutely freakish segment in which the influential narrative management firm Center for a New American Security (CNAS) ran war games simulating a direct US hot war with China.

Are France and NATO Shipping Depleted Uranium Weaponry Into Ukraine?

By Freddie Ponton, May 18, 2022

During a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky this past week, President Emmanuel Macron insisted that France would step up its military and humanitarian support for Ukraine.

Massacre in Buffalo Highlights the Legacy of Racist Violence

By Abayomi Azikiwe, May 18, 2022

The 18-year-old shooter, Payton Gendron, has been heavily influenced by the white supremacist ideology of replacement theory which encourages violent attacks against African Americans and other nationalities in the United States.

FDA Authorizes Pfizer Booster for Kids 5 to 11, Bypasses Advisory Panel

By Megan Redshaw, May 18, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today authorized a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, without convening its vaccine advisory panel of independent experts to discuss Pfizer’s data on 5- to 11-year-olds — and based on a study subset of only 67 children, CNBC reported.

Video: The World Health Order (WHO) and the “Global Pandemic Treaty”: The Back Door to “Global Tyranny”

By Peter Koenig and Angel Warrior Network, May 18, 2022

The Angel Warrior Network & Punisher Dallas is diving into learning about WHO (World Health Order) actually is. What their agenda is. How are they funded and Why do they want our sovereignty? Peter Koenig gives us some insight after years of working for them and other closely related companies. Join us for details and many links below will be listed for even more information.

Video: Ukraine War: The Azovstal Fortress in Mariupol Is Falling

By South Front, May 18, 2022

On May 16, the main “fortress of the Ukrainian Resistance” fell. Ukrainian militants blockaded at the Azovstal plant in the city of Mariupol raised the white flag and asked for evacuation of the wounded. As a result of the Russian shelling, the members of the Ukrainian nationalist Azov regiment were recently cut off from a water source on the territory of the facility.

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

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

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

***

It’s the last week of an election between the uninspiring and the unspeakable.  Australia’s conservative incumbents – the unspeakable ones – are even desperate enough to concede to a lack of popularity.  Dislike us, but for heaven’s sake, vote us in.  The times are wretched, the cost of living is rising, and we are going to look after you in the spiral.  The opposition, in contrast, is being stingy on detail and sparing on scope.  Memories of 2019 continue to traumatise the Australian Labor Party.  

Scouring the election platforms, statements, and town hall debates, is a glaring absence of one particular field of policy.  Virtually no candidate or major political party is mentioning that troubling issue of COVID-19 and the global pandemic.  That was the dark past, and, like released jailbirds, voters find themselves preoccupied with other matters.

Sporadically, mention is made about the Morrison government’s tardy ordering and supply of COVID-19 vaccines – at least in the initial phase.  At that time, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, rather infamously, dismissed the slow rollout.  This wasn’t, he opined, a race.

In his first campaign video, Morrison burnished his own credentials as a warrior against COVID-19, having been responsible for saving thousands of lives.  (The States and Territories, all far more engaged in the matter than Morrison ever was, are ignored.) But the primary message was that of, “A choice between an economic recovery that is leading the world, and a Labor opposition that would weaken it, and risk it.”

Despite Australia’s enviable record, the emergence of the furiously transmissible Omicron variant and a death toll this year surpassing the combined figures of 2020 and 2021, have seen a departure from previous policy.  As Raina MacIntyre of the Kirby Institute remarked in January, Australia “swung from one extreme in pandemic control to the other – having great control of COVID, to now having the world’s highest rise in daily cases.”

Scenes of chaos ensued.  The vulnerable had to queue for hours as testing centres were overwhelmed.  A number of such centres were also closed, often without good reason.  The Commonwealth and State governments tinkered with definitions on eligibility regarding testing, all the time refusing to expand capacity.  MacIntyre was distinctly unimpressed.  “There was no planning for expedited third-dose boosters, expanded testing capacity, rapid antigen tests, hospital in the home, opening of schools or even guidance for people to protect their household when one person becomes infected.”

None of this has made a difference in the political platform, nor, it seems, in voter interest. The COVID brain fade has well and truly set in.  According to data generated by the ABC’s Vote Compass, a mere 1 per cent of Australians consider COVID the most important issue in this election.  Vulnerable members of society are being seen as “collateral” to the overall scheme.  Living with the virus has also meant suffering and even perishing from it.

The only party making much of COVID-19, and not from the perspective of praising vaccines and sound pandemic management, is the United Australia Party. Bankrolled by the quixotic mining magnate Clive Palmer, millions have been spent on media campaigns that have seen no discernible shift in the polls.

By default, health officials and experts have become crying Cassandras and the concerned oracles.  Virologist Stuart Turville has observed, with exasperation, that the federal election campaign has been afflicted by “a case of COVID Fight Club.  Don’t talk about it.”  Future policies on the subject are virtually absent. “What will happen if we don’t get our third or fourth dose?” wonders Turville.  “Will we see the death rate creep up from 40, to 60, to 80 before we start to talk about this again?”

Another figure of some woe and worry is Burnet Institute director, Brendan Crabb, who claims that politicians and governments have resolutely kept their “heads in the sand”.  There was a dangerous sense of “COVID now”.  Continuing high rates of transmission was “bad for business”.  The longer health impacts were also being neglected.  “How many of the 350,000 plus active cases in Australia right now will have chronic impacts?  Overseas data suggests 20 per cent of them.”

Epidemiologist Nancy Baxter, based at the University of Melbourne, is another who can always be relied upon to deter any emerging complacency.  “We’re at a point,” she gravely states, “where COVID is now one of the major killers of Australians, and probably by the end of the year is going to be one of the top three.”  She adds further lashings of doom.  “And with increasing case numbers, new sub-variants [will be] coming in.  This may drive it even further, which would have a bigger impact.”

If the current mood prevails till May 21, we can expect little purchase from such attitudes at the ballot box.  Fiscal responsibility, the consumer price index, climate change and the China bogeyman, are likely to feature ahead of the most disruptive pandemic in a century.

*

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

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: A woman walks her dogs in Fitzroy Gardens park as police and defence force officers patrol in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia [David Crosling/EPA]

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

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

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

***

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

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

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

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

***

April 1^st was a good news/bad news kind of day for U.S. military drone-maker General Atomics. First, it was reported that the government of Australia had revealed that they were canceling the planned purchase of 12 MQ-9B SkyGuardian drones, made by General Atomics (GA). Since the deal would have been worth a cool one billion dollars to GA, this was definitely the bad news.

Source: breakingdefense.com

Luckily, GA had a good news story in the works. And as luck would have it, it would run on the same day as the bad news story.

Source: ga.com

Back in January, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) handed GA $1.5 million to fly the 79-ft. 12,000 lbs SkyGuardian over North Dakota for 10 hours. (GA apparently didn’t feel the need for a press release and the resulting news article until the day before some bad news from down under was in the pipeline.)

The stated purpose of the FAA grant to GA was “to research Detect and Avoid (DAA) capabilities.” (DAA, the ability for an unmanned aircraft to ‘detect’ another aircraft, and ‘avoid’ it, is the Holy Grail of drone integration. “Integration” is the process of removing restrictions against drones operating in domestic U.S. airspace.)

That’s right—the FAA was PAYING a U.S. arms manufacturer $1.5 million in public monies to demonstrate their newest military surveillance drone over domestic U.S. territory.

If this is all a surprise to you, you’re not alone. The program to integrate military drones into U.S. domestic airspace has been operating for 10 years. It involves various federal agencies—DoD, FAA, NASA, Commerce, Energy, DHS, etc. But it hasn’t been reported on in any major news venue since the day before the bill creating it was signed into law in 2012 by then-President Barack Obama.

Source: latines.com

Of course, the military has been preparing to operate their drones in U.S. domestic airspace since long before that. Here, a U.S. Air Force officer briefs FAA officials on the plans to fly Reaper drones in-and-out of Hancock Field in Syracuse, all the way back in January of 2010.

Source: 174attackwing.ang.af.mil

And then, wouldn’t you know, when the FAA designated six drone integration test sites around the country in 2014 (supposedly after a rigorous competition), one of them was based in New York state. And that USAF officer from 2010 was put on staff to direct the very operation that he had described nine years earlier. Here’s a screengrab of his 2019 presentation on the operation (which has since disappeared from the NUAIR website.)

Source: nuair.com

Less than a year after THAT “Success Story” of Reapers flying over populated areas of New York, one of them crashed upon takeoff at the Syracuse-Hancock Int. Airport. The drone with up to two tons of aviation fuel went down mere seconds from a densely-populated residential and commercial part of Syracuse. It took almost a year before the Air Force released that information to the public.

Source: syracuse.com

Why would they be so secretive about one of their drones nearly causing a catastrophe in a U.S. city? Maybe because it was the second Reaper crash in as many days. One had gone down somewhere in Africa just the day before, because of a maintenance problem GA had known about for months but hadn’t fixed.

More likely, it might have been because at the time, GA was trying to fly the Reaper’s big brother, the new MQ-9B SkyGuardian, over the City of San Diego, supposedly to demonstrate the commercial applications of large military-grade drones. Three weeks before the Syracuse crash, the Voice of San Diego had announced that they were suing the FAA and GA over the secrecy surrounding that attempt.

Source: voiceofsandiego.org

That proposed flight was eventually rejected by the professionals at FAA, but FAA leadership still fought tooth and nail in court to not reveal the reasons why. Whatever the reason, that rejection turns out to have been well-justified. GA was forced to take a consolation flight over the desert, and because the project was supported by NASA, they had to issue a report. That report clearly shows that the crucial DAA system (which Australia had said was the basis for choosing the MQ-9B), had failed repeatedly during the flight.

Source: ntrs.nasa.gov

Don’t bother looking for that overview. Somehow, it never made it into the report…

With all that failure, General Atomics and the federal government are still moving ahead with plans to open U.S. domestic airspace to routine operation of military surveillance drones. In fact, GA is already previewing the opportunity (to commercial AND government customers) to lease their drones for surveillance flights in domestic or international airspace. They’re even considering a ““pay by the hour” scenario”.

The Leasing page on the General Atomics website ends with this odd signoff: “-ISR/24/7/365-”.

“Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.” Over the United States… Coming soon?

Source: ga-asi.com

*

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.

Barry Summers, an activist living in North Carolina, has been researching military drone integration since 2014. Barry can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from aerospace-technology.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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In 1952, I was blessed, maybe cursed, to have parents who taught me about war and peace as a second grader. Back then it was the Korean War which didn’t make much sense to this 7 year old. Seventy years on it still doesn’t, just like every other war America has been involved in, whether directly, like Korea, or as with Ukraine today, by proxy. 

That early lesson ignited a lifelong fascination with U.S. foreign policy. What became true during all 70 years is that regarding foreign wars and entanglements, one could depend on America. It always lets us down.

For the first decade I fully bought into American moral superiority regarding our Cold War opposition to Soviet communism. That belief was shattered from America’s reaction to the necessary and inevitable Cuban revolution of 1959.

In April, 1961, we launched a proxy invasion of the tiny Cuban island of 6 million to overthrow revolutionary leader Fidel Castro. As dastardly as that failed venture was, it paled in comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis just 18 months later that led the world to the brink of nuclear war with Russia. It took a miracle, likely several, to prevent nuclear winter.

Just 17 at the time, I spent 13 days wondering if each day would be my last. At bedtime, I hoped I’d wake up next morning. Surely, I thought afterwards, we’d learned the lesson that foreign adventurism risking nuclear war is madness.

But 60 years on we’re back at first provoking, then prolonging a proxy war with Russia, 5,000 miles from the homeland, with no connection to our national security interests whatsoever. Unlike every other war America has provoked or participated in since October, 1962, this one has the capability to go nuclear in a heartbeat from simple error, stupidity, miscalculation or desperation.

America’s provocations, along with our NATO allies and wannabe member Ukraine go back 14 years to our announcement to extend NATO membership to Ukraine, likely and needlessly putting NATO troops and weaponry on Russia’s doorstep. Six years later we inspired and supported a coup to oust the Russian leaning Ukraine president because he wanted to partner economically with Russia.

That set off a civil war with Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas where over 14,000 were killed, with an all-out Ukrainian invasion against the Donbas in the works early this year since 2014. Any wonder why such provocations might inspire the massive Russian invasion in response?

Once begun, the U.S. had but one sensible response: promote negotiations to end the war. Successful negotiations would have resulted in no NATO for Ukraine and regional autonomy for the Donbas.

The tragedy is that Ukraine agreed back in 2015 to grant that autonomy under the Minsk II Accords brokered by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France.

But the Ukraine ultranationalists, elevated to power in both the Ukraine government and military after the 2014 coup, sabotaged Minsk II. The U.S. was all in for that sabotage, viewing successful Minsk II as a victory for Russia that had to be isolated and weakened regardless of the risk that posed.

Instead of negotiations, America responded with $14 billion in military aid with $40 Billion more being passed by Congress this week. That’s $54 billion in American treasure, desperately needed to shore up our crumbling society, to prolong a war destroying Ukraine as a functioning nation.

President Biden, 19 at the time, surely remembers our brush with nuclear war sixty years ago over Cuba. He’s said as much to the most vociferous war lovers in government and the media calling for a no-fly zone, possible U.S. ground troops, even contemplating a nuclear response. His refusal to negotiate de-escalation while funneling endless weaponry to prolong the war, risks more than further destruction of Ukraine. It puts the world closer to nuclear war anytime since the ’62 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Time for President Biden, his war cabinet of Defense Secretary Austin, Secretary of State Blinken and the Democratic and Republican Congressional leadership, to be locked in a room to watch the 2000 Kevin Costner flick ’Thirteen Days.’ They might learn how common sense, real concern for the survival of our planet, and willingness to negotiate a ‘win-win’ agreement with Russia, averted WWIII back in ’62. On second thought, fly in Ukraine president Zelensky and NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg as well. Neither are old enough to remember our 1962 brush with nuclear annihilation.

Speaking of time…it’s running out. And this time there may be no miracles.

*

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: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, left, shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during their meeting in Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, October 19, 2021. [Source: cbs17.com]

“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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Malcolm Nance, Dennis Diaz and Willy Joseph Cancel: Their experiences — one fatal — offer a sobering view of Americans in the International Legion of the Territorial Defense of Ukraine.

It was — literally — a made-for-television moment. A former U.S. Navy chief petty officer turned cable news pundit, dressed in a fresh out-of-the-box camouflage uniform replete with body armor and magazine pouches, wearing matching camouflage helmet and gloves, and cradling an automatic rifle, stared into the camera and announced “I am here to help this country [Ukraine] fight what is essentially a war of extermination.”

With a Ukrainian flag on his left shoulder, and a U.S. flag emblazoned on his body armor, the man, Malcolm Nance, declared that “This is an existential war, and Russia has brought it to these people and is mass murdering civilians.”

A day before, Nance had tweeted a black-and-white photograph of himself, similarly clad, announcing “I’m DONE talking.”

I’m DONE talking. #JoinTheLegion #StopRussia #SlavaUkraini pic.twitter.com/ob3gL1cZ7P

— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) April 19, 2022

Nance spent 20 years in the U.S. Navy as a cryptologic technician, interpretive (CTI), specializing in the Arabic language, and has turned his career into a thing of legend, so much so that when he speaks of his journey from news desk to Ukraine, it almost sounds convincing.

“Ukraine announced that there was an international force on Feb. 27,” Nance told one reporter,

“and I started looking into it on Feb. 28 … I called the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, and I said: ‘Hey, I want an appointment.’ They were a little slow, so I just went down there and put in my application. The guy asked if I had combat experience and I said ‘Yep.’ Then he looked at my application and said, ‘You’re on the team.’”

Just like that.

But the hype doesn’t match the reality.

Although he sports a combat action ribbon on the lapel of his coat jacket (when not attired in full combat regalia), Nance has never actually participated in ground combat operations, according to a serviceman who served with him. His “combat” experience was limited to providing linguistic support onboard a U.S. Navy ship off the coast of Beirut in 1983. Important work, but not combat.

Despite this resume enhancement, Nance was — according to Nance — a natural for recruitment by Ukraine. In the days before the Russian invasion, Nance was in Ukraine, reporting for MSNBC.

But being Malcolm Nance, he claimed to be doing so much more.

“I spent a month in Ukraine,” Nance recalled, “driving around, mapping out the Russian order of battle, driving up and down the highways and analyzing where the invasion routes would come and go. So I knew the country backward and forwards by the time of the invasion.”

(It might be time to remind the reader that Nance’s Navy specialism in Arabic gave him neither the training nor the experience to conduct the kind of battlefield intelligence preparation that he described.)

The Ukrainians know this. So why would they take on a 61-year old Arabic linguist whose physical presence on any battlefield would be seen as a detriment?

‘Not an Infantry Guy’

“I’m not an infantry guy,” Nance is quick to admit. However,

“combat isn’t about being a murdering, Seal Team Six assassin; it’s mainly about precision, accurate fire, selective fire, keeping people calm, getting on the line and moving forward.”

None of which are skill sets in Nance’s real-life resume.

Despite his larger-than-life televised send-off, and his proclivity for dressing and acting like an aging LARP (live action role play) warrior on a weekend airsoft reenactment, Nance’s real-world duties mimic those he was performing with MSNBC.

Airsoft player. (UNHchabo, CC BY 2.5, Wikimedia Commons)

“Right now, part of my duty is to the press,” Nance admitted during a recent interview.

“They [the Ukrainians] were well aware that I was a high-level asset. So, instead of putting me out on the line, I’m in a safe house talking to people like you.”

Today, Nance is little more than a poorly paid newsroom producer (the Ukrainians pay him and other Legionnaires $600 per month). “I get up at 4 and what I do is I read, I read the news. I try to feel the battlefront based on Ukrainian news and reporting. And then I look at expert analysis from the previous night in the West.”

But he is always hopeful for some action.

“No matter where I am, no matter what I’m doing, I constantly check my gear. If I’m in a safe house on a press junket, like I am now, I go over all of my gear. I reorganize my pack. I assume that I will have to take everything, get up and run with it or move to a forward location.”

This would all be pathetic if it were not irresponsibly dangerous.

Nance fronts for the International Legion of the Territorial Defense of Ukraine, which he describes as “a branch of the Ukrainian army.”

According to Nance, the International Legion is “an organized combat element with contracts signed by the Ukrainian army. We are paid by the Ukrainian army and get a Geneva convention ID card.”

And the mission of the International Brigade? Simply put, per Nance, if a Ukrainian unit is “on the line and they need more reinforcement, they will get a legion unit to give them more manpower.”

Dennis Diaz

Dennis Diaz enlisted in the U.S. Marines in 2000. He was deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, before being honorably discharged in 2004.

In early March, Diaz, an entrepreneur and former 2020 candidate for U.S. president from Waterbury, Connecticut, now 39 and the father of four, volunteered to serve in the International Legion.

“I’m ready to roll,” he told local media before leaving the U.S. “Whatever I have to bring, I’m going to pack it up and we’re going to take care of business.”

https://t.co/Cc66tuUIfm

— Dennis A. Diaz (@RealDennisDiaz) April 4, 2022

His age and obvious lack of physical conditioning did not seem to be an obstacle for the one-time combat Marine. “War,” he told the press, “is 90 percent mental, 10 percent physical.”

Diaz says he has a lot to offer Ukraine.

“I have a lot of military experience,” he said, “I did go to Iraq and Afghanistan … I have some flight experience. Also, I was field artillery in the Marine Corps. Also, I’ve got some experience driving tanks. Enough to be a valuable asset to Ukraine.”

According to his Tik Tok page, Diaz spent some $2,700 of his own money purchasing uniforms and field equipment, including a flak vest and helmet, to take with him to Ukraine.

But by late March, Diaz was still in the U.S., waiting further instructions from the Ukrainian embassy. He never made the trip.

The Ukrainians, it seemed, had cooled to the idea of Americans fighting for the International Legion. Where once they were welcoming (“Foreigners willing to defend Ukraine and world order as part of the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine, I invite you to contact foreign diplomatic missions of Ukraine in your respective countries,” the Ukrainian foreign minister tweeted in early March), by the end of March the Ukrainian embassy stopped publicly commenting on U.S. applications.

The primary reason for this newfound publicity shyness appears to be the poor performance of the International Legion during its first combat experiences, fighting Russian troops in the Kiev suburb of Irpin in mid-March.

Haphazard Approach

The haphazard approach to recruitment was the norm, it seemed, for the entire intake and training processes associated with the legion.

Potential recruits made their own way to Poland, from where they were told to head to the western Ukrainian city of Lvov. The candidate legionnaires were then taken to Livorov, a military camp outside Lvov, where they were subjected to a rudimentary selection process that sought to separate those with and without combat experience.

Those with combat experience were issued weapons and ammunition and sent straight to the front, where they were integrated with Ukrainian Territorial Defense Units. Those without were given a rudimentary four-week basic training course.

The first group of “combat tested” legionnaires were sent to Irpin, where they were tasked with conducting a “hasty defense” against a Russian attack.

While the Ukrainians held, the performance of the legion was “uneven,” resulting in many of the newly minted legionnaires being unceremoniously released from service and sent home. The lackluster performance of the legion had become a domestic political issue, prompting the Ukrainian government to halt recruitment due in large part to the lack of weapons and the lack of military experience.

Some legionnaires, however, were asked to stay, including a four-man team led by a veteran U.S. Army combat engineer with two deployments to Afghanistan named Cameron Van Camp.

Willy Joseph Cancel

One of the Americans under Van Camp’s charge was a 22-year-old former U.S. Marine named Willy Joseph Cancel.

Cancel had enlisted in the Maines in 2017, where he underwent basic training before being trained as an infantryman. Cancel never saw combat and was given a bad conduct discharge. In 2020 he was given a bad conduct discharge from the Marines after serving five months in jail for disobeying a direct order. Upon being discharged, Cancel got married, had a son, and gained employment as a corrections officer in Tennessee.

For whatever reason, Cancel, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, left his job and his family and, on March 12, at his own expense, flew to Warsaw, Poland, where he met up with Van Camp.

Together the two Americans travelled to Ukraine, where they were sent directly to the front lines in Kiev due to their status as “combat veterans.” though Cancel never served in a combat zone.)

Embellishment appeared to be the name of the game with the Americans and the legion; according to Van Camp, he and Cancel were sent to Irpin to assist the Ukrainian military in counter-battery and “sniper” operations, even though neither of them had ever been trained in these highly specialized military occupations, something that would have been painfully obvious to anyone involved.

In any event, Van Camp was able to keep his four-man team in the legion following the post-Irpin “purge” and subsequently his unit saw combat in southern Ukraine, fighting in Kherson and Nikolaev. It was here, sometime in late April, that Cancel lost his life; his remains were not recovered from the battlefield.

BREAKING: U.S. citizen Willy Joseph Cancel was killed in Ukraine while fighting alongside Ukrainian troops against invading Russian forces, his family confirms to @ABC News. https://t.co/fLWXAt2tQ0 pic.twitter.com/HaQJ8L6ksH

— ABC News (@ABC) April 29, 2022

Van Camp and the other Americans who had fought with Cancel left Ukraine in early May to bring the deceased former Marines’ belongings home and to speak with Cancel’s widow and family.

Cancel’s presence on the battlefield raises numerous questions about the screening process used by the International Legion.

One of the easiest ways to check the relevant military experience of a U.S. veteran is through an examination of his or her DD 214, or record of service, a copy of which is provided to every veteran upon discharge.

Cancel’s DD-214 would not only have shown that he lacked any combat experience, but that he had not been trained in any relevant combat arms skill set other than basic infantryman — especially sniper or counter-battery operations. Moreover, his bad conduct discharge would have been a red flag for any professional military organization.

Cancel’s death on the front line as part of the International Legion directly contradicted the legion’s own stated standards.

“What we want is for people to come that have already been in the line of fire,” a corporal in the International Legion who was responsible for training declared.

Americans, however, could apparently pass themselves as having what the corporal called “concrete combat experience,” making them “very attractive candidates” for the legion.

This inability to effectively screen genuine combat veterans from LARPers points to a lack of professionalism on the part of the International Legion.

A Canadian who had travelled to Ukraine to help train the Territorial Defense Force in urban combat said he wasn’t impressed by what he had seen; with recruits lacking experience, equipment and proper motivation. In true LARP fashion, they seemed only interested in gaining what the Canadian described as “quick combat exposure.”

“I think that the international legion was something that was conceived to be a propaganda tool to push forward the message that this is the world against [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and that they’re fighting for more than just Ukraine,” the Canadian said. “They don’t have the infrastructure, or the time, to really properly do any sort of international unit.”

This message should be heard by anyone who might be caught up in the “romance” of fighting side-by-side with the Ukrainian army against the Russian invader.

It should be used to counter the propaganda being generated by over-the-hill want-to-be heroes like Nance. It would have been useful for aging veterans such as Diaz before they spent nearly $3,000 outfitting themselves for a war in which they were never going to participate.

But, most importantly, it should have been heard by Cancel and his family, so that he could have been dissuaded from embarking on his one-way journey of personal 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.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

Featured image: Malcolm Nancie in 2019. (USC Price, 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The occasions when an activist, writer or commentator triumph over defamation lawsuits launched by a thin-skinned politician are rare in Australia.  When it comes to matters regarding the law of reputation, Australia remains a place where parliamentarians, as a species, thrive in the knowledge they can use favourable provisions to protect their hurt feelings and soiled reputations.

The country, in also lacking a bill of rights protecting free speech and the press, has further emboldened politicians.  At best, the Australian High Court has only left an anaemic implied right “to protect freedom of communication on political subjects”, which should really be read as a restraint on executive and legislative power, never to be personally exercised.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton, ever the nasty enforcer of the Morrison government, was one who had every reason to feel confident when he took refugee activist Shane Bazzi to court in April last year.  In February 2021, Bazzi published a six-word tweet: “Peter Dutton is a rape apologist.”

The tweet was made some hours after Dutton had told a press conference that he had not been furnished with the finer details of a rape allegation made by former Coalition staffer Britney Higgins.  The context here was also important.  Dutton had, when Home Affairs Minister, characterised refugee women being held on Nauru, one of Australia’s carceral domains, as “trying it on” to get access to the Australian mainland for medical treatment.

The following month, Dutton promised that he would start to “pick out some” individuals who were “trending on Twitter or have the anonymity of different Twitter accounts” posting “all these statements and tweets that are frankly defamatory.” It was an informal declaration of war against critics.

In instigating proceedings against Bazzi, Dutton claimed in the trial that he was “deeply offended” by the contents of the tweet.  He accepted that, “As a minister for immigration or home affairs … people make comments that are false or untrue, offensive, profane, but that’s part of the rough and tumble.”  But Bazzi had gone one step too far.   “It was somebody that held himself out as an authority or a journalist.”  His remarks “went beyond” the tolerably bruising nature of politics. “And it went against who I am, my beliefs … I thought it was hurtful.”

In finding for Dutton in November and awarding $35,000 in damages, Justice Richard White ruled that the tweet had been defamatory, and that Bazzi could not resort to the defence of honest opinion.  Dutton failed to gain damages in three of the four imputations, while also troubling the judge with his hunger in pursuing the defendant for the full legal bill.  But in his remarks on Bazzi’s claim of honest opinion, White was dismissive.  “Bazzi may have used the word ‘apologist’ without an understanding of the meaning he was, in fact conveying.”  If this had been the case, “it would follow that he did not hold the opinion actually conveyed by the words.”

On May 17, Bazzi found that he had convinced the Full Court of the Federal Court that the reasoning behind the six-word tweet, and the purportedly defamatory imputations it conveyed, was flawed.  Justices Steven Rares and Darryl Rangiah, in a joint judgment, found that Justice White had erred in not explaining “how the reader would understand the whole (or any part) of the tweet to convey the imputation.”  They also noted that Justice White had found the meaning of the word “apologist” was not that of an excuser but of a defender.  “When the material is read with Mr Bazzi’s six words, the reader would conclude that the tweet was suggesting that Mr Dutton was sceptical about claims of rape and in that way was an apologist.”  It was “very different from imputing that he excuses rape itself.”

The judges put much stock in the context of the tweet, and the need to read it alongside Dutton’s previous remarks on the women held on Nauru as recorded in The Guardian.  “The reader would perceive that the message in the tweet consisted of both parts, Mr Bazzi’s six word statement and The Guardian material, read together.”  When read together, the reader “would understand that the point that the tweet was conveying was that a ‘rape apologist’ behaves in the way Mr Dutton had in expressing scepticism about the claims of rape.  That is a far cry from conveying the meaning that he excuses rape itself.”

Justice Michael Wigney also found that the primary judge had erred in finding the tweet defamatory and “substantially agreed” with the two other justices.  It was “tolerably clear” that Bazzi’s statement “was about, or responsive to, the extract from The Guardian article.”  The primary judge had erred in how the ordinary reasonable Twitter user would have read the tweet, downplaying, for instance, the significance of the link to the article.

Accordingly, “It was wrong for the primary judge, in analysing whether Mr Bazzi’s tweet conveyed the alleged imputation, to dissect and segregate the tweet in the way he did.”  While the tweet did convey “an impression that is derogatory and critical of [Dutton’s] attitude to rape or rape allegations,” it did “not go so far as to convey the impression that [Dutton] is a person who excuses rape”.

Dutton’s litigious boldness was much in keeping with the Morrison government’s general hostility to social media outlets and the internet, in general.  Prime Minister Scott Morrison has shown a willingness to do battle with social media and making the platforms assume greater responsibility for material hosted on their sites.  Taking advantage of the killings in Christchurch in March 2019, he exploited the chance to pursue a global agenda of online censorship.  “We urge online platforms to step up the ambition and pace of their efforts to prevent terrorist and VECT (violent extremism conducive to terrorism) content being streamed, uploaded, or re-uploaded.”

In the latter part of last year, the government announced that it was drafting laws that would make social media companies gather user details and permit courts to force the divulging of user identities in defamation proceedings.  While a re-elected Morrison government will be a dark day for internet freedoms and expression, Dutton’s defeat is a cause for genuine celebration.  It also heralds the need to water down the persistently draconian nature of laws that do all too much in protecting that strange animal known as the offended politician.

*

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 lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

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

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

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

***

A Syrian military bus was attacked on Friday, which killed 12 soldiers and wounded 14, between the towns of Nubl and Al Zahra, west of Aleppo at 9:30 am.  The attack was carried out by the Turkish sponsored ‘Sultan Shah’ terrorist group, which used a TOW anti-tank rocket. The Obama administration, by act of the US Congress, sent the Radical Islamic terrorists based in northwest Syria the US made TOW anti-tank missiles.

The Al Qaeda branch in Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly known as Jibhat al Nusra, posted a video on its Telegram channel on Friday showing a rocket hitting the bus.  HTS is in control of Idlib, which is the last terrorist controlled area in Syria.

In 2017, President Trump shut down the CIA program which was funding and providing weapons to the Radical Islamic terrorists fighting to over throw the Syrian government to establish an Islamic State in Syria. President Obama had devised the war on Syria for regime change while utilizing Radical Islamic terrorists from Syria and around the world, including the US, UK, France, Belgium, and Australia.

Hours after the deadliest attack against Syrian government forces so far this year, Russian warplanes carried out air strikes on terrorist areas in the northwest.

The Syrian people have suffered under attack since March 2011 by a US-NATO backed war for regime change.  The Muslim Brotherhood was utilized in Turkey to establish the political arm of the terrorists, as the US and EU recognized the Syrian opposition Coalition in Istanbul as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people. The Muslim Brotherhood is recognized as a terrorist group by Egypt, UAE, Russia and Syria.  US Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has tried repeatedly to get the US Congress to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, but has not been successful due to the strong support for the terrorist group by members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican. The Muslim Brotherhood is an ally of Israel, who is a close ally of the US.

Since the 2018 invasion of Syria by Turkey, the northwest of Syria along the Turkish border has become a safe-haven for Radical Islamic terrorist groups who receive full support from the administration of President Erdogan, who heads the AKP party in Turkey, which is a Muslim Brotherhood allied party.

The Syrian war is long over, but Idlib remains a hot-spot due to the protection and occupation of Turkey.  Russia and Turkey reached agreement in Sochi, that Turkey should remove the Al Qaeda linked groups from the civilians in Idlib, and to allow the M4 highway linking Latakia to Aleppo to be used safely by trucks and civilian cars.  However, Turkey never fulfilled their side of the agreement, and the highway remains unsafe for use due to the occupation of the Radical Islamic terrorists supported by Turkish outposts.

Russian and Syrian air force targeted several positions of the ‘Sultan Shah’ terrorists in retaliation for the deadly bus attack.

Mohammad al-Jassim, also called Abu Amsha, is the leader of the Turkish-backed ‘Sultan Shah’ terrorist group, which is known among the people as al-Amshat faction. In 2019 he chanted, “Thank you Turkey, Thank you Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”

Abu Amsha is detested among the people because his faction members practice war crimes and steal from the citizens in Afrin, and other Turkish occupied locations.  They kidnapped a citizen in Alkana village, and demanded his relatives to pay $20,000 USD in order to be released.  They have extorted money from citizens while promising protection.

Since the 2018 Turkish invasion, which they called Olive Branch Operation, the security situation in Syria has deteriorated in those areas Turkey occupies and allows their Radical Islamic terrorist groups, such as ‘Sultan Shah’ to operate freely.  Turkey is carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign, removing Syrians at gun-point using the terrorist groups to hand over Syrian lands, homes and businesses to Syrian refugees returning from Turkey and to the terrorists and their families who were brought to the northwest under negotiations brokered by Russia to liberate areas under terrorist control.

Syrian refugees in Turkey were deported and resettled in Afrin and areas of Turkish occupation. Afrin is an agricultural area between Idlib and Aleppo which is famous for its olive trees and the production of olive oil.  Turkey has allowed the terrorists, including the ‘Sultan Shah’ group to steal the olive oil and send it to Turkey which is then bottled and sold both inside Turkey and abroad as a Turkish product.  Customers in Los Angeles saw bottles of olive oil labeled as made in Kessab and Afrin and sold in the US by Turkish companies.

Turkey’s occupation of Syria should be called operation Olive Oil not operation Olive Branch.  Turkey is in a domestic economic crisis, Erdogan needed a way to support financially the terrorists he was using in Syria, so the sales from the stolen olive oil are the method he is using.  But, the theft of olive oil is just one source.

Syrian antiquities, using Turkish bulldozers and excavators manned by terrorists of the ‘Sultan Shah’ group and others, have been unearthed, with the  valuable artifacts then taken to Turkey and sold to antiquities dealers in the US and Europe.  This illegal revenue brings in much more than the stolen olive oil.

The ‘Sultan Shah’ group extorts taxes on owners of farm tractors and agricultural machinery. The group also extorts money from relatives of those they have kidnapped in the form of ransom, sometimes up to $200,000 USD. The group devised a tiered tax on all agricultural lands: 15%, 25%, and 35% of the crop production to be paid to the terrorists.

In August 2021, the head of the Syrian opposition Coalition, Salem Abdel Aziz al-Muslat, honored  Abu Amsha, the head of ‘Sultan Shah’, and gave him a Medal of Honor.  This is the US supported opposition Coalition, regarded by President Biden and the US Congress as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people. The ‘Sultan Shah’ group is well documented by human rights groups and international activist groups as having carried out murders, kidnapping, extortion and ethnic-cleansing.

When Americans pay their taxes, do they ever consider where their tax dollars are going to?  The White House and the US Congress belong to the American people, and it is the American people who are responsible for war crimes and atrocities committed abroad by US supported groups.  President Biden, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others have chanted a mantra for 11 years, “The only solution for Syria is a political solution.”  Yet, the group that the US recognizes as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people is handing out a medal of honor to a documented war criminal, murderer, kidnapper and extortionist.  American values are touted as freedom, democracy and justice.  American values have become a hollow phrase, and a source of ridicule by people throughout Syria.

*

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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Price: $5.00

Click to order

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

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

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

***

NBC’s Meet the Press just aired an absolutely freakish segment in which the influential narrative management firm Center for a New American Security (CNAS) ran war games simulating a direct US hot war with China.

CNAS is funded by the Pentagon and by military-industrial complex corporations Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, as well as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, which as Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp notes is the de facto Taiwanese embassy in the US.

The war game simulates a conflict over Taiwan which we are informed is set in the year 2027, in which China launches strikes on the US military in order to open the way to an invasion of the island. We are not told why there needs to be a specific year inserted into mainstream American consciousness about when we can expect such a conflict, but then we are also not told why NBC is platforming a war machine think tank’s simulation of a military conflict with China at all.

Go inside our exclusive war game with @CNASdc —

The year is 2027. The briefing: China is poised to attack Taiwan

Which side would prevail? Would China attack the U.S. mainland? Could nuclear war break out?

Watch the full episode on @PeacockTV and at https://t.co/CN76hzJHEj pic.twitter.com/XOjyry0QEY

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) May 15, 2022

It happens that the Center for a New American Security was the home of the man assigned by the Biden administration to lead the Pentagon task force responsible for re-evaluating the administration’s posture toward China. That man, Ely Ratner, is on record saying that the Trump administration was insufficiently hawkish toward China. Ratner is now the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs in the Biden administration.

It also happens that the Center for a New American Security has openly boasted about the great many of its other “experts and alumni” who have assumed senior leadership positions within the Biden administration.

It also happens that CNAS co-founder Michele Flournoy, who appeared in the Meet the Press war games segment and was at one time a heavy favorite to become Biden’s Pentagon chief, wrote a Foreign Affairs op-ed in 2020 arguing that the US needed to develop “the capability to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours.”

It also happens that CNAS CEO Richard Fontaine has been featured all over the mass media pushing empire narratives about Russia and China, telling Bloomberg just the other day that the war in Ukraine could serve the empire’s long-term interests against China.

“The war in Ukraine could end up being bad for the pivot in the short-term, but good in the long-term,” Fontaine said. “If Russia emerges from this conflict as a weakened version of itself and Germany makes good on its defense spending pledges, both trends could allow the US to focus more on the Indo-Pacific in the long run.”

NBC News teaming up with neocon think tank CNAS whose top donors from 2020-2021 were Northrop Grumman and the Pentagon. Other notable donors include Raytheon, Taiwan's de facto embassy in the US, and Lockheed Martin.
https://t.co/23GJv8INtO https://t.co/DBSNEc5zXY

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) May 15, 2022

It also happens that CNAS is routinely cited by the mass media as an authoritative source on all things China and Russia, with no mention ever made of the conflict of interest arising from their war machine funding. Just in the last few days here’s a recent NPR interview about NATO expansion with CNAS senior fellow Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a Washington Post quote from CNAS fellow Jacob Stokes about the Chinese threat to Taiwan, a Financial Times quote from CNAS “Indo-Pacific expert” Lisa Curtis (who I’ve previously noted was cited by the mass media for her “expert” opposition to the US Afghanistan withdrawal), and a Foreign Policy citation of the aforementioned Richard Fontaine saying “The aim of U.S. policy toward China should be to ensure that Beijing is either unwilling or unable to overturn the regional and global order.”

As we’ve discussed previously, citing war machine-funded think tanks as expert analysis without even disclosing their financial conflict of interest is plainly journalistic malpractice. But it happens all the time in the mass media anyway, because the mass media exist to circulate propaganda, not journalism.

This is getting so, so crazy. That the mass media are now openly teaming up with war machine think tanks to begin seeding the normalization of a hot war with China into the minds of the public indicates that the propaganda campaign to manufacture consent for the US-centralized empire’s final Hail Mary grab at unipolar domination is escalating even further. The mass-scale psychological manipulation is getting more and more overt and more and more shameless.

This is headed somewhere very, very bad. Hopefully humanity wakes up in time to stop these lunatics from driving us off a precipice from which there is no return.

*

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 author

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

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

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

***

During a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky this past week, President Emmanuel Macron insisted that France would step up its military and humanitarian support for Ukraine.

There is no question that Macron is committed in this respect. Following his re-election during the final round against challenger Marine Le Pen, he was adamant about his desire to work actively during his second term to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, while always maintaining close coordination with his European partners and allies. He also indicated France’s readiness to contribute to an agreement that provides security guarantees for Ukraine.

Of course, a key part of this support is the supply of weapons. Since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, France has always refused to specify exactly what type of armaments it was sending to Kiev.

The secret was finally revealed by Macron himself during an interview he gave on Thursday 21^stApril to news media outlet Ouest France.

When asked if Europe was in the process of supplying heavy weapons, especially tanks, as Germany has done with its Leopard tanks, he replied:

Everyone takes their responsibilities with their political balances, and I do not interfere in the political life of others. We are very coordinated. The day before yesterday I spoke to Chancellor Scholz on this subject. We still deliver substantial equipment, from the MILAN [anti-tank missiles] to the Caesars [guns], including several types of weapons. I think we have to continue on this path. Always with a red line, which is not to enter into co-belligerence.

The interviewer went on asking if tanks were necessary, and this is Macron’s reply:

Some countries have made this choice. It is a debate at the heart of German political life, it is a choice that belongs sovereignly to Germany, and we respect it. We have the same strategy as the Chancellor, which is to say: we must help the Ukrainians as much as possible, but we must be careful never to be co-belligerent.

Furthermore, Agence France-Presse (AFP) asked the Élysée Palace for comments, but they did not specify the number of MILAN missiles and Caesar guns delivered, so as not to “give operational information” which could be used by the Russian Army.

Milan anti-tank missiles.

An Elysian source specified that a few dozen MILAN anti-tank missiles (French-German manufactured) “have already been given” to the Ukrainian armed forces, confirming that these weapons were taken from the stocks of the French armed forces, according to the Elysée Palace (although these numbers seems very conservative).

The delivery of the Caesars guns was already in progress at the time, and is believed to have been shipped out with thousands of potentially lethal shells en route to Ukraine.

Spurred on by a voracious defense industry lobby, western leaders have been pouring unprecedented amounts of money and arms into this conflict zone. Since the start of Russian’s military intervention in Ukraine, some 13 billion euros worth of humanitarian, military, and financial support has been provided by G7 and European Union countries, according to data provided by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and reported by Bloomberg.

According to L’Opinion, French aid covers several different areas. One of the most important contributions also relates to satellite imagery. France has several observation satellites (Helios, Pléiades and CSO) which allow it to provide images several times a day to the Ukrainian general staff. It is likely that this activity will place the French in close collaboration with the allies, particularly with the United States military.

Referring to French aid which is worth a total of 120 million euros (if not more), French news media L’Opinion clarified that France also offered Javelin anti-tank missiles, and Mistral short-range anti-aircraft missiles.

Light missiles:

France delivered at least three types of light missiles:

1. Old MILAN anti-tank systems
2. Javelins anti-tank missiles (US made)
3. Mistral Short-range Anti-Aircraft Missiles

The French government is yet to release the exact volume of these deliveries.

The supply of these weapon systems was also accompanied by the training of Ukrainian military personnel called upon to implement them.

It is not a state secret that Emmanuel Macron likes to pose as the guarantor of the Paris Agreement for the climate and sometimes as the Ambassador of the One Health Approach which was resumed in his 24^th May 2021 speech which he gave at the 74th World Health Assembly in the presence of Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

This article will now focus on the actual weapons France and its allies are sending to Ukraine and examine the real danger they represent – not only for the environment, but also to people’s health.

According to the various statements made by Macron’s government, we can gather that Milan missiles, Caesar guns and shells, are the bulk of these deliveries. It is very clear that this material was chosen because it meets the following criteria:

• End-of-life equipment (old)
• Depleted uranium bombs/missiles

This second item is by far the most problematic. Before analyzing these weapons it is important to understand the knowledge and perception associated with the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions in military warfare.

Which raises the obvious question: are France and NATO shipping depleted uranium weaponry into Ukraine? As this article will demonstrate, the preponderance of evidence strongly indicates that they are doing this. And the ramifications are huge, not just politically, but also legally, environmentally, as well as regarding health effects to combatants in this war. Most importantly though, we are really talking about the long-term public health for people living in and around the country of Ukraine – through the careless spreading of highly toxic and radioactive material in the region.

What is Depleted Uranium?

Watch this brief video presentation of the risks posed by DU munitions:

According to the European Commission and their Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), depleted uranium is a dense metal produced as a by-product of enrichment of natural uranium for nuclear fuel. It is still radioactive, but at a lower level than the material at the beginning of the process. It is used in armour-piercing ammunition, shells and bombs, in order to provide more penetrating power. Such munitions were used in many wars including in both Gulf Wars in Iraq, and also in NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, specifically in battle theatres like Serbia and Kosovo.

Their repeated use has raised concerns about health threats from exposure to the distributed uranium material and particle dust. Many studies have reported evidence of its prevalence, as well as a lack thereof, depending on whose report you are reading. Suffice to say, reporting on this subject still remains very controversial.

The European commission is well aware of the hazards such weapons represent, here for instance one of the many replies from the European Commission, addressed to Florent Pirot, the Secretary of the European Association Against Depleted Uranium (EAADU):

For this reason, France’s weapons deliveries into the Ukraine war zone will have international implications. The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) appears to be advocating for a ban on the use of uranium in all conventional weapons and weapon systems, and is engaged in monitoring, health care, compensation, and environmental remediation for communities affected by its use. However, this group has a very limited definition of DU weapons and munitions.

Sadly the ICBUW seems to believe that only a limited number of depleted uranium weapons, namely 105 and 120 mm tank shells, and small caliber bullets (15/25/30 mm) represent an actual danger to people and the environment, which naturally triggers the usual criticism towards the US government and others like it when such munitions are used, and therefore completely ignoring aircraft-dropped bombs (GBUs), cruise missiles, and other types of anti-tank missiles.

Why would that be?

The topic of depleted uranium is a sensitive one, even though governments have more or less acknowledged the use of uranium in these weapons. Yet, the fact remains that they are used much more widely, because of uranium being the best penetrator against tanks and bunkers.

During our research, we were amazed to find so many reports and cases where higher concentrations of uranium were found near bomb craters and other sites where missiles and bombs have landed. We are meant to believe missiles or bombs land away from the populated areas, but in the reality of warfare, such assumptions are simply not accurate.

An excellent article published 19 June 2016 by Florent Pirot the EAADU Secretary, provides a trove of information and data on this subject including a link to The Washington Spectator who published a damning report entitled “Irradiated Iraq: The Nuclear Nightmare We Left Behind,” which describes the health effects, including horrendous birth defects, resulting from the US military’s prolific use of weapons made with depleted uranium.

Although Barbara Koeppel, who wrote this article faced the wrath of the usual scientific experts (which reminds me of the scientific experts of the COVID 19 so-called pandemic), it is hard to ignore the alarm sounded in 2000 of Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a cancer research scientist and consultant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (she died in 2012), who stated that, “DU is some thousand times more radioactive than the uranium found in soil and rock.

“Regardless of whether the bombs, bullets, or missiles are made with depleted, un-depleted, or slightly enriched uranium, they are all radioactive”.

Now let’s take a look at the weapons and ammunitions Macron is currently sending to Ukraine.

MILAN anti-tank guided missile

The MILAN is a product of Euromissile, a Franco-German missile development program dating back to the 1960s. The system entered service in 1972 as a second generation anti-tank guided missile, and soon became a standard anti-tank weapon throughout NATO, in use by most of the alliance’s individual armies.

With its rather short range (2000 meters), it is an old anti-tank guided missile (ATGM), and is known for its depleted uranium contents.

To put things into perspective, it is important to be aware that between 1986 and 2003, European armies such as the Italian Army’s combat units, were equipped with MILAN shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles, which emitted thorium-232, a notoriously radioactive metal which emits particles that are six times more hazardous to human health than those released by already hazardous depleted uranium.

Below you can see in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Defense Forces are undergoing intensive training in mastering MILAN-2 anti-tank systems.

The MILAN-2 ATGM in service in Ukraine, footage from a CNN video (April 2022).

The MILAN system was designed as per the requirements of the German and French armed forces whilst still considering the general requirements of NATO Command for such weapons.

Thus, the international association Euromissile has developed a system that, due to its high performance, has become the most widely used (after the TOW ATGM) of all anti-tank missiles, currently deployed in different countries.

The MILAN anti-tank system is used by military ground forces in 40 countries, including Germany, France, other NATO countries, and of course now Ukraine.

Watch this brief presentation on the MILAN 2 anti-tank system:

The use of depleted uranium weapons is again causing concern. I am saying this with the people of Serbia and Kosovo in mind, who discovered that the conflict which ended in 1999-2000 had left serious levels of radioactive contamination, just as it did in Kuwait some nine years before.

Why do the United States and NATO allies continue to use a waste product of the nuclear industry in their weapons? Some commentators allege that it is a conspiracy between the military and the nuclear industry to dispose of dangerous waste in hostile countries. While this may be partly true, the real reasons are certainly more complex.

As we speak, depleted uranium munitions are being fired on a regular basis at one of France’s military testing grounds, known as Canjuers. Many French soldiers have reported on the danger associated with the MILAN anti-tank guided missile. The following is the kind of comment you will hear from soldiers using it:

“Depleted uranium, we use it everyday in Canjuers” – they said “Do not come near the target, it is contaminated with depleted uranium, this is dangerous” (soldier explaining what the officer told them when training with Milan missiles in Canjuers).

More of these testimonies can be found here.

The ‘Javelin’ anti-tank missile

The Javelin, although known largely as an anti-tank missile packing a high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round that can penetrate the latest armor, is really a multi-role shoulder-launched missile system capable of taking out everything from heavy armor, to troops hiding behind cover, to low and slow flying aircraft. Its reusable command launch unit can also be used independently as a thermal imaging surveillance system which can drastically improve austerely equipped troops’ ability to surveil their surroundings, especially at night. It features wide-angle viewing modes as well as a zoom-in mode of up to 12X.

Javelin anti-tank missile.

Ukraine has recently received American, but also French military support which includes thousands of Javelin anti-tank missiles. All the data presented by the Ukrainian military confirms that these Javelins have depleted uranium warheads. The missile and its launcher – the Command Launch Unit – together weigh 48.8 pounds, while the missile alone weighs 33 pounds, due to the extreme density and weight of DU material.

According to Florent Pirot’s article, the Javelin missiles’ depleted uranium remain a terrible threat for the environment long after the battle is over – so much so, that it will make it impossible to live in an area where these weapons were used, and not until a magnetic cleaning operation is enforced, and even then it still remains work that requires several passings in order to be left in a satisfactory state.

Pirot goes on to describe this as a crime to use these DU weapons, and unfortunately the Ukrainians’ belief they have achieved some tactical military superiority is somewhat naive, if not gullible, with respect to the low range and severe long-term risks posed by these weapons.

Given its incredibly dense nature, depleted uranium has been used for both tank armor and also in anti-tank ammunition. Depleted uranium is uranium with much of the U-235 removed. It is basically what is left over after the process of enrichment. Coupled with a shaped charge, a depleted uranium round and the DU dart contained inside it, can go through most tank armor, hence, the reason why Javelin anti-tank missiles have now become a symbol of Ukrainian resistance.

On April 5, 2010, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on a possible Foreign Military Sale to France of 260 JAVELIN Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, 76 Command Launch Units with Integrated Day/Thermal Sights, and associated equipment, parts, and logistical support, for an estimated cost of $69 million.

It is fair to assume that France took possession of Javelin antitank missiles from the US, and sent some of its armed forces stock to Ukraine.

Mistral Short Range Anti-Aircraft Missiles (SATCP)

The MISTRAL is manufactured by Matra (now MBDA). Its first version was put into service in the French army in 1989. It is a very short-range surface-to-air weapon system intended to complete the surface-to-air coverage of the armored and mechanized corps. It provides isolated units with their own air defense capability. Its targets are airplanes flying up to Mach 1.2 between 10m and 3000m and helicopters in motion or hovering. Its range is over 6km.

Watch the following brief presentation on the MISTRAL mobile SAM system:

UK Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW)

We thought it would be unfair to not mention the British government, who out of the kindness of their heart have donated thousands of Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) to Ukraine.

This missile system weighs 12.5 kg each, and has a range of no more than 1 kilometre. These features indicate that these missiles (made by Sweden’s leading defense contractor Saab Bofors, and manufactured in Ireland) include a substantial amount of depleted uranium. Given its density, even relatively small quantities of DU would add significant mass to a missile, greatly curtailing its range, but with the added benefit of its armor penetrating ability.

These missiles explode above the tank to spray it with DU together with the surroundings.

We now know that there have likely been at least 8 shipments of these missiles sent. “Thousands” of NLAWs have been promised, meaning thousands of kilograms of depleted uranium has already entered Ukraine.

Journalist Fra Hughes from Al Mayadeen explains the potential legal conundrum for countries like Sweden who are trafficking arms under the cover of a NATO-sponsored proxy war:

“One of the communications unveiled quite clearly that the Swedish government does not want the Ukraine government to publicly acknowledge its acceptance of these deadly weapons, which were dispatched on March 25, 2022, one day after the Swedish Parliament confirmed it would send aid to Ukraine.

There are many military weapons manufactured by both private arms companies and governments, which are in contravention of international law and or the Geneva convention.

Examples include depleted uranium which is used in ammunition that remains radioactive for decades. The American army used these munitions in Fallujah (Iraq), leading to severe birth abnormalities among the local population.

Air to ground missiles and bombs containing phosphorous are also banned under international law.”

Again, these weapons are a known environmental and radioactive hazard, and when used in areas where civilians live, one can easily see why some, including weapons experts, regard their prolific use as a crime against humanity.

Click here to continue reading.

*

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

All images in this article are from 21CW

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

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

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

***

On May 16, the main “fortress of the Ukrainian Resistance” fell. Ukrainian militants blockaded at the Azovstal plant in the city of Mariupol raised the white flag and asked for evacuation of the wounded. As a result of the Russian shelling, the members of the Ukrainian nationalist Azov regiment were recently cut off from a water source on the territory of the facility.

The commander of the Vostok Brigade of the DPR Alexander Khodakovsky revealed that first nine Ukrainian servicemen raised a white flag and left the territory of Azovstal. The brigade commander explained that they represented a larger group of militants who asked for surrender. The Russian side agreed to the negotiations.

 As a result of negotiations with representatives of Ukrainian servicemen, an agreement was reached on the evacuation of the gravely wounded Ukrainian militants.

Another ceasefire regime has been declared by the Russian military in the area. A humanitarian corridor has been secured for the evacuation of wounded Ukrainian servicemen to a medical facility in the city of Novoazovsk in the Donetsk People’s Republic in order to provide them with the necessary medical assistance.

At the same time, judging by the claims of the Ukrainian officials not only gravely wounded militants have been evacuated.

Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine Anna Malyar reported that 53 seriously wounded from Azovstal were taken to the hospital in Novoazovsk, another 221 people were sent to Olenivka. They are expected to be exchanged.

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that part of the Ukrainian military surrendered. At the same time, he assured that the work on rescuing the remaining military from Azovstal and their return to the territory controlled by Kiev continues.

On May 17, Russian state media reported that the interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners of war from Azovstal has begun in the village of Elenovka. Among the Ukrainian military who surrendered, 144 people are fighters of the National Guard.

So far, the Russian Ministry of Defence has not confirmed the exchange of the surrendered militants.

According to some unconfirmed reports, the surrender is part of a big prisoner exchange deal.

Kiev reportedly demands that all Ukrainian fighters from Azovstal should be exchanged for Russian prisoners of war.

In turn, the Kremlin reportedly refuses to exchange nazi members of the Azov regiment as they committed numerous war crimes. The exchange of other servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine however can be negotiated.

In this regard, Kiev PR managers have launched new information campaign, in order to shift the emphasis from the Azov regiment to the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, border guards, and police officers blockaded in the Azovstal plant.

Taking into account the Russian reports that the majority of the surrendered militants are not members of the nationalist battalion, this scenario is likely possible.

At the same time, suspicions rise. Some needed Ukrainian nazi fighters can be exchanged under the guise of the ordinary Ukrainian servicemen.

The evacuation showcased the weakness of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and its lack of resilience, which damaged the prestige of the MSM-promoted formation. However, in practice the Kiev regime is set to wage another propaganda campaign. It is likely to claim that it has managed to convince the “cruel Russians” to evacuate the “brave defenders of the Motherland”. This would play into the hand of war propaganda of Kiev, MSM and NATO against Russia and help the Ukrainian leadership boost the morale of its remaining forces.

Russia’s concessions to the nazi fighters, together with earlier inconsistent actions of Moscow in diplomatic talks with Kiev, undermine the moral and psychological state of members of Russian-led forces involved in the military operation in Ukraine.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

“I love those who can smile in trouble.”  Leonardo da Vinci

“I’m going to smile, and my smile will sink down into your pupils, and heaven knows what it will become.”  Jean-Paul Sartre, No Exit

“For forth he goes and visits all his host;
Bids them good morrow with a modest smile,
And calls them brothers, friends, and countrymen. William Shakespeare, “Othello”

***

There are many devastating impacts of the Covid-19 mandates which in several countries are still ongoing:

The fear campaign, quarantines, engineered economic collapse contributing to poverty and mass unemployment,  the destabilization of civil society (including education, health, culture, sports), not to mention the imposition Worldwide of a “vaccine” which is heralded as a “solution” to the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.

But there is another dimension which is barely addressed:

The Covid mandates have over more than two years affected how human beings interact with one another, at the individual, family and social levels as well as in the arena of politics.

The Covid mandates have relentlessly prohibited social gatherings, family meetings, Church reunions, social movements, etc. allegedly as a means to combating a non-existent “pandemic”. 

But there is something else which is fundamental, intimately related to how people Worldwide communicate with one another.

“It’s the Right to Smile” 

Smiling as a facial expression has existed since the dawn of mankind. It is an inherent feature of human beings.

Coupled with mandatory social distancing, the Covid mask hides our faces and prevents us from expressing our feelings while meeting and interacting with our fellow human beings.

The mandates create an aura of social despair.

Smiling and laughter reduces stress, encourages dialogue, exchange, solidarity, conflict resolution.

Smiling also constitutes a means to confronting the Covid-19 fear campaign.

(It contributes to healthy breathing, the “intake of oxygen-rich air”, it stimulates our vital organs, including our heart and lungs).

British actor John Cleese once said: “Laughter connects you with people”

Smiling is also a means of expressing love and emotion, which has been suppressed by the Covid mandates.

Is it relevant?

The devastating impacts of the covid mandates on mental health, (including a wave of suicides) which are largely the result of social engineering are amply documented.

These impacts are in large part due to restrictions on exchange, dialogue, socializing with fellow human beings, relations between children and parents, teachers and students, etc.

For details see Chapter XI my E-book entitled The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis.

Smiling Contributes to Mental Health. 

“Smiling is a Fundamental Human Right” as Well as a Means to Combating “Political Tyranny”.

Beware of  the “Fake Smile” of Billionaire Philanthropists and Corrupt Politicians

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

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

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

***

A white racist gunman targeted and killed 10 African Americans in a supermarket in an African American community in Buffalo, New York.

The 18-year-old shooter, Payton Gendron, has been heavily influenced by the white supremacist ideology of replacement theory which encourages violent attacks against African Americans and other nationalities in the United States.

According to reports, Gendron drove more than 200 miles in New York state to this location where on several occasions, he visited the store in order to map out his murderous attacks against innocent people. One witness said that he had talked to Gendron the day before outside the supermarket for over 90 minutes.

This massacre follows numerous incidents over the last few years where gunmen motivated by racist beliefs have carried out mass shootings aimed at killing as many of a particular targeted group as possible. The proliferation of racist and neo-fascist websites and other digital platforms serves as a conduit for exchanging views which are largely based upon false notions of conspiracies to eliminate the European people.

Those killed by Gendron were Roberta A. Drury of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 32; Margus D. Morrison of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 52; Andre Mackneil of Auburn, N.Y. – age 53; Aaron Salter of Lockport, N.Y. – age 55; Geraldine Talley of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 62; Celestine Chaney of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 65; Heyward Patterson of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 67; Katherine Massey of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 72
Pearl Young of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 77; Ruth Whitfield of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 86.

In addition to those who died from their wounds, three other people sustained injuries that have been assessed as non-life threatening. Two of those injured have already been released from the hospital. These injured persons are Zaire Goodman of Buffalo, N.Y. – age 20 (treated and released from ECMC); Jennifer Warrington of Tonawanda, N.Y. – age 50 (treated and released from ECMC); Christopher Braden of Lackawanna, N.Y. – age 55.

An article published by CBS News points out that:

“More than 600 pages of messages thought to be written on the social media platform Discord by the man accused of killing 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo appear to show his months-long, unfolding plan to kill as many Black people as he could. The messages, which begin in November, are laced with racist and anti-Semitic tirades…. The messages continued until a few days before the attack, with the final posts including photos of an assault rifle on which racist slurs were scrawled along with the names of other mass shooters. Ten people were killed in the shooting, including a church deacon, the mother of the city’s former fire commissioner, and a ‘beloved’ security guard who tried to incapacitate the shooter. Upon encountering police, the suspect put his gun to his chin, police said — but officers on the scene convinced him to put the gun down and he was taken into custody. He has been charged with murder in the first degree — the most severe murder charge under New York law — and has pleaded not guilty.”

Interestingly enough the gunman was apprehended alive with no injuries inflicted by the police. This scenario drastically conflicts with the continuing deaths of African Americans in their interactions with law-enforcement where oftentimes the victims were not armed.

The city of Buffalo has an African American population of 36% in comparison to 47% for European Americans. This municipality has continued to lose population since its peak in 1950 as an industrial magnate for migration by African Americans and other nationalities.

Biden and First Lady Visits Buffalo in Failed Attempt Minimize the Growing Racial Divide

U.S. President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden traveled to Buffalo on May 17 in order to meet with the family members of those killed in the race massacre of May 14. During his address while in Buffalo, Biden denounced white supremacist ideology and proclaimed that these beliefs had no place in the U.S.

Nonetheless, he did not say that the U.S. was founded on white supremacist principles related to the forced removal and genocide carried out against the Indigenous Native American population along with the importation of millions of Africans for the purpose of enslavement. The British colonies which later became the U.S. after a seven-year war of separation, did not eliminate slavery as an economic system when they announced in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.

Of course, Africans and Native Americans were not considered fully human and therefore had no specific rights that the white ruling interests were bound to respect. It would take another 90 years after the 1776 founding of the U.S. as a Republic for legalized involuntary servitude to be outlawed. The collapse of chattel slavery was a direct result of the Civil War of 1861-1865 which left an estimated 620,000 dead.

Even after the end of slavery and the advent of Reconstruction, within a decade, the federal government had abandoned its Congressional decisions to enforce civil rights laws providing African Americans with the right to due process and the franchise. The extrajudicial killings of African Americans by mobs and law-enforcement claimed thousands of lives between the 1880s and the Great Depression. Even in the third decade of the 21st century, African Americans are disproportionately represented in the prison industrial complex while they are subjected to severe injury and death at the hands of vigilantes and the police.

The Biden administration along with the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate cannot pass legislation which benefits the African American people and other oppressed groups. For example, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act has failed in the legislature although millions demonstrated across the U.S. in the aftermath of his murder by the Minneapolis police two years ago.

A news website entitled Black Wall Street raised serious questions about the administration of Biden in regard to its commitment to end institutional racism and brutality. Although Biden denounced the use of racism and ethnic bigotry, there were no specific plans enunciated which could achieve these goals.

The Black Wall Street report emphasized:

“Biden’s words sound great, but where is any policy to back up those sweeping words? The inaction of his administration to do nothing more than announce the ban on ghost guns leaves ample room for these killings to occur with regularity to citizens of all ethnicities and backgrounds. With racism fueling his shooting spree, an 18-year-old White man live-streamed his slaughter of innocent generations of Black people just looking to feed themselves and their families.  As the President blames Congress for gun legislation delay, domestic terrorism continues on. Biden has done little to address the festering and outright racism that’s only grown more sinister since he took office. Whether or not Congress votes to ban ghost guns, implement universal background checks, or restrict assault rifles, Biden’s words will come and go until actions are taken to save the lives of innocent Americans. While Black voters wain on Biden like America at large, another reckless racist mass shooting exposes the leadership gap in America that has been void seemingly forever.”

Such articles emanating from African American author Ezekiel J. Walker of Charlotte, North Carolina, provides a strong indication of the dissatisfaction with the Biden administration in relation to the concerns of this core constituency of the Democratic Party electorate. Amid midterm primaries and run off elections during 2022, it remains to be seen how the current racial situation and the worsening economic crisis will influence the overall participation and voting patterns.

Undoubtedly, the victory over racism will require an independent struggle waged by African Americans and their allies. There must be a total overhaul of the existing system to eradicate national oppression and economic exploitation in order to realize a genuinely just and equal society.

*

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

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

Featured image: Buffalo area where racist gunmen killed 10 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

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

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

***

Just two weeks before Israeli forces assassinated beloved Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, the International Federation of Journalists, the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians had submitted a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court accusing Israel of systematically targeting Palestinian journalists.

“The targeting of journalists and media organisations in Palestine violates the right to life and freedom of expression,” said Anthony Bellanger, the general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists.

In a moment when the Israeli government’s propaganda machine is working hard to keep mainstream news organizations mired in reporting on Israeli efforts to raise questions about who shot the bullet that killed Abu Akleh, we must insist on understanding her killing within the broader and ongoing context of Israeli violence against Palestinian journalists.

“It was revealing that the Israeli military spokesperson described Shireen and her colleague, Ali al-Samudi, who was shot in the back, as being ‘armed with cameras, if you will permit me to say that,’” writes James Zogby in The Nation. “That is what good journalists do—they arm themselves with cameras and laptops. They witness events as they happen and tell stories so that readers and viewers can understand the human drama that is unfolding. It appears that Israel finds this profoundly—even existentially—threatening. Why else would they have killed dozens of Palestinian journalists in the past two decades?”

It was perhaps no accident that Israel targeted Abu Akleh on May 11, four days before Palestinians commemorated the 74-year anniversary of the Nakba (the Arabic word for “catastrophe”). On May 15, Palestinians mourn the violent founding of Israel on Palestinian land.

For 25 years, Abu Akleh had documented Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory for Al Jazeera. “Abu Akleh herself embodied Palestinian humanity by speaking truth to power,” Al Jazeera reported. She was covering an arrest operation by Israeli forces near the entrance to the Jenin refugee camp when she was assassinated. Although she was wearing a flak vest marked “PRESS,” an Israeli military sniper shot her below the ear — the only part of her head not covered by her protective helmet — clearly evidencing an intent to kill.

Al Jazeera journalist Shatha Hanaysha, also wearing a helmet and vest labeled as press, tried to reach Abu Akleh, but soldiers “did not stop firing even after she collapsed,” Hanaysha said. “I couldn’t even extend my arm to pull her because of the shots. The army was adamant on shooting to kill.”

Ali al-Samudi, another journalist with Al Jazeera who was also wearing a press vest, was shot in the back while covering the same event as Abu Akleh. He survived and is being treated for his wounds.

Thousands of mourners came out to honor Abu Akleh. To add insult to injury, as her casket was being carried through the streets, Israeli occupation forces attacked them, “beating and kicking the mourners,” then “forcing pallbearers to nearly drop the coffin.”

“Now, the occupying power has spoken back by shooting her in the head and attacking her mourners — a response that can only be classified as acute and multitiered state savagery, in keeping with Israel’s modus operandi of refusing to let Palestinians live, die, or be buried in peace,” writes Belen Fernandez at Al Jazeera.

ICC Complaint Filed Over Israeli Killings of Palestinian Journalists

Assassinations (extrajudicial executions) constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.

On March 3, 2021, Fatou Bensouda, the former ICC chief prosecutor, had announced that the ICC was mounting an investigation into war crimes committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip since Israel’s 2014 Operation Protective Edge, during which Israeli forces killed 2,251 Palestinians.

Bensouda found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces committed war crimes — including willful killing, willfully causing serious injury, disproportionate use of force, and the transfer of Israelis into Palestinian territory. Bensouda also determined there was a reasonable basis to investigate possible war crimes by Palestinians, including intentional attacks against civilians, using civilians as human shields, and torture and willful killing.

In October 2021, Israel designated six leading Palestinian human rights groups as “terrorist” organizations with absolutely no evidence. This was done in retaliation for their support of the ICC investigation and the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

The BDS movement was launched by 170 Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005. It called for boycott, divestment and sanctions, described as “nonviolent punitive measures” that will last until Israel complies fully with international law by 1.) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling its barrier wall (85 percent of which is on Palestinian land); 2.) recognizing the fundamental rights of Arab Palestinian citizens in Israel to full equality; and 3.) respecting, promoting and protecting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land as mandated by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.

Calls for Independent Investigation of Abu Akleh’s Killing

The killing of Abu Akleh has led to calls for an independent, impartial investigation and galvanized opposition to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.

On May 13, UN human rights experts condemned Abu Akleh’s killing, saying it “is part of a continuation of the high rate of attacks against media workers, particularly Palestinian journalists. More than 40 Palestinian journalists have reportedly been killed since 2000, with hundreds injured or targeted for violence.”

The UN experts included four special rapporteurs: 1.) on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967; 2.) on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; 3.) on violence against women, its causes and consequences; and 4.) on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. They said Abu Akleh’s killing may amount to a war crime and demanded “a prompt, independent, impartial, effective, thorough and transparent investigation.”

“Authorities have an obligation not to harm journalists and to protect them from harm under international humanitarian law and international human rights law,” the rapporteurs noted. They added that the targeting of journalists working in the occupied Palestinian territory and the Israeli government’s failure to properly investigate killings of media personnel violate the rights to life and to effective remedies. Decrying “the litany of extrajudicial executions,” they said the safety of journalists is crucial to guaranteeing the rights to freedom of expression and media freedom.

Noting that 2021 marked the highest number of Palestinian deaths since Israel’s 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the experts declared, “The unsustainable situation is inherent to the context of protracted military occupation, in which violence and repression are used to perpetuate a system of Palestinian subjugation.” They called for “the dismantlement of the occupation, including the Gaza blockade and the illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

More than 6,000 people have signed a statement initiated by the antiwar and anti-imperialist group CODEPINK, calling for a thorough and impartial investigation of Abu Akleh’s killing and the immediate suspension of United States military aid to Israel. The U.S. enables Israeli war crimes and its illegal occupation by providing it with $3.8 billion in unconditional military assistance annually, in spite of the classification of Israel as an apartheid state by leading human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Israeli group B’Tselem.

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) said Abu Akleh’s killing amounts to the war crime of willful killing under the ICC’s Rome Statute. BNC called for accountability for the perpetrators, those who gave the orders, “and the entire political leadership of apartheid Israel.”

“Though Israel killed Shireen Abu Akleh, her blood is also on the hands of the enablers, funders and defenders of apartheid, primarily the US, EU, UK, Canada and Australia,” BNC noted in a statement. “We call for public BDS pressure to end the West’s colonial hypocrisy and shameless complicity in Israeli crimes and ongoing Nakba against Indigenous Palestinians.”

BNC condemned “the Western indifference to Palestinians, which enables Israel’s impunity, directly contributing to our ongoing Nakba. We reiterate our call for meaningful solidarity with Palestinians facing ethnic cleansing, massacres, colonial dispossession and apartheid.”

Moreover, BNC cited the hypocrisy in the contrasting responses of the West to human rights violations in Ukraine and Palestine. Citing Palestinians’ “empathy with the suffering of Ukranians,” BNC stated that, “the West’s blanket boycotts and sanctions against Russia while continuing its complicity in and unconditional support for Israel’s apartheid, military occupation and settler-colonialism against Palestinians is racist, enraging and hypocritical,” adding, “Ironically, these sanctions and boycotts demolish anti-BDS excuses by Israel and anti-Palestinian apologists.”

BNC recommends that people strategically channel their anger by working with progressive networks to pressure governments and parliaments to end military-security cooperation and trade with apartheid Israel, ban all goods and services in Israel’s illegal settlements, stop material support for pillaged and disputed Israeli fracked gas, and demand a UN investigation of Israeli apartheid.

It is also calling for people outraged at Israeli abuses to mobilize community pressure on churches, unions, student groups and city councils to end all relations with companies complicit in apartheid Israel’s system of oppression and divest from Israeli and international companies and banks complicit in Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity; to cancel academic, sports, cultural and tourism engagements in Israel; and join local BDS campaigns and solidarity groups.

People can also take concerted action to end U.S. military support to Israel. If the United States continues to fund Israel’s brutal and illegal occupation, journalists like Shireen Abu Akleh who document its war crimes will continue to be assassinated.

*

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.

Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio. 

Featured image is from Middle East Eye

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

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

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

***

The world awaits the decision of U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel in the case of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher who has been a political prisoner in London since his arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019. Last month, a British court sent the case to Patel, who is now charged with deciding whether to hand Assange to the United States – a decision that entails a judgment about whether the U.S. will kill him. Dozens of international human rights and press freedom groups – including Amnesty International, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders – have opposed extradition as a “grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad.”

The WikiLeaks revelations, described in greater detail elsewhere, laid bare the unspeakable horror of the United States’ war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraqand its torture of hundreds of people at its prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, among other grave human rights violations. The world learned, for example, that those detainees at Gitmo included a 14-year-old child and hundreds of innocent people, and that US military forces and their corporate agents wantonly killed tens of thousands of non-combatants, including innocent families with small children. We learned that the US government consistently lied to the public about these and other crimes, obstructing journalists’ attempts to uncover and share the truth.

Ultimately, what we really learned from these revelations is that there is nothing the United States foreign policy establishment says that can be taken at face value, without questions and close scrutiny. The hypocrisy of US claims that Assange’s actions present a threat to the safety of Americans is blindingly clear to students of American foreign policy. The problem for Assange is that his public service actually did serve the people – not the Washington, DC military and intelligence community, the political elite, and the arms manufacturers.

The United States is arguably the world’s least trustworthy state actor; it is also among the worst offenders when it comes to waging aggressive wars of choice, attacking journalistic freedoms, torturing perceived enemies, and detaining prisoners indefinitely and without charges or due process. The United States has consistently flouted its obligations under existing nuclear nonproliferation agreements and, in 2019, withdrew from the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. As Phyllis Bennis, Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, has said, “The US believes it can have non-proliferation globally without taking any responsibility to implement its own obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.” Similarly and unsurprisingly, the US has also long rejected efforts to add accountability mechanisms such as inspections provisions to the Biological Weapons Convention, designed to prevent governments from developing and stockpiling bioweapons.

The United States’ record of lies and broken promises makes Assange’s case particularly important not only to Americans, but to the entire world. Were we not so desensitized by decades of focused, expertly-crafted propaganda, we couldn’t live with these facts without ourselves joining the Assanges of the world in a truth-telling mission to stop every organization that participates in these crimes. Americans simply do not live in the country they hear about on the news, the government again and again failing to live up to the high ideals expressed in its founding documents and its pretty PR.

We need more Julian Assanges, not less – more who are willing to sacrifice everything to cut through the fog of euphemism and propaganda that gives cover to the prevailing system: we call it “foreign policy,” but we are talking about war and imperialism. We call them “defense contractors” when what we mean is “war profiteers.” We now have the system of which President Eisenhower warned: we see the total, all-consuming, “economic, political, even spiritual” influence “of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.” We see the “disastrous rise of misplaced power” that has subordinated our “liberties and democratic processes.” We cannot hope to topple this system in favor of genuinely democratic institutions if we are not willing even to confront the truth, and we cannot confront the truth if no one is permitted to publish it.

It is time for all Americans to have an honest conversation about the kinds of actions we permit our government to carry out around the world. The hope after Vietnam was that the conversation on the US Empire and its destructive role in the world had fundamentally changed, that Americans were no longer willing to tolerate endless wars that harm both ordinary Americans and the rest of the world. To be clear, this is not about Julian Assange or WikiLeaks, not really. Because when Assange is no longer with us, which could be tragically soon if the US government has its way, there will be others brave enough to bring the truth to the people, who believe that we deserve to see it and understand what’s being done in our names.

Whatever your politics, whether you know it or not, Assange’s case affects you and your freedom to think, say, and write what you believe. It affects our collective ability – as a species – to live in societies in which information is not tightly controlled by a very small group of the rich and powerful. Again, some perspective is in order: Assange, like every one of us, will be gone soon, regardless of what the United States does with his case from here on. What we’re really talking about, then, is the future of the freedom to think, to inquire, and to publish, all of which are necessary conditions for anything that can appropriately be called a free society.

*

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

David S. D’Amato is an attorney, businessman, and independent researcher. He is a Policy Advisor to both the Heartland Institute and the Future of Freedom Foundation. He has written in Newsweek, Investor’s Business Daily, RealClearPolitics, The Washington Examiner, and many other popular and scholarly publications, and his work has been cited by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, among others.

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

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

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

***

The Biden administration will ease sanctions on President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela in exchange for a commitment from the government to dialogue in Mexico City with Venezuela’s opposition movement, sources familiar with the matter told McClatchy and the Miami Herald, marking a turning point in Washington’s pressure campaign on Caracas.

The new U.S. sanctions relief will allow Chevron, a major energy company, to begin talks over potential future oil production in Venezuela, and will remove Carlos Erik Malpica-Flores, a former high-ranking energy official in Venezuela and the nephew of Maduro’s wife, from a U.S. sanctions list.

Maduro walked away from talks with the Venezuelan opposition last fall, all but collapsing the fragile diplomatic effort. The country’s democratic leader, Juan Guaidó, whose movement has faltered over the past year, has rested his negotiating position on continued U.S. sanctions.

Read the full article 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.

Michael Wilner is McClatchy’s Senior National Security and White House Correspondent. A member of the White House team since 2019, he led coverage of the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. Wilner previously served as Washington bureau chief for The Jerusalem Post. He holds degrees from Claremont McKenna College and Columbia University and is a native of New York City.

Featured image: The US government continues to view Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido (left) as the rightful leader of Venezuela, not Nicolas Maduro (right). (Alexandros Michailidis/StringerAl/Shutterstock)

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

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

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

***

As news of the COVID pandemic winds down around the world, we’re suddenly seeing warnings of another pandemic brewing — bird flu, aka avian influenza (H5N1)

Natural bird flu is notoriously harmless to humans, but Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci have, for many years, funded research to develop a bird flu pathogen capable of infecting humans

Some of that research has been undertaken in Pentagon-funded biolabs in Ukraine

Gates funded research by Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, in which the bird flu virus was mixed with the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) virus, creating an airborne hybrid capable of completely evading the human immune system, effectively rendering humans defenseless against it

The U.S. and other countries have already started stockpiling H5N1 vaccine, and the H5N1 vaccine Audenz is being marketed “for 2022.” As if on cue, the first-ever H5N1-positive case was identified in the U.S. at the end of April 2022

*

As news of the COVID pandemic winds down around the world, we’re suddenly seeing warnings of another pandemic brewing — bird flu, aka avian influenza (H5N1). In a March 30, 2022, CenterPoint interview, former Director for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield, stated:¹

“I believe the great pandemic still in the future, and that’s going to be a bird flu pandemic for man. It’s going to have significant mortality in the 10 to 50% range. It’s going to be trouble.”

Anyone who knows a little about bird flu is likely to wonder where Redfield and other “experts” are getting their predictions from, as natural bird flu is notoriously harmless to humans.

In early April 2022, news of a highly pathogenic bird flu ripping through chicken and turkey flocks in the U.S., triggering the slaughter of millions of these animals, was reported.^2,3 Historically, however, the bird flu has never posed a threat to mankind — that is until scientists started tinkering with it, creating a hybrid with human pandemic potential.

Natural Bird Flu Has Never Posed a Human Threat

As reported by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association:⁴

“H5N1 kills more than half of the people who get it, but H5N1 has circled the globe for decades and there have only ever been 860 human infections worldwide …

H5N1 isn’t transmitted person-to-person⁵ … There are no food safety risks associated with H5N1. If farm workers and meat packers don’t get bird flu in filthy factory farms or slaughterhouses, it’s no surprise the rest of us don’t get bird flu from eating raw eggs or handling raw chicken.”

Despite that, the U.S. and other countries have already started stockpiling H5N1 vaccine, and the H5N1 vaccine Audenz is being marketed “for 2022.”⁶ The approval for this vaccine was granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2020, followed by a supplemental approval in 2021. As if on cue, the first-ever H5N1-positive case was identified in the U.S. at the end of April 2022.⁷

Bird Flu Has Already Been Weaponized

By the looks of it, the only way a human bird flu would appear would be if it was created, and wouldn’t you know it, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has funded gain of function research with the intention to make H5N1 transmissible to humans, as has global vaccine profiteer Bill Gates, Baden-Mayer notes.⁸

Some of that research has been undertaken in Pentagon-funded biolabs in Ukraine.^9,10,11 For more details on this, be sure to read Baden-Mayer’s extensive article.¹² Not surprisingly, Gates has warned that another pandemic will emerge — something other than coronavirus — and that this yet-to-come pandemic “will get attention this time.”¹³

In the featured video, Christian Westbrook, aka the Ice Age Farmer,¹⁴ details Gates’ funding of Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Wisconsin, to identify mutations in various bird flu viruses that might have pandemic potential. Fauci has also funded Kawaoka’s work since 1990.¹⁵

In one experiment, Kawaoka mixed bird flu virus with the Spanish flu virus, resulting in a highly lethal respiratory virus with human transmission capability. Kawaoka has also played around with mixtures of H5N1 and the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) virus, creating an airborne hybrid^16,17,18 capable of completely evading the human immune system, effectively rendering humans defenseless against it.¹⁹ On a side note, this extremely risky research was done at a biosafety level 2 lab!²⁰

Around the same time, another team of Dutch researchers, led by virologist Ron Fouchier, also created an airborne version of the bird flu, using a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets.²¹ Fouchier’s work was also funded by Fauci.

So, the bird flu has been manipulated and tinkered with in a variety of different ways, making it both airborne (which it was not initially) and capable of cross-species infection.

A decade ago, the work of Kawaoka and others sparked widespread concern about gain of function research, as it was readily recognized that it could accidentally CAUSE a human pandemic.^22,23 As a result, the U.S. government in 2014 issued a temporary ban on gain of function research on certain viruses, which remained in place until December 2017.²⁴

We’ve recently discovered that this ban was circumvented by Fauci, who continued to fund gain of function research on coronaviruses in China during those years. And, today, it looks as though weaponized bird flu might eventually be intentionally released to achieve the geopolitical aims of the technocratic elite, to which Gates belongs.

 A Ploy to Force-Eliminate Meat Consumption?

Westbrook (the Ice Age Farmer), suspects weaponized bird flu may be released to usher in The Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution, which includes the elimination of traditional farming and meat consumption in favor of patented lab-created “foods.”

Indeed, millions of poultry are currently being culled in the name of food safety, and deer — a popular food among hunters — are being targeted for COVID vaccination to prevent cross-species transfer of a mutated virus.^25,26 Not surprisingly, the test being used to identify these outbreaks is the fraudulent PCR test that allowed for the fabrication of COVID “cases.”

In early April 2022, North Carolina chick sellers were told they will not even be permitted to restock.²⁷ They’re allowed to sell the chicks they already have on hand, but that’s it. How long that restriction is supposed to remain in place is unclear, but the way things are going, it may well be permanent.

Jacob Thompson of Wine Press News also believes bird flu is being used as a convenient excuse to rid the market of natural beef and poultry:²⁸

“… did you catch that little subtle influence and propaganda of COVID in animals transmitting to us? It is becoming clearer that that is where the narrative is heading … The wicked handlers need to get the masses off of meats, and so, the ‘solution’ will be to artificially kill them off, vaccinate them to death, and mandate it be taken off the shelves.”

Controlled Demolition of the Protein Supply

As noted by Westbrook, we now have mainstream media warning we may one day soon face “an apocalyptic bird flu” capable of wiping out half the world’s population. Meanwhile, Gates and others have funded the creation of just such a pathogen for the last 15 years, and the U.S. Department of Defense has funded research to figure out how to attach viruses to migratory birds.²⁹

Yet we’re being indoctrinated to believe that lethal human bird flu, if it does emerge, did so through natural evolution. Don’t be fooled. To quote Westbrook, what we’re looking at is “a controlled demolition of the protein supply.” There’s nothing accidental or natural about it.

Fertilizer shortages are also having a devastating impact on our food supply by limiting the amount of corn and soy that can be planted this year, and these shortages in turn mean farmers cannot feed their livestock, including chickens, so egg shortages are now looming on the horizon as well.

If you still struggle to put the puzzle pieces of manufactured food scarcity, famine and The Great Reset together, just consider how easy it will be for the global cabal to control populations when they’re starving to death. In a global famine, they can then present themselves as the “saviors” and hand out digital IDs that will allow you to collect a ration of processed food.

Of course, that digital ID will also function as a vaccine passport, so to get your food you’ll have to take whatever vaccine they tell you to, and it will be connected to a centrally controlled programmable currency that can be confiscated if you fail to comply. The end game is simply to create such widespread calamity that the people of the world willingly surrender all rights and freedoms.

Past Bird Flu Hoaxes

In 2005, President George Bush and U.S. officials warned bird flu would kill 2 million Americans and 150 million globally. It was a ridiculous threat that never materialized, but it did further the bioweapons industrial complex. Gain of function research was funded to the tune of billions of dollars and justified as “necessary” for the development of vaccines.

However, it was really a dual use program to create bioweapons that could then enrich Big Pharma. In 2006, I became so convinced by the evidence AGAINST the possibility of a bird flu pandemic that I wrote the book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax,” detailing the massive fraud involved. The book went on to become a New York Times bestseller. In it, I explained how:

• Multinational drug companies and food corporations pour billions into manipulating your perception of health and the daily news, just to increase their profits, and the health threats (and ethics breaches) they are really responsible for.
• Scientists are bought by drug companies and other big business to report whatever “research findings” they have been paid to report.
• Government is more than just complicit — it actively works with the drug companies and other stalwarts of the conventional health care paradigm, and are directly responsible for raising false alarms in order to draw your attention away from the real public health and safety issues they perpetuate.

In the years since, threats of a bird flu (or swine flu) pandemic have emerged several times, yet the outcome is always the same: Nothing. In 2009, pandemic experts used fear to hype the swine flu, causing millions to roll up their sleeves for the fast-tracked 2009 H1N1 vaccine.

It was exceptionally reactive, harming far more people than the virus itself. (Still, the injuries from the H1N1 vaccine are a drop in the bucket compared to the injuries caused by the experimental mRNA COVID shots.)

In 2013, mutated bird flu was back again, with the World Health Organization calling it “one of the most lethal” strains. But while it reportedly killed 22 in China, researchers could find no evidence of sustained transmission between people, which is a prerequisite for a pandemic flu virus. In the end, the pandemic narrative went nowhere.

May 6, 2022, I was contacted by Associated Press reporter David Klepper, who asked whether I still feel the avian flu was a hoax, (based on my NYT bestselling book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax”) and whether I’ve changed my mind about the possibility of a human bird flu pandemic, in light of our recent experience with COVID-19 and the current outbreaks in poultry. The short answer is no, I have not.

Bird flu is heavily present in the U.S., and millions of birds are currently being culled, but the natural virus is not very transmissible or lethal to humans. If we do end up with a lethal human bird flu, there’s every reason to suspect it was manmade. There’s also every reason to suspect a bird flu vaccine will be either ineffective, hazardous or both. As I told Klepper in my emailed response:

“The truth is dangerous in an empire of lies … The NIH and FDA are both responsible for the development and leak of this virus [SARS-CoV-2], as well as failing to provide basic and inexpensive information that would have saved people’s lives.

A two-dose injection of genetic code was promised to be 95% effective at stopping transmission of the virus, yet today four doses completely fail at preventing anyone from getting or spreading COVID-19 … Americans clearly understand that the federal government and major media have lied to them repeatedly, and are completely corrupted by the pharmaceutical companies.

The federal government has completely failed the American people and has continued to lie about gain of function research. Hundreds of bioweapons laboratories are operating around the world, and US researchers are collaborating with them utilizing NIH taxpayer funds.

They are jeopardizing millions of lives while enriching themselves and the pharmaceutical companies. Vaccine passports will be leveraged to roll out a long planned digital identification system combined with digital currencies; it will allow for complete control of transactions based on compliance and behavior.

If the bird flu becomes highly transmissible and lethal to humans, it will be an engineered virus from U.S. or Chinese government-funded biolabs.”

*

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, 25, 27 Wine Press News April 29, 2022

² The Conversation April 7, 2022

³ QZ May 9, 2022

^{4, 8, 9, 12, 15} OCA April 22, 2022

⁵ AIER.org March 22, 2020

^6, 7 Precision Vaccination Audenz for 2022

¹⁰ Youtube Ice Age Farmer

^{11, 13, 14, 29} Ice Age Farmer April 8, 2022

¹⁶ Journal of Virology May 2009; 83(10): 5278-5281

^17, 21, 22 Cidrap June 21, 2012

¹⁸ Scott McPherson February 22, 2010

^19, 20 Business Insider July 1, 2014

²³ Science May 2, 2012

²⁴ Nature December 19, 2017

²⁶ Reuters April 4, 2022

²⁸ Wine Press News January 24, 2022

Featured image: MILLIONS OF ANIMALS ARE SLAUGHTERED IN SILENCE. Here, a container with killed chickens from a large chicken farm in Alford, Lincolnshire can be seen. British authorities claim it is due to the largest bird flu outbreak ever in the UK. Across the Western world, millions of chickens are now being gassed to death beyond public awareness. Dairy and meat cattle have also begun to be killed by abandoned European farmers. Still: The Lincolnite / YouTube

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

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

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

First published on May 14, 2022

***

The Angel Warrior Network & Punisher Dallas is diving into learning about WHO (World Health Order) actually is. What their agenda is. How are they funded and Why do they want our sovereignty? Peter Koenig gives us some insight after years of working for them and other closely related companies. Join us for details and many links below will be listed for even more information.

Below is transcript of the interview.

***

Angel Warrior Network (AWN): Please tell us about WHO, your experience with them, who they work for, who finances them, how WHO was created…. And more.

Peter Koenig (PK): Before anything else — What we must know about is the new WHO Pandemic Treaty. 

The World Health Organization has started drafting a Global Pandemic Treaty on pandemic preparedness that would grant WHO absolute power over global biosecurity, such as the power to implement digital identities / vaccine passports, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions, lockdowns, standardized medical care and more.

See this “The Corbett Report’s”, where independent journalist James Corbett reviews what this Treaty is all about in details.

This Pandemic Treaty, if implemented, will change the global landscape and strip you and me of some of our most basic rights and freedoms.

Make no mistake, the WHO Pandemic Treaty is a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.

It is a back door to Global Governance, to Global Tyranny imposed by Fear over your Health.

AWN: Is there a WHO meeting May 22-26, 2022 where WHO is seeking to be given complete sovereignty over the people of the United States and of the world, for that matter?  

PK: Yes, there is.

It’s called the “Pandemic Treaty”, as mentioned before.

There is a ridiculously short period foreseen for comments – 16 and 17 June 2022 – indicating that they are not interested in receiving comments, especially not critical comments or objections.

Then there are new debates scheduled more intermediary presentations and perhaps again comments?

For now, the plan is that a final version of the Pandemic Treaty would be presented to the World Health Assembly (WHA) in the Fall of 2023 and if approved, the Pandemic Treaty will become “International Law” (sic) overruling every nation of the world’s sovereign Constitution.

Please Note: There is no provision of any International Law that would give the UN, let alone a UN agency, power to override individual and sovereign nations’ constitutions. NONE!

What is being planned is totally and absolutely illegal, by any standard of legality that humans have ever created. Any traditional laws as we know them, international or national laws, are overturned or simply ignored. They do no longer exist for the all-commandeering cabal, the dark cult which is currently hanging over humanity and pretending commandeering humanity.

People must know that. People MUST reject the US and EU-supported/promoted WHO’s planned “Pandemic Treaty”.

We can still stop it – but we MUST follow the truth, MUST follow the LIGHT.

Evil cannot survive in the Light, as a thief cannot survive in the light; he will be caught, arrested and immobilized.

We must not be afraid; FEAR is their weapon.

But we must be determined to work in the LIGHT and to seek the truth, not propaganda but the TRUTH.

AWN: Who are the top contributors to the WHO?

PK: The largest contributor is the US, followed by Bill Gates. Bill Gates was number 2 until recently. By now, he may have been taken over by a number of pharmas – like the about 20 vaxx pharmas of GAVI (The Vaccine Alliance) – housed in a modern glass-building just next door of WHO… that speaks for itself.

GAVI is a non-tax paying NGO – maybe the world’s richest NGO, next to the World Economic Forum or the WEF, also an NGO, also housed in Geneva and also tax-exempt.

The vaxx corporations lobbying for new Covid “variants” more and different vaxxes, none of them, of course as effective as they should be, especially as far as Covid-19 is concerned. But the Vaxx-Alliance comes along with lots of money and influence.

When President Trump, who knew very well what’s behind WHO, took the US off WHO, Gates was for a short while the largest single contributor to WHO; larger than any mandatory member country contribution.

In the meantime, under President Biden, the Globalist President, the US is back… as a key member of WHO, and again the main contributor.

Let’s look at the funding of WHO:

Depending on the year, between two-thirds and three quarters of WHO’s total budget comes from private contributions, most of them from Bill Gates and the pharma industry, i.e., GAVI and others.

The balance – the lesser portion of WHO’s budget funding – comes from member countries’ mandatory contributions. This is quite different from regular specialized UN agencies, like ILO, WTO, UNICEF, others, where close to 100% of their budget stems from member countries’ contribution.

The proximity between WHO and GAVI, their way of being intertwined assures a constant interchange of ideas, policy proposals, of course vaccination ideas… as we know them, as well as “create” diseases (yes, Covid was lab-created, as was Ebola, HIV and many others) — real or fake, but at least in the minds of people they are real, generating fear, and fear generates obedience and submission. Fear, constant fear propaganda, creates weakness of will-power, and willingness to survive.

This is done with hugely psychological and generously taxpayer-funded propaganda, to serve at least two purposes,

(i) lucrativeness of the vaxx pharmas, and

(ii) trial and error of “emergency” vaxxes, for example the so-called Covid-19 mRNA-“vaccination”. Judging from the tens of thousands of vaxx injuries and deaths following vaccination.

Mind you, vaccination started only in December 2020, so these tremendous numbers of injuries and deaths occurred within less than 18 months, and the numbers are rapidly increasing, as time goes on.

One might assume that there is another than a health agenda behind the vaxxes, one helping to reduce the world population. A eugenist agenda?

As we experience it today, it seems to work as country statistics indicate. In the US it is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. It is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. On average, only about 1% to 5% of vaxx injuries or deaths are reported. Yet, VAERS reports way more deaths from the vaxxes than from Covid.

In Europe, vaxx injuries and deaths are reported to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA. The proportion of reporting is about the same as in the US. These are estimates only, as nobody verifies the figures.

When we listen to Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, all those who have been vaxxed with mRNA-jab, most of them by coercion or lie-propaganda, may develop potentially deadly diseases within the next 2-5 years.

Many will die – for reasons which will be difficult to trace back to the vaxx. But overall death statistics will show the onslaught and increase of annual death rates, coinciding with the forced, coerced mass vaccination.

Such trial vaxxes, as are mRNA injections, can only be used in an emergency. Thus, in 2009, on the occasion of the (fabricated) Swine Flu (H1N1) epidemic, WHO changed the rules for how a pandemic could be declared.

Today it has nothing to do anymore with the ratio of death to disease, and the number of infections. Declaring a pandemic is simply based on how far spread the disease is. Covid, for example, traveled the world extending itself from one day to the next over the entire globe.

Apparently most scared-to-death people don’t realize, or don’t want to realize, how nonsensical such declarations are. Because they come from WHO and from governments, from the authorities you always believed in and counted on them to protect you. Therefore, it is impossible for you to think that they miserably lie to you.

That is called “cognitive dissonance”; according to psychologists, it is one of the most difficult mental diseases to heal.

We know latest since Covid that propaganda can spread a disease in a matter of hours, not even days, around the world – which is enough reason to declare a pandemic.

Under this new rule, WHO can declare the annual flu as a pandemic – with a vigorous vaxx mandate.

AWN: How and by whom was WHO created?

PK: In many ways, WHO is not a real UN agency, like most others.

It was created in 1948 by the Rockefellers as a world health agency, following the pattern of the PAHO scheme. PAHO, the Pan-American Heath Organization, was created in 1902.

The new WHO was then integrated into the UN system, at the behest of – and with the money of – Rockefeller’s Standard Oil fortunes.

At that time Standard Oil had literally a world monopoly on oil supply, it was broken up under the Anti-Trust Law in the 1990’s, but then somehow recomposed into different corporations of which the bulk is still in Rockefellers possession.

There is more – until the mid-fifties approximately, most medicines were plant-based. Rockefeller changed all this; as the owner of the biggest oil production company, he knew that plant chemicals could be replicated by petro-chemicals.

Hence, medication of all types, needed or not – more or less dangerous ones — skyrocketed, multiplied exponentially, when Rockefeller’s idea of oil-based medicine was realized. That’s also when Big Pharma bloomed, and with the new (since 2009) pandemic rule, and soon – God forbid – the new Pandemic Treaty, will make sure that the pharma bonanza continues forever.

We must not forget, Rockefeller and Gates, for that matter are among the world’s most notorious eugenists.

To expand on Henry Kissinger’s infamous saying:

“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

Add this: “Who controls health, decides over life and death.”

That maybe very well the Rockefeller-Gates reason to control WHO – and to control the world population’s health, i.e., life and death.

Image below: WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus and Bill Gates (Source: Covert Geopolitics)

AWN: WHO is Dr. Tedros, the WHO Director General?

P.K. The official Wikipedia version says:

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is an Ethiopian public health researcher, and official who has been Director-General of the World Health Organization since 2017. Tedros is the first African in that role, and was endorsed by the African Union.

Tedros is (was?) also a lead-member of the Ethiopian/Eritrean Tigray People’s Liberation Front, a leftist rebel group.

He is a biologist by training.

Dr. Tedros is also the first WHO DG who is not a medical doctor.

He was born in 1965 in Asmara, the capital of what today is known as independent Eritrea.

But now comes the agenda of his career:

Gates met Tedros at Addis Ababa University when Tedros was moderating a speech of Gates on the importance of vaccines.

Tedros was selected by Bill Gates, first as Board member of GAVI; later Gates proposed him as DG of WHO.

Tedros eventually was approved by the WHO General Assembly in 2017.

Of course, why would the WHO General Assembly not approve a candidate proposed by Bill Gates, the organization’s second largest donor? At one time, namely when Trump made the US exit WHO, Gates was the biggest single donor of WHO.

The bulk of funding of UN agencies usually comes from member contributions, and some trust funds of private donors.

As mentioned before – in the case of WHO – the far biggest proportion of WHO’s budget comes from private sources, i.e., the Bill Gates Foundation and the pharma industry’s myriad of “philanthropic” Trust Funds.

AWN: How does Bill Gates tie in? 

PK: Bill Gates is everywhere.

• He is behind the WHO agenda – he is the world’s vaxx-czar.
• He is the creator of GAVI
• He selected Dr Tedros as WHO DG.
• He promotes the mRNA, experimental injections – never been approved by CDC, nor any other national vaccine approval board as a vaccination.
• Gates convinced WHO to declare Covid as a Health Emergency in March 2020, so CDC could grant the mRNA (non)-vaxxes an emergency permission.
• He is the “inventor of Agenda 2021” – leading to the Vaccination passport through a QR-coded electronic data collecting system, that can hold up to 30,000 individual data-entry per person.

And more.

Gates is everywhere.

He promotes the manmade (sic) climate change agenda.

He buys huge surfaces of agricultural land in the US and elsewhere, so he can eventually help dictate what people have to eat, and more specifically, what people are no longer allowed to eat – transforming the bovine industry into an artificial meat industry.

As to the QR code, and extension of Agenda 2021 – who controls the QR code system, knows you better than you know yourself. It makes you vulnerable and manipulable.

The QR code is extremely dangerous, has invaded every corner of our lives and MUST be stopped. But it can be stopped only, if people know what it is.

Bill Gates is also a notorious admitted eugenist and so was his father, so are the Rockefellers, and many more of the infamous billionaires.

Bill Gates is also a Globalist and he defends the Globalist Agenda, one that leads to a One World Order, to a Global Governance, if we do not stop it. It’s the Plan of the Great Reset, and of the UN Agenda 2030.

AWN: What about Population Control?

PK: What we are confronted with has been under preparation for many decades – maybe as long as 100 years.

It is a diabolical plan to control the world’s population, under many different pretexts – manmade climate change is one of them, it’s a lie a BIG LIE.

Just as a sideline –

• Climate change has always existed – you can go back to history for millions of years; the variations of temps are between 2 to maximum 5 degrees C.
• The main cause for temperature/climate changes is our sun, solar movements, solar activities.
• When solar activities cease for a while – which has happened twice, some 640 and 710 million years ago, the so-called Cryogenian period — the world became like an ice ball, the Snowball Earth.

Google says: Scientists contend that at least two Snowball Earth glaciations occurred during the Cryogenian period, roughly 640 and 710 million years ago. Each lasted about 10 million years or so. The main evidence of the severity of these events comes from geological evidence of glaciers near the equator.

So, don’t fall for the climate change LIE.

It’s just another strategy to scare you, to make us feel guilty, to instill fear in Us, the People.

The current agenda, the so-called UN Agenda 2030, in ten years it has to be carried through. We are currently in year three. Agenda 2030 is identical with the WEF’s Great Reset, and synonymous with the WEF’s 4^th Industrial Revolution.

The Great Reset’s, alias Agenda 2030, three major goals are:

1. Massive depopulation – the eugenists agenda. This may happen partly (largely) as a result of the mRNA-fake vaxxes, partly due to the artificial famine being created by the Ukraine war, supply chain disruptions, full or partial lockdowns, and because of the abject misery that poverty will instill and impose – leading to suicide and all sorts of diseases, some of them indeed deadly.

It is also important to know that nothing, but absolutely NOTHING happens as a coincidence.

1. Transferring of assets / capital from the bottom and the middle of the social stratum, to the top – to the already-billionaires, and to the gigantic Financial Corporations, mentioned before, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity and more, and finally

Klaus Schwab’s wet dream, the Fourth Industrial Revolution:

1. Digitization and robotization of everything – money, work processes – even the human brain. According to Yuval Noah Harari, Klaus Schwab’s top adviser – we, humans are ‘hackable animals’ – his words – and transformable into transhumans, basically robotization. See this CNN video (12 min).

At the end, when all is successfully implemented by 2030, the Great Reset makes us believe “You Own Nothing, But You Are Happy”

This will not happen as WE SHALL OVERCOME.

LIGHT WILL REIGN OVER DARKNESS.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

***

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today authorized a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, without convening its vaccine advisory panel of independent experts to discuss Pfizer’s data on 5- to 11-year-olds — and based on a study subset of only 67 children, CNBC reported.

The FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the boosters despite data showing higher infection rates among fully vaccinated children in the 5 to 11 age group compared to unvaccinated children, no studies testing the efficacy of the vaccine against the current dominant BA.2 COVID-19 variant and two new studies showing that for vaccinated people who get Omicron, the infection provides better protection against future infections than a second booster dose.

The vaccine advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is scheduled to meet Thursday. The agency and its director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, are expected to sign off on the boosters, The Washington Post reported.

Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said data increasingly show protection provided by two shots wanes over time, but the agency determined a third shot could help boost protection for children in the 5 to 11 age group and the “benefits outweigh the risks.”

The FDA authorized the third shot after analyzing data from an ongoing Pfizer clinical trial in which a small subset of only 67 children in the age group had higher antibody levels one month after receiving a booster dose.

As The Defender reported, antibody levels alone are not indicative of immune protection. When it comes to COVID-19, T cell and natural killer cell responses are the crucial part of immune protection.

Pfizer has not published its actual data, precluding experts from conducting this analysis.

The authorized booster dose, the same strength as the first two doses, generated neutralizing antibodies to Omicron and the ancestral Wuhan version of the virus, according to The New York Times.

The FDA said it did not identify any new safety concerns and found the children in the trial experienced the same mild side effects other people do after receiving a booster.

However, a subset of only 67 children is not large enough to detect potential adverse events like myocarditis, and it is unknown how rapidly any protection provided wanes because trial participants were not followed beyond a 28-day period.

About 8.1 million, or 28%, of children ages 5 to 11, received their primary series of two COVID-19 vaccine doses as of May 11, according to data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Those children will now be eligible for a third dose five months after their second dose based on data obtained from the 67 children who were followed for only one month.

COVID cases higher in vaccinated children aged 5 to 11, CDC data show

According to the latest CDC data, since February, higher COVID-19 case rates were recorded among fully vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children in the 5 to 11 age group.

The CDC on Feb. 12 reported a weekly case rate of 250.02 per 10,000 population in fully vaccinated children ages 5 to 11, compared to 245.82 for unvaccinated children in the same age group.

The trend continued through the third week of March, which is the latest week of available data.

“Several factors likely affect crude case rates by vaccination and booster dose status, making interpretation of recent trends difficult,” CDC spokesperson Jasmine Reed told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Limitations include higher prevalence of previous infection among the unvaccinated and unboosted groups, difficulty in accounting for time since vaccination and waning protection, and possible differences in testing practices (such as at-home tests) and prevention behaviors by age and vaccination status,” Reed said. “These limitations appear to have less impact on the death rates presented here.”

According to CDC data, the gap between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in all age groups has grown increasingly smaller, with the death rate showing the same trend for people over age 50.

For people under age 50, death rates are almost identical between the vaccinated and unvaccinated since the beginning of the vaccine rollout.

Data show COVID-19 vaccines have a “negligible effect” on people, said Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent cardiologist and epidemiologist.

“With these results in hand, it is clear the vaccines are having a negligible effect in populations,” McCullough told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Given the overall poor safety profile and lack of any assurances on long-term safety, Americans should be cautious in considering additional injections of these products.”

Having COVID may be more effective than getting a booster, studies show

Two new studies show, for people who are vaccinated against COVID-19, getting a breakthrough Omicron infection may provide better protection than receiving a second booster, Fortune reported.

One study conducted by German biotechnology company BioNTech SE assessed vaccinated individuals who had breakthrough COVID-19 infection associated with the Omicron variant.

BioNTech found these individuals had a better B-cell response than individuals who had received a booster but had not been infected.

According to MD Anderson Center, B cells are a type of white blood cell that create antibodies that bind to pathogens or foreign substances and neutralize them. B cells bind to a virus and prevent it from entering a normal cell causing infection. They also recruit other cells to help destroy infected cells.

A second study by the University of Washington and Vir Biotechnology investigated the immune responses of various groups based on vaccination and infection status.

The study analyzed blood samples of individuals who had been vaccinated and then caught the Delta or Omicron variants and compared them with those who had COVID-19 first and were then vaccinated, those who had been vaccinated but were not previously infected and those who were infected but had never received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The study found vaccinated individuals with breakthrough Omicron infection produced antibodies that formed a strong defense against other variants of the virus. Unvaccinated people who caught Omicron did not have a similarly robust immune response.

Efficacy of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine wanes rapidly

A study published May 13 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found protection from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine turned negatively effective among children and adolescents five months after receiving a second dose — meaning recipients were more likely to get COVID-19 five months after being vaccinated.

Vaccine effectiveness “was no longer significantly different from 0 during month 3 after the second dose,” the researchers wrote. They also found protection against hospitalization waned significantly over time.

In adolescents, the authors said, efficacy increased again with boosters.

Most non-randomized studies attempting to determine vaccine efficacy (VE) had “common flaws,” including no accounting for baseline prior COVID-19 infection, no reporting for those who received a booster within a six-month time window and no adjudication of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 or other conditions, McCullough told The Epoch Times.

“As a result, most studies of COVID-19 VE have biases towards overestimating any clinical benefit of vaccination,” McCullough said.

As The Defender reported on May 13, a different study published in JAMA showed second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine provided protection against the Omicron variant for only a few weeks.

“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses of [the Pfizer-BioNTech] BNT162b2,” the authors wrote.

A preprint study released in February showed Pfizer’s two-dose regimen of its COVID-19 vaccine for children was only 12% effective against Omicron in children ages 9 to 11, and the effectiveness of the vaccine “declined rapidly” for children 5 to 11.

Researchers at the New York State Department of Health and the University at Albany School of Public Health examined the effectiveness of the vaccine in children 5 to 11 and adolescents 12 to 17 from Dec. 13, 2021, to Jan. 30, 2022, and determined the effectiveness of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine declined rapidly for children, particularly those 5-11 years.

According to a Danish study of 128 people who had received two or three doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, levels of Omicron-specific “neutralizing” antibodies decline rapidly after a second and third dose of Pfizer’s shot.

Compared to original and Delta variants, researchers found the proportion of Omicron-specific antibodies detected in participants’ blood dropped “rapidly” from 76% four weeks after the second dose to 53% at weeks 8 to 10 and 19% at weeks 12 to 14.

After the third shot, neutralizing antibodies against Omicron fell 5.4-fold between week 3 and week 8.

Last month, Moderna requested EUA for its COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months to 6 years. Pfizer plans to seek EUA for a three-dose regimen for the same age group.

The FDA’s top vaccine official told a congressional committee on May 6 COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 will not have to meet the agency’s 50% efficacy threshold required to obtain EUA.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

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

***

According to Western authorities and media reports Ukraine has been winning the war, but, notwithstanding all the weapon’s shipments from the West, this narrative can only be described as propaganda, for a number of reasons. Amid this triumphalist rhetoric, the US-led West seems to have chosen the path of full-spectrum conflict with Moscow, as one can see in the recent G7 joint statement.

And yet, strangely, French President Emmanuel Macron’s own remarks during Europe Day contained a conciliatory tone about not “humiliating” Moscow should Kiev win.

The US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, in turn has asked May 13 for a conversation with his counterpart, Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, to talk about “an immediate ceasefire”. This was the very first talk the two officials had since the beginning of the Russian military operations in February. Thus, we are seeing contradictory signs.

Moreover, Austin also showed he is interested in keeping lines of communication open with the Kremlin. The one-hour long phone call was requested by Washington. This is the same Lloyd Austin who, in April 26, stated he believed Kiev would win the war, with American help.

Echoing Austin’s change of tone, Macron reportedly has asked Ukraine to make some “concessions”, to which President Volodymyr Zelensky replied in a May 13 interview with Italian TV channel RAI that “we won’t help Putin save face by paying with our territory”. This has generated some embarrassment and has prompted a reply from the French presidency, stating that Macron in fact has never “asked President Zelenskyy for any concession.” The same day the G7 announced its intentions to further contain and isolate Moscow, Macron stated, during his address to the European Parliament, on May 9, that “we are not at war with Russia”, adding that Europe’s duty is to “stand with Ukraine to achieve a ceasefire, then build peace.”

Macron and Austin are not alone. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz during a long talk with Russian President Vladimir Putin on May 13 over the telephone, according to a recent Twitter publication of his, stated that there must be a “ceasefire” in Ukraine “as quickly as possible”. Interestingly there was no talk of Russia immediately retreating, which would be a strange thing if it were true that Kiev is “winning” the war.

Three points from my long phone call with #Putin today:
There must be a ceasefire in #Ukraine as quickly as possible.
The claim that Nazis are in power there is false.
And I also reminded him about Russia’s responsibility for the global food situation.

— Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (@Bundeskanzler) May 13, 2022

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi in turn has also echoed the same theme about a ceasefire.

The fact that the speeches of leaders from the three EU largest countries are thus aligned is a clear sign that something is changing. This reflects popular opinion also: according to a recent survey across 27 Western countries (conducted by polling company Ipsos), support for diplomatic talks with Russia has increased precisely in France, Germany and Italy.

These are certainly not the only problems that should worry the US. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for example, has threatened to block Sweden and Finland NATO bids. With Turkey being such a relevant NATO member, this is yet another sign of the contradictions within the alliance.

In spite of the aforementioned Austin statements, the American take on this is still somewhat more complicated, though. According to the Politico website, a high-ranking Washington official has admitted the US worries about a “fracture”, considering these recent European developments. Within American society itself, however, concerned voices, even in the conservative camp, are increasingly more skeptical about the current US policy regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war. As inflation rises, the 40 billion-dollar package to help Kiev, which is being discussed in Congress, is under a lot of criticism.

While Western officials are starting to change their tone and are apparently willing to start some dialogue with Moscow, the Ukrainian President in turn is maintaining his triumphalist uncompromising tone. Kiev, however, is largely dependent on the West, and in the long run would have no choice, but to play along.

The problem is that any “appeasement” endeavors will face a harsh internal reaction from the very extremist forces the West has been supporting.

One should recall Dmytro Yarosh’s 2019 threatening remarks about Zelensky “losing his life” and ending up “hanging on a tree on Khreshchatyk (in the Kiev’s center)” if he “betrayed” Ukrainian nationalists. Yarosh, a far-right activist, is nowadays an adviser to Valerii Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

This also explains why countries such as Germany are increasingly reluctant to further arm Kiev – the risk of weapons ending up in the hands of unpredictable extremist groups is too high.

By now, it has become abundantly clear that today’s conflict in Ukraine is a proxy Western war against Russia.

The attitude of the United States and EU leaders regarding the crisis has been one of open confrontation without compromise – and of fueling tensions. However, as we can see, there are signs that this approach could be starting to decline.

In early May, referring to the former US President, American intellectual Noam Chomsky, stated, in an interview, that only one “Western statesman” is advocating “a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine, instead of looking for ways to encourage and prolong it”, namely “Donald Trump”. Chomsky’s remark seemed accurate back then, but this might be changing 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.

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Thirteen years after a federal investigation blasted the U.S. Census Bureau for hiring criminals to enter American homes to gather statistics for the decennial count, a new audit reveals the disturbing practice continues. In fact, more than a decade after the problem was exposed workers for the 2020 count were not properly vetted and many with criminal records had direct interactions with the public. The most recent probe, conducted by the Department of Commerce Inspector General, found that “dozens of employees who worked on address canvassing in advance of the 2020 census had major issues flagged on their investigations, which typically means employees are automatically disqualified from their federal jobs.”

Chunks of the 28-page report are redacted but the gist is well conveyed, that the Census Bureau has long failed to screen its workforce and therefore endangers the public. It’s not like there isn’t a vetting system in place. When one of the 248 regional offices recruit a candidate, the Census Investigative Services (CIS) at the agency’s headquarters in Suitland, Maryland is charged with conducting a pre-employment suitability review. The process includes sending fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a credit history as well as self-disclosed criminal record to CIS for review. Nevertheless, the Bureau still hires felons—including sex offenders—at regional offices nationwide. As an example, a few years ago the Charlotte, North Carolina Area Census Office (ACO) employed a man convicted of a felony involving sex with a child as a regional recruiting manager because despite his criminal record, he passed the Census Bureau’s background check.

The Bureau’s negligent security practices have been on the radar of federal lawmakers for years. Over a decade ago, Congressional investigators slammed the agency for failing to adequately conduct mandatory background checks for tens of thousands of workers, resulting in the hiring of hundreds of violent criminals. At the time, the probe found that more than 35,000 temporary census workers were employed without the proper criminal background check, which includes fingerprinting. That means that more than one-fifth of the canvassing workforce did not get properly processed or fully screened for employment eligibility, creating an obvious security risk. More than 200 of those were subsequently determined to have criminal records yet were in constant contact with the public while canvassing for the 2010 census. Investigators said the criminal record checks were bungled because the Census Bureau’s incompetent staff was poorly trained to conduct them.

Twelve years ago Judicial Watch reported that the Census Bureau knowingly hired a registered sex offender with a long criminal history to make home visits even though such convicts are banned from working for the agency. The embarrassing gaffe came to light when a young mother in a New Jersey suburb recognized the census worker who came to her home from the state’s registered sex offender database. She initially thought it was safe to provide the man with information because he was a legitimate government worker with a badge and bag sporting the U.S. Census Bureau’s official logo. Incredibly, the sex offender used a fake name to get the census job but failed a fingerprint check after getting hired. The agency still let him to complete four days of training and allowed him to visit homes even though he did not pass the background check.

The latest audit, released last week, shows that virtually nothing has changed after all these years and that the Bureau has done little to improve its derelict hiring practices. Investigators found that at least 6,802 census workers were not properly adjudicated, “resulting in persons with significant issues working for the Bureau and, in some instances, contacting households during the 2020 Census NRFU [Nonresponse Followup] operation.” In cases when CIS adjudicators actually vetted employees, the watchdog found that they often failed to request necessary documentation to assess the severity of the issues raised. Stressing that background checks are a critical process to help protect the nation’s interests by establishing trust in the federal workforce, the IG points out the obvious in its recent report: “The lack of oversight increases the risk of unknowingly allowing unsuitable individuals into positions of public trust, which could cause harm to the bureau.”

*

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 JW

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

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

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

***

The New York Times has a job to do – and it has done that job spectacularly well over the past few months.  The Times is a leader, in the opinion of this writer, the leader in spelling out the US narrative on the war in Ukraine, a tale designed to keep up morale, give the war a high moral purpose and justify the untold billions pouring from the taxpayers’ pockets into Joe Biden’s proxy war on Russia. Day in and day out in page after page of word and picture it has been instructing one and all, including politicians and lower level opinion shapers, exactly what to think about the war in Ukraine.

So, when the Times says that things are not going well for the US and its man in Kiev, Volodymyr Zelensky, it is a man bites dog kind of story.  It tells us that some truths have gone from uncomfortable to undeniable.  Such was nature of the page one story on May 11, headlined “Russians Hold Much of the East, Setbacks Aside.”

Screenshot from NYT

Even that anti-narrative headline softens the bitter truth.  The first paragraph of the story fesses up more completely, stating, “Obscured in the daily fighting is the geographic reality that Russia has made gains on the ground.” Not “holding” ground but “gaining” ground.  Not exactly a morale booster.

The Times goes on, “The Russian Defense Ministry said Tuesday that its forces in eastern Ukraine had advanced to the border between Donetsk and Luhansk, the two Russian-speaking provinces where Moscow-backed separatists have been fighting Ukraine’s army for eight years.” Here it reminds us that the first shots in this war were not fired on February 24, as the narrative goes, but eight long years ago in the Donbas.  It is a jolting reminder for those who base their support for the war on “who fired the first shot,” that their “moral” view has a considerable blind spot.

The Times continues: “…. the Donbas seizure, combined with the Russian invasion’s early success in seizing parts of southern Ukraine adjoining the Crimean peninsula ….gives the Kremlin enormous leverage in any future negotiation to halt the conflict.”

It goes on: “And the Russians enjoy the added advantage of naval dominance in the Black Sea, the only maritime route for Ukrainian trade, which they have paralyzed with an embargo that could eventually starve Ukraine economically and is already contributing to a global grain shortage.”  More bad news.

More, “Russia has all but achieved one of its primary objectives: seizing a land bridge connecting Russian territory to the Crimean peninsula.”  And, “The last stronghold of Ukrainian resistance in this area, at the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, has been whittled to a few hundred hungry troops now confined mostly to bunkers.”  Ouch!

Finally, turning its attention to the economy, the Times states: “The war has “put Ukraine’s economy under enormous stress, with the heavy devastation of infrastructure and production capacities,” the bank said in an economic update. It estimated that 30 percent to 50 percent of Ukrainian businesses have shut down, 10 percent of the population has fled the country and a further 15 percent is displaced internally.”  That is a grand total of 25% of the population displaced from their homes.

This sad tale of failure, misery and death is broken up by considerable verbiage, some anecdotes from the front and the testimony of Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, whose testimony is guarded but bleak.  But read with thought, there is a big failure looming over the enterprise.

So, in a panic the US continues to throw mountains of cash at the problem, about $63 billion if one includes the recent infusion of about $40 million about to whistle through the Senate and already passed by the House with only 57 Nays, all Republican.  (And therein lies another story,  the demise of antiwar sentiment in the Democratic Party and its rebirth among the populist Tucker Carlson Republicanswho have joined with the GOP libertarians on this one.)

But why this abrupt shift in tone by the Times.  Lax editorial oversight?  this does not appear to be the case, because right on cue on the same day we are treated to an Opinion piece entitled: “America and Its Allies Want to Bleed Russia. They Really Shouldn’t.”  It suggests that it is time for the U.S. to wave the white flag

The piece concludes thus:

“But the longer the war, the worse the damage to Ukraine and the greater the risk of escalation. A decisive military result in eastern Ukraine may prove elusive. Yet the less dramatic outcome of a festering stalemate is hardly better. Indefinite protraction of the war, as in Syria, is too dangerous with nuclear-armed participants.

“Diplomatic efforts ought to be the centerpiece of a new Ukraine strategy. Instead, the war’s boundaries are being expanded and the war itself recast as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, in which the Donbas is the frontier of freedom. This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated.”

It appears some in the Foreign Policy Elite and other precincts of the Deep State have seen the looming disaster for the proxy war on Russia being waged by Biden, Nuland, Blinken and the rest of the neocon cabal.  The prospect of nuclear holocaust lying at the end of this road may be enough to rouse them from their Exceptionalist torpor. They seem to want to stop the train that they have set in motion before it runs off the cliff.  It is not clear whether they will prevail.  But it is clear that we need to drive those responsible for this dangerous debacle out of power -before it is too late.

*

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 Stars and Stripes

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

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

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

***

In recent months there have been an abundance of reports on how the conflict in Ukraine is exacerbating food scarcity in Africa. The argument is that Ukraine, ordinarily a large exporter of wheat, is not shipping food to the rest of the world. This includes African nations, some of which are large importers of Ukrainian wheat, resulting in shortages of food, and higher prices, contributing to Africa’s food insecurity.

Food Crisis Staggering in Africa

According to Global Report on Food Crisis 2022, eight of the countries facing the most severe food shortages are in Africa, affecting over 81 million Africans. The breakdown is:

DRC 25.9 million people, Afghanistan 22.8 million, Nigeria 19.5 million, Yemen 19 million, Ethiopia between 14-15 million, South Sudan 7.7 million, Somalia 6 million, Sudan 6 million, Pakistan 4.7 million, Haiti 4.5 million, Niger 4.4 million and, lastly, Kenya 3.4 million, as reported by News24

These nations have been given an Integrated Phase Classification 3 (IPC3), which is defined as households that have either:

Food consumption gaps that are reflected by high or above-usual acute malnutrition; OR  Are marginally able to meet minimum food needs but only by depleting essential livelihood assets or through crisis-coping strategies.

News24 also reports that according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, in 2020,“approximately 323.3 million people in Africa or 29.5% of the population ran out of food or went without eating that year.”

The United Nations-(UN News) reports that “276 million people around the globe were already facing hunger at the beginning of the year. That number could rise by 47 million if the war continues according to the WFP (World Food Pogramme), with the steepest rise in Sub-Saharan Africa.” (emphasis added)

Industrialization to End Hunger

With abundant hect-acres of fertile soil and arable land, coupled with many water systems, African nations should have already achieved food self-sufficiency. Ironically, sadly, most nations are farther away from being able to feed their populations through their own production of food than they were during the 1960 and 1970s.

African nations are undermining their own economies by importing large amounts of food. According to President of the African Development Bank (AfDB), Akinwumi Adesina,

“Africa’s annual food import bill of $35 billion, estimated to rise to $110 billion by 2025, weakens African economies, decimates its agriculture and exports jobs from the continent.”

In reality, Africa’s huge import bill is hindering nations from developing the capacity to eliminate poverty and hunger. Nations using their precious foreign exchange to buy food that they can grow themselves is more than counter-productive. What is needed to end food insecurity is for Africa nations to build their own robust agricultural and manufacturing sectors. There are oligarchical financial interests, steeped in the colonial mind-set, who do not want Africa nations to develop, to become industrialized. There are others, even well-meaning, who believe that African nations should remain agrarian societies. As an expert in physical economics, I can assure you that this approach will fail, and will only lead to more poverty and death.

President George Washington’s brilliant Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, fortunately won the battle against Thomas Jefferson and the slaved based agrarian South, to create a manufacturing industry in the newly established United states. Africa must do the same.

With sixty percent of the world’s arable land that remains uncultivated, it is obvious that Africa can significantly increase food production in the short term. However, this does not obviate the need for rapid expansion of industry, beyond those businesses devoted only to the extraction of resources. Instead of spending tens of billions of dollars for imported wheat and rice that can be grown indigenously, that money should be investmented in infrastructure, and on valued-added production.

Aid is Insufficient

David Beasley, Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme, told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday, May 11, that $5 billion is needed to avoid famine and migration due to COVID-19 and the loss of food from Ukraine. He told the Senators,

“If you do not respond now, we will see destabilization, mass starvation, and migration on an unprecedented scale, and at a far greater cost. A massive influx of refugees to Western countries could soon become a reality.”

Morally we are compelled to acquiesce to Beasley’s legitimate request, although it is doubtful that the nations of the advanced sector will actually come up with the money.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars have been expended on providing aid to countries in need? What would be the results if an equivalent amount of money were spent on development. Emergency aid is required to prevent our fellow human beings from perishing. However, emergency aid does not contribute to creating durable economic transformation that would eliminate the conditions that are the cause for food deprivation. Aid does not increase the productive powers of labor; it does not increase the productivity of the economy. While we can do no less than be the Good-Samaritan, what is the tangible long term effect of exclusively delivering aid?

Infrastructure Crucial

Deficits in critical categories of hard infrastructure, especially roads, railroads, and electricity, is depriving nations of precisely those elements of physical economy required to increase the production of real wealth. Why don’t the G7 and European donor nations “grant” an equivalent amount of “aid money” for investment in infrastructure and building nascent industries? Disbursing money either through outright endowments or long-term low interest loans for development has the potential to change the dynamics of poverty and hunger plaguing African nations.

For example, consider irrigation. Bringing water to farmland would substantially increase food production. Most African nations irrigate 5% or less of their land. Worse, many nations still depend on backward modes of subsistence farming. What would be required to double or triple irrigation? Primarily, energy to pump the water is essential, but African nations are energy starved. Pipes to transport the water. Advanced machinery would be required to harvest the increased yields. Roads and railroads would be needed to transport the crops to markets.

Given Africa’s untapped agricultural potential, with investments in these basic classifications of infrastructure; hunger could be eliminated.

In October 2020, in response to an earlier food crisis, I delineated the following necessary actions (below) that should have been taken. These measures are still valid today, and should be implemented now, without delay.

Emergency Action Required

1. We must urgently deliver food to starving people. One single human being dying from starvation is intolerable. Every creative soul that perishes is a loss to the human race.
2. Nations producing food surpluses must allocate food shipments to feed starving people.
3. Logistics for delivery will have to done in a military fashion or directly by qualified military personnel supported by governments.
4. Roads, railways, and bridges constructed for emergency food delivery can serve as an initial platform for expansion to a higher plateau of infrastructure required for economic growth.
5. Debts must be suspended to enable nations to direct money away from onerous payments of debt service to growing and distributing food.
6. A new financial architecture-a New Bretton Woods must be established with a facility to issue credit to finance critical categories of infrastructure necessary for economic growth and food production.

*

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

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com where this article was originally published. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.

Featured image: David Beasley, the head of the World Food Program, visiting Sanaa, Yemen, September 2018, where the world’s worst hunger crisis continues to unfold. (courtesy WFP/Marco Frattini, September 2018)

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

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

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

***

Finland and Sweden are obviously being pushed into a suicide pact for US-NATO expansionist plan towards Russia’s borders. 

France24 reported on the not-so new development, “the Finnish government officially announced its intention to join NATO on Sunday, as Sweden’s ruling party was to hold a decisive meeting that could pave the way for a joint application.” Finland’s announcement ends a 75-year-old policy as a neutral country with no military alignments with NATO.  Sweden had a similar policy of its military being non-aligned for centuries is also following in Finland’s footsteps.

“Today, the President of the Republic and the Government’s Foreign Policy Committee have jointly agreed that Finland will apply for NATO membership, after consulting parliament,” Finnish President Sauli Niinisto who held a joint press conference with Prime Minister Sanna Marin last Sunday and declared “This is a historic day. A new era is opening”, Niinisto said.

The US-NATO alliance wants a hot war with Russia by pushing Finland and Sweden to join an aggressive military alliance known as NATO. 

The European military alliance has invaded and literally destroyed several nations in its history including Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq and to an extent, it has helped the US-Israel alliance destabilize Syria for some time, all with Washington’s blessing of course.

Finland is now following Washington’s long-term goal of trying to destabilize and turn Russia into a third world country by sacrificing itself as cannon fodder.  Seriously, what can Finland do to a superpower with over 6,000 nuclear warheads and a military that can take on NATO even without help from its closest allies in the region including Belarus, China and Iran.

But this makes all the sense in the world because Washington and its Military-Industrial Complex will benefit from a new conflict between Finland, Sweden and Russia.  The US and its NATO allies will push Finland to fight until the last remaining Finn against Russia just like they did with the Ukrainians.  The Kremlin Press Service released a statement on the situation according to the Associated Press (AP) that

“Putin told Sauli Niinisto Finland’s abandonment “of its traditional policy of military neutrality would be an error since there are no threats to Finland’s security” and that “Such a change in the country’s foreign policy could negatively affect Russian-Finnish relations, which had been built in the spirit of good neighborliness and partnership for many years, and were mutually beneficial.”

It is important to understand that Finland purchases most of its weapons from the US as well as Israel, Germany, Norway and Sweden which is basically a profitable business opportunity for Western arms manufacturers.

Last December, Finland ordered 64 new F-35s to replace their F/A-18 combat jets in a deal worth $9.4 billion that benefits Lockheed Martin, a major US arms manufacturer.  According to globalfirepower.com, a website dedicated in accessing the military power of all nations around the world ranks Finland’s military at 53 out of 142 with over 23,000 active personnel, 192 total aircraft, 200 tanks, 63 rocket projectors and a Naval force with 246 total assets including 8 patrol vessels won’t even make a dent against Russia’s military forces.  Russia ranks at number 2 with over 850,000 active personal and a wide range of advanced military hardware.  Not even NATO would be able to protect Finland from Russia’s military advances if a conflict were to take place.

However, one important fact about Finland that needs to be explained is that the Nordic country has blood on its hands for many years since it signed agreements to cooperate with NATO going back to 1994 including intelligence sharing and participating in military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.  For some time, Finland has been slowly integrating its military and intelligence capabilities with NATO while ignoring Russia’s red line following in the footsteps of the neo-Nazi government of Ukraine.

In September 2012, a security policy paper was published by Charly Salonius-Pasternak from the Finnish Institute of International Affairs titled ‘Not Just Another Arms Deal: The security policy implications of the United States selling advanced missiles to Finland’ on the security guarantees the US will provide to Finland after they purchased F/A-18 Hornet fighters and advanced missiles to counter Russia.

But it is not just an arms deal, it’s a security policy that ensures the US-NATO alliance will back Finland against a future conflict with Russia “however, it would be a mistake to view this merely as an arms deal. It is much more and has significant political and military implications. The deal is a notable security policy win for Finland.”  Clearly the goal is for NATO to expand its presence close to Russia’s borders “The deal does not change the strategic military balance in the region, but it does positively impact Finland’s military capabilities vis-à-vis Russia.”  Charly Salonius-Pasternak admits that the US is the “European bulwark”against Russian aggression:

For Russia, the acquisition of these advanced capabilities by Finland is a double-edged sword: it may delay Finland’s application to become a member of NATO, but at the cost of a drastically improved ability by Finland to withstand and respond to a broader range of military strikes and pressure.

The strengthening bilateral relationship with the United States has improved Finland’s defence. A desire to deepen that bilateral relationship suggests that Finland knows that even NATO membership by itself would not be sufficient for Finnish defence needs; rather, Finland needs a web of multilateral, multinational and bilateral relationships for its security. It also suggests that clear-eyed realism drives Finnish security policy thinking: that Finland knows that it is still the United States that serves as the European bulwark (and provider of guarantees) against potential external aggression; and, that NATO is a necessary but not sufficient component for broader European defence, mainly because most European states have ignored their own defence for too long

The US-NATO alliance just lost a war against the Taliban and now they want a war against nuclear-armed Russian forces.  It’s a tragic comedy in the making.

The stick has been passed along to the Finnish government to poke the Russian bear; but how far will the US-NATO alliance go in order to de-stabilize Russia?  The Finnish people are now at risk of being targeted by Russia because Washington’s reckless foreign policy does not care who will be sacrificed in order to fulfill an agenda of US-NATO global hegemony over Russia and the rest of the world.

It seems that members of the global elite (or the New World Order) don’t care that a world war can take place which can go nuclear since they have bunkers in faraway places like New Zealand to avoid a “global apocalypse” while countries like Finland and Sweden turn into cannon fodder for their global agenda.

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

Did Pfizer Commit Huge Fraud in Its COVID Vaccine Research?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 17, 2022

In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial. Data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind. The revelation was published in The British Medical Journal.

How Can Tree Planting Alleviate Multidimensional Poverty?

By Nora Martetschläger, May 18, 2022

Tree planting is one strategy that offers many benefits in this regard. Planting fruit and cash crop trees with rural communities can create income and employment opportunities while at the same time improving environmental conditions and contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Are the US and Ukraine Winning?

By Julian Macfarlane, May 17, 2022

Russian progress is slow but it establishes realities on the ground that are hard to deny. The Russians are actually seen as the “Good Guys”, handing out humanitarian aid, treating POWs with respect and overall pretty honest.

America the Feckless. How Low Can We Go? Philip Giraldi

By Philip Giraldi, May 17, 2022

Whenever an American citizen is killed under questionable circumstances overseas it is the responsibility of the local US Embassy to demand an investigation and explanation of what occurred. To be sure, the ardently Zionist US Ambassador Thomas Nides in Jerusalem has called for an inquiry, but let’s see what happens in this case as the mainstream media conspires to make the story disappear even though a number of Democratic congressmen (and no Republicans) have called for a response.

Video: Russian Siege of Kharkiv Gone Down in History

By South Front, May 17, 2022

After recent changes on the front lines in eastern Ukraine, fighting continues in the same areas. Russian forces adhere to the tactics of pounding enemy positions with artillery and aircraft before advancing deep into the Ukrainian defense. The AFU are attempting to counterattack, quite successfully in some sectors of the front.

Henry Kissinger, the World Economic Forum and Population Control

By Mickey Z, May 17, 2022

Kissinger’s interests have heavily influenced the parasites-in-charge (regardless of political party). As far back as 1974, he penned National Security Study Memorandum 200 on “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” In that document, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate muses about “technological innovations” that might reduce the globe’s human population.

US Accused of Stealing Syrian Oil as Sanctions Waiver Aims to Divide Country

By Steve Sweeney, May 17, 2022

Washington has been accused of continuing its theft of Syrian oil as some 70 tankers were reported to have left the country via the illegal al-Waleed crossing into neighbouring Iraq. The convoy was spotted leaving Syria’s northern Hasakah province accompanied by 15 lorries loaded with military equipment and six armoured vehicles on Friday, local sources reported.

“Genetically Edited” Food – The Next Stage of the Great Reset?

By Kit Knightly, May 17, 2022

Britain’s deregulation of GM food is always described as a “post-Brexit” move – with the EU chided around the world for its “precautionary principle” on GM crops – and yet as long ago as last April, the EU was calling for a “rethink” on GM crops.

Death by a Thousand Cuts: Where Is the West’s Ukraine Strategy? “Clueless Pentagon and CIA ‘Experts’”

By Pepe Escobar, May 17, 2022

On Operation Z, the Russians revel in total strategic ambiguity, which has the collective west completely discombobulated. The Pentagon does not have the necessary intellectual firepower to out-smart the Russian General Staff. Only a few outliers understand that this is not a war – since the Ukraine Armed Forces have been irretrievably routed – but actually what Russian military and naval expert Andrei Martyanov calls a “combined arms police operation,” a work-in-progress on demilitarization and denazification.

Sweden and Finland Set to Join NATO

By Countercurrents.org, May 17, 2022

Sweden’s ruling party dropped the country’s historic military nonalignment on Sunday and agreed to join NATO, shortly after Finland’s leaders officially announced they would do the same.

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

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

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

***

Our world today is facing many serious challenges. Apart from the current global pandemic, there are two issues that are most urgent to address: the environmental destruction of Planet Earth and the serious impoverishment and unbearable living conditions of many of its inhabitants, particularly in rural areas. To create a better and sustainable future for all, we need joint efforts and local solutions for these global threats.

Tree planting is one strategy that offers many benefits in this regard. Planting fruit and cash crop trees with rural communities can create income and employment opportunities while at the same time improving environmental conditions and contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The ecological benefits of trees have been well known for many years. Interest and research on their social impacts has also gradually increased in recent decades, as has attention to multidimensional poverty — the assumption that poverty cannot be measured in monetary terms alone. Yet, comprehensive studies specifically on the relationship of trees and multidimensional poverty are still lacking.

Nevertheless, it is clear that fruit tree-planting projects and the income they generate not only help alleviate monetary poverty, but directly impact many different areas of life. However, not all people benefit equally from such projects, and issues of land ownership as well as traditional gender roles largely determine the benefits that can be derived from them.

A Study of Trees’ Potential for Multidimensional Poverty Alleviation in Morocco

A recent study developed in cooperation with High Atlas Foundation (HAF) investigated the relationship of fruit trees and multidimensional poverty in Morocco. HAF is a U.S.- and Morocco-based NGO that focuses on sustainable development projects in areas such as agriculture, empowerment, youth development, and education. Since its inception, HAF has planted more than 4 million fruit trees in Morocco and today operates 14 nurseries in partnership with local communities.

Now, for the first time, the social effects of these tree-planting projects have been extensively researched through a 2020 household survey in two villages in Toubkal in the High Atlas Mountains. Both villages had very similar conditions in terms of location, environment as well as village size and structure, but had major differences in terms of their tree plantings. The number of reported trees — mainly walnut, cherry, and apple — was about five times higher in one of the villages (2,856 trees by 25 households as opposed to 579 by 23 households in the other village).

Investigating the potential of tree planting for poverty alleviation, the study addressed the interconnections between fruit tree agriculture and multiple aspects of poverty in general, as well as in the specific Moroccan context. Therefore the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which measures poverty in the dimensions of health, education and living-standards, was used as an instrument and adapted to the local situation.

Because of the underlying multidimensional approach to poverty, the research was able to shed light on various aspects of the phenomenon that go beyond traditional monetary measures. The concept of multidimensional poverty does not define poverty by measures of income or consumption alone. Rather, like in Amartya Sen’s capability approach, it can encompass various factors such as education, gender, health status, place of residence, or social security, that directly or indirectly affect people’s ability to lead self-determined lives free from poverty.

The study showed that the village with more trees had a significantly lower poverty level (a lower MPI and lower population share of people identified as multidimensionally poor). In addition, the people of this village not only experienced fewer multiple deprivations, but also fewer individual deprivations in most MPI indicators (except for improved sanitation and ownership of several assets). In particular, there were large differences in long-term child mortality, children’s school attendance, and households’ main cooking fuel. Specifically, fewer households reported the loss of a child in recent decades, more school-aged children were attending school, and more households used clean cooking fuels such as gas.

Many of these development advances are due to the growing wealth in the wake of tree-planting projects that began in the commune as early as the 1990s. Several community members highlighted the many positive changes having since taken place. For example, Mohamed Himmi, former president of the commune, described how rising prosperity has enabled greater mobility among the population and, in this context, increased opportunities for better employment and education, e.g., in urban centers.

But fruit trees are not only a source of household income. Their fruits also provide many health benefits and are an important addition to families’ diets, helping parents and children live healthier lives. These examples illustrate how trees contribute to families’ sustenance and income, and how they can be used to alleviate multiple aspects of poverty. Many more positive effects on people and the environment could be listed, only some of which the study conducted was able to observe.

Vulnerable Groups Falling through the Cracks

Although planting fruit trees has a positive impact on various aspects of human life, these benefits mainly apply to only some privileged groups while some of the most vulnerable groups of people may not benefit equally from increased wealth and social developments.

Especially in terms of gender equality, projects that focus only on planting fruit trees often don’t improve the prospects of women in a village, as their benefits are very limited due to male control over land and household income. This was evidenced by the fact that while the wealthier Toubkal village had higher male school enrollment and employment rates, the same could not be said of its women. In fact, although the other village, where fewer trees were planted, performed worse overall on most poverty indicators, women’s participation in education and employment was higher because of more individual and collective awareness and action in those areas.

It is true that female unemployment rates still are strikingly high in both villages ranging from 89 to 100 percent. However, some villagers are making efforts to provide better education for women and girls, and in one village some girls are now even attending secondary school, which is a major development in the area. Clearly, developing self-help structures and empowering women has a greater influence on improving their life situation than merely increasing wealth does.

Poor, landless farmers are another often-overlooked group when it comes to shared prosperity through tree planting as this requires at least a small piece of land or a home garden. Therefore, the extent to which one can benefit from trees depends largely on the size of the land available. Conversely, those who own more land and can plant more trees can naturally earn more profits.

The resulting problem is reinforced social stratification if tree planting projects are not well implemented and monitored, leaving behind those for whom poverty alleviation is actually most urgent. Providing land to the landless and planting on communal land would help to counteract these tendencies.

Moving Forward

Specially targeted interventions are therefore needed to reach the most vulnerable groups and to spread the benefits of tree planting to all community members. This study enabled HAF to rethink and inspire new projects. The High Atlas Foundation is now seeking financial partners to implement a women’s project to plant organic gardens and build a tree nursery on unused community land in one of the Toubkal villages. Also, an existing nursery is now completely female-managed. In addition, women are taking action to improve their living situation by engaging in empowerment workshops facilitated by HAF.

Exciting projects like these will further improve the positive impact of fruit trees on multidimensional poverty in the future. Let’s hope that more NGOs, researchers, and development practitioners will realize the great potential of such projects and help to plant trees to create a better future on our 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.

Nora Martetschläger is a German social worker who researched on fruit trees and multidimensional poverty in Morocco for her Master’s Thesis in International Social Work. Currently she is working in a youth center in Germany.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

As you may know, some organizations, including SouthFront are talking about UAF “successes” in the Karkhov region as the RF pulls back and re-positions to strengthen itself in the Izyum area.

SouthFront has generally taken the position that the Russians are fighting with one hand tied behind their collective back, and need to devote more resources to the Ukraine — and just get it over with.

Theirs is a more conventional military view than mine, although I admire their commitment to honest reporting, which they do very well.

Still, they tend to focus on Russian losses, since they think them unnecessary. SF has been accused of being pro-Russian and is banned in lots of places such as Facebook, but they report on military matters globally and they try to be objective as possible — in the end with much less bias than the Western media or Western intelligence services.

SF has a good video about Kharkov that illustrates this.

My interpretation of this video is that SouthFront sees successful UAF “counteroffensives” in the Kharkov region directed towards the Russian border, which the Banderites have also shelled. In other words, the so-called “war” is not over for the Ukraine.

War on? War off? There are lots of different points of view. It’s kinda like discussion about whether a TV series will be cancelled or not.

Gonzalo Lira says the Ukraine is finished and cites Lloyd Austin’s call to Shoigu asking for a ceasefire, a tactic that the West used in Syria to gain time to arm up jihadist forces, when they were losing. The jihadists still lost. And the Russians know better than to trust the Americans.

Scott Ritter seems to partially agree with Lira. But he still sees the West as keeping the conflict going. He is also a Marine. He sees this conflict as the kind of war he was taught to fight, the kind of war Americans fight — and not as Putin does—as a conflict, which is only partly military.

Ritter appears to think that Russia needs to just declare a hot war on the Ukraine, now effectively a rump state, and just steam roll Kiev and take Galicia. That would require another 100,000 men, leaving the RF with 80% reserves.

Given Putin’s very legalistic approach to conflict and his efforts to bolster the established framework of international law that the US continually flouts, not to mention his emphasis on a moral victory, Russia would need a real cassus belli for “war” according to the Ritter’s and the Western definition, which means “total war” — the shock & awe stuff for which the US is famous for.

Putin, by contrast, knows that WWIII started a long time ago, and is in essence economic since “total war” would mean the end of all mankind, defeat for everyone. He’s been planning for a long time.

As far as the conflict in Ukraine, I agree with both Gonzalo and Ritter. I do not think the main elements of their arguments are really opposed.

Despite the Ukraine having the third largest army in Europe at the start of the conflict, it lost air supremacy and mobility in the first week, which finished it as a fighting force as effectively as Japan’s loss of its carrier fleet in 1944.

The Japanese, of course, kept on fighting and the Americans suffered losses, but their goals and the results were never in doubt. Now, it is the Ukrainians fighting a lost war and the Russians taking some but not devastating losses. Again, goals and results are not in doubt.

Despite what SF implies, there are no “successful” UAF counteroffensives — if you understand “offensive” to imply a strategic operation, as opposed to local tactical operations such as taking a village here or there, or a bridge — attacks using a tiny fraction of available forces.

A good example is that recent Russian push across the Seversky Donetsk River, which the Russians tried first with a small force, which was opposed by an unexpectedly and much larger Ukrainian force. Let us keep in mind that river crossings are risky — giving an advantage to defenders and attackers normally need an advantage in numbers. Outnumbered they may still prevail but they will take some losses.

The UK Ministry of defense published “intelligence” claiming the Russians failed to cross the river and suffered heavy losses. The UK seems to be relying on UAF reports including photographic evidence, half of which show destroyed or abandoned vehicles, labelled “Russian” but which are actually Ukrainian. They are Russian-designed but no longer used by the RF — only by the Ukrainians. The giveaway is the small turret.

OK. UK intelligence is a LOT less reliable than SouthFront which tries to report facts, rather than spread propaganda.

What we do know from river crossing incident is that Russian troops were initially outnumbered by at least 2:1, perhaps 3:1. But crossed anyway.

While the RF probably needed to secure the river crossing for future operations, they have otherwise redeployed in the Kharkov Oblast, giving up positions in villages where there is no strategic advantage, the UAF attacks, knowing there is minimal resistance. This strategy allows more effective use of RF forces, while sparing civilian lives.

Still, despite reclaiming villages, the UAF is losing. Although claiming to be winning, as the Japanese did until the Emperor surrendered.

Unfortunately, that means ever more attempts at false flags. For example, the SBU blew up a fertilizer storage facility near the village of Dolgenkoye in the Kharkiv region, hoping to poison the local population and blame the Russian army.

Didn’t work!

There were warnings about the possibility of this kind of atrocity published earlier, which undermines its propaganda value if it happens — so the attack merely confirmed Russian intelligence and Ukrainian duplicity.

Proof of Ukrainian atrocities, which have been available for a long time, is suddenly appearing in the Western press imparts credibility to the Russian version of events.

Russian progress is slow but it establishes realities on the ground that are hard to deny.

The Russians are actually seen as the “Good Guys”, handing out humanitarian aid, treating POWs with respect and overall pretty honest.

The Banderites are monsters. killing and raping, and getting caught in lies and huge exaggerations.

Whatever the facts, the Public is tired of the old story and wants something new, even if that means role reversal where the Good Guys turn out to be the Bad Guys.

The UAF was initially a very capable foe. And it is still armed and dangerous — perhaps more so — if you have lost — you have nothing to lose. The worst atrocities often come from desperation.

SouthFront sees the UAF as heading towards the Russian border in Kharkov, and shelling Russian villages.

But, as the Banderites roll East, their supply lines extend and become increasingly exposed, along with the possibility of encirclement and destruction should the Russians decide to attack with a few BTGS from the East, and simultaneously from Izyum once that area is secure. Are the Russians setting up another “cauldron”?

In addition, the strikes on civilian targets in Russia, is a casus belli. The Russians have already threatened precision missile strikes against “decision-making centers” which presumably means government offices in Kiev.

Of course, Zelensky says he has not attacked Russian villages.

The Russians just need a wee bit more provocation, more ammunition from the Banderite crazies, as it were. They are cautious. For them, it’s strategy — goals, roles, and poles — the poles indicating course and boundaries.

However, the Ukrainians, like the Japanese at the end of WWII, have no viable strategy — they are just tactically reactive.

They do not think ahead — maybe because they have had no “ahead” — no future —not since the few weeks of the “operation” . But since they cannot see the road ahead, there are no boundaries.

The Russians, by contrast, have strategy and they can take their time, aware that their economic counteroffensive against the Empire is paying off. Russia is doing fine??; the West is heading for recession.

Biden started a war to cover up the cumulative effects of failed neoliberal economic policies, while doubling down on those policies. but polls indicate that Americans are slowly but surely tired of banging the drums for a war that sucks money out of the national budget. Oh sure, they all wave the flag, but their arms are getting tired — and they want beer and pizza — -only they can’t afford it.

Even the NYT is coming around, with an op-ed admitting — more or less — that Russia holds all the cards — and it is time to negotiate. They say the fear nuclear war. But what they fear is economic collapse: Putin’s decision to insist on payment in rubles for all exports is an economic atomic bomb. The US faces a huge recession — which will ultimately affect semi-autarkic economies like Russia and China much less.

As Bill Clinton’s former campaign once put it, “It’s the economy, stupid”. He should have said, “It’s always the economy, stupid”.

Since people see Empty now when they open their wallets or turn on the engine of their cars, the Democrats could very well lose Congress in the Fall, especially if the Supreme Court delays sending abortion rights back to the States, or the Republicans are equivocal on the issue.

After that, the aging, witless Lameduck, the US calls President, will be a sitting duck for just about anyone, even the Donald.

***

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.

Julian Macfarlane is a Canadian media analyst / writer. 40 years in Japan. Worked for every major Japanese company including Toyota as media advisor in the Middle East and also most government ministries including the Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s Office.  More than 200 articles on political events and propaganda. Other of “Ageing Young: You’re Never Too Old To Rock ‘n Roll”, a seminal study of evolutionary psychology.  https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/ 

Featured image: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 6, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]

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

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

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

***

There have been several particularly disturbing stories in the media over the past week even if one chooses to tune out the US Congress’s pending astonishing overwhelming approval of a grant of $39.8 billion to Ukraine to continue the war to “weaken” Russia. Even so-called progressives in the Democratic Party voted for the war. So now the United States will be at war with Russia through proxy, like it or not, and the consequences could be devastating, particularly if NATO member Poland intervenes directly, as it has been threatening, but few in Washington seem to be awake to that reality. And only Senator Rand Paul, who is asking for an inspector general to supervise the cash flow, is seriously wondering how much of the “aid” will be stolen by President Volodymyr Zelensky and his cronies. Ukraine has long been distinguished as the most corrupt country in Europe.

Another revolting story concerns the murder of a Palestinian Christian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who also happens to be an American citizen. She was shot dead by an Israeli sniper who hit her in the neck in the small gap between a protective helmet and vest. She was covering Israeli Army violence directed against protesting Palestinians in the West Bank town of Jenin for al-Jazeera and the vest was labelled “Press” in large letters.

Israel initially sought to blame her death on Palestinian “gunmen” who allegedly were in the area, but that story would not wash when confronted with the eyewitness testimony of others who were on the scene and it was eventually conceded that an Israeli soldier “might have” fired the fatal shot. Last Friday, preceding Shireen’s funeral at the Cathedral of the Annunciation of the Virgin in occupied East Jerusalem, Israeli police providing “security” were seen kicking and using batons to beat mourners seeking to carry the coffin from the hospital to the church. The police also hurled stun and smoke grenades into the crowd after several plastic water bottles were allegedly thrown in their direction. Abu Akleh’s home was also searched by police and it will no doubt be claimed that she was a “terrorist,” standard Israeli practice for many of those whom they murder.

Whenever an American citizen is killed under questionable circumstances overseas it is the responsibility of the local US Embassy to demand an investigation and explanation of what occurred. To be sure, the ardently Zionist US Ambassador Thomas Nides in Jerusalem has called for an inquiry, but let’s see what happens in this case as the mainstream media conspires to make the story disappear even though a number of Democratic congressmen (and no Republicans) have called for a response. Former Israeli army spokesman Avi Benayahu has already opined that “Let’s assume Shireen Abu Akleh was shot dead by IDF. No need to apologize for that.” Nevertheless, some form of inquiry acceptable to Israel will no doubt take place, but the Israeli government and the country’s courts have a history of exonerating soldiers and armed settlers when they kill Palestinians. Recently, a Palestinian was sentenced to nine months in prison for slapping an armed settler who was threatening his family while Israeli soldiers and settlers who have killed non-threatening Palestinians, including children, rarely receive any punishment at all.

And being an American citizen makes no difference. History tells us that Israel can kill Americans with impunity judging from the massacre of 34 American sailors on board the USS Liberty in 1967 and the Rachel Corrie murder-by-bulldozer in 2003. A Turkish-American boy Furkan Dogan who was on an aid ship to Gaza in 2010 was also murdered by Israeli soldiers who boarded the vessel, also killing eight others. No Israeli has been punished for any of the deaths.

This has to stop but the problem is in Washington, not in Jerusalem. Israel kills and kills because it knows it can get away with it due to American enabling of the process. It is an embarrassment that a series of US Ambassadors to Israel have been little more than apologists for the Jewish state. And we have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declaring “I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid…and I don’t even call it aid…our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.” Meanwhile President Joe Biden has self-declared as a “Zionist” while Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calls himself in Hebrew the “shomer yisroel” or defender of Israel in the Senate. And then there is House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff’s son sporting a Mossad t-shirt. And what about the regular mass “pilgrimages” by groups of Congressmen to Israel during recesses, an exercise in obtaining the approval of whichever unindicted felon is in charge of that rogue country that pretends to pass for a “democracy”?

As much as one would like to see all the traitors in Congress and the White House who give Israel a free pass on its monstrous behavior held accountable, such an outcome is unimaginable because enough of them have been bought or intimidated to such an extent that they remain silent or chant like a chorus in a Greek tragedy that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” And there is also the Jewish dominated mainstream media: the NY Times report on this latest murder had a headline reading that Shireen Abu Akleh had somehow “Died,” not that she was murdered by the Israelis, to whom the American taxpayer gives $10 million every single day! It is shameful and disgusting!

A related tale also concerns Israel and the United States. David Brog is running for Congress from Nevada. Brog is the former executive director of Pastor John Hagee’s Texas-based Christians United For Israel even though he is Jewish. Indeed, he has made Israel the focal point of his campaign based on his contention that “he brings a lifetime of dedication and a depth of knowledge to lead on pro-Israel causes.” He has said

“I don’t just want to be a friend of Israel. I want to be a leader on Israel and a champion of Israel… We have to be very quick to reach out and broaden our coalition to all people of goodwill who love Israel and hate antisemitism.”

Brog, who is not from Nevada, has not surprisingly raised considerably more money than other GOP candidates vying for the position and he has also received the backing of former Trump administration Jewish officials, including David Friedman, the ex-US Ambassador to Israel, and Elan Carr, the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism. Friedman and Carr co-hosted a virtual fundraiser for Brog two weeks ago.

Brog is a one trick pony and his trick is to keep saying Israel over and over again to bring in the Shekels from the likes of Israel born Miriam Adelson, who inherited her husband’s casino fortune and lives in Las Vegas. It is disconcerting to see a politician running for national office in the United States so he can advance the interests of a foreign country, yet that is what Brog is doing openly. One would hope a lot of Nevada voters will see the issue in the same fashion, but Brog will have big bucks and the pro-Israel media supporting him. In any event, I have to wish the “malocchio” or evil eye on Brog and I hope he loses in his run and loses big. The United States does not need yet another ardent Israel booster in Congress or anywhere else in the public space!

Another tale that is developing surrounds the publication of the latest tell-all book by a survivor of the Donald Trump administration. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who was fired by Trump after the 2020 election, has described a series of catastrophic proposals by the president relating to national security and defense, including using missiles fired from the US to take on Mexican drug cartels. Another idea floated by Trump, if Esper is not lying, was to use soldiers to shoot protesters in Washington in the wake of the George Floyd death in Minneapolis in May 2020. Other former senior Trump officials have also been claiming that Trump often asked whether China had developed a top-secret hurricane gun that could be firing storms at the United States. And John Bolton, in his book, asserts that Trump asked if Finland were part of Russia.

But to my mind the most interesting revelation made by Esper is the back story, also set in the Middle East, relating to the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, which illustrates much that is wrong with the national security state that the United States has evolved into. According to Esper, Trump lied after the assassination was criticized by saying that Soleimani was actively preparing attacks on four American Embassies in the Mideast region. Esper confirms that there was no intelligence to back up that claim, but interestingly goes beyond that to make clear that there was no specific intelligence at all suggesting that such an attack was imminent or even being planned. There were only generic regional security threats that many embassies in the world respond to and make preparations to defend against.

One recalls the back story at the time, with the Iraqi government claiming that Soleimani, widely regarded as the second most powerful official in Iran after the Ayatollah, was in Baghdad to discuss peace arrangements and that the US Embassy had been informed of his planned trip and had raised no objection to it. Instead, the US used the opportunity to launch an armed drone to kill him and nine Iraqi militia members that were accompanying him from the airport. In other words, there was no imminent threat, nor even a plausible threat, and the US went ahead any way and killed a senior Iranian government official. That is unambiguously a war crime. Will anyone be held accountable? Of course not!

But finally there is also a bit of good news. The White House press secretary who is replacing Jen Psaki is Karine Jean-Pierre. She is a woman, black and lesbian, so clearly she passes the Democratic Party template for such a position but she lacks the mandatory Israel connection. It turns out that she once criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and even called for it to be boycotted. She is already being attacked by the usual groups and individuals, so let’s see how long she lasts!

*

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

After recent changes on the front lines in eastern Ukraine, fighting continues in the same areas. Russian forces adhere to the tactics of pounding enemy positions with artillery and aircraft before advancing deep into the Ukrainian defense. The AFU are attempting to counterattack, quite successfully in some sectors of the front.

Amid battles on the front lines, Ukrainian troops continue senseless shelling of civilians in the People’s republics as well as in Russia.

On May 11, the AFU launched an artillery strike on the Russian village of Solokhi in the Belgorod region. As a result of the attack, 1 civilian was killed and seven others were injured. In response, Russian troops launched several strikes on the positions of Ukrainian forces in the Chernihiv region.

Explosions were also heard in the village of Dubovoye in the Belgorod region. There were reports of shooting at the border near the village of Shebekino.

As a result of another shelling of the city of Donetsk by the Ukrainian MLRS, at least one civilian was killed. The villages of Yasinovataya and Gorlovka were also shelled by Ukrainian forces.

Meanwhile, the AFU is approaching the Russian border in the Kharkiv region.

According to unconfirmed reports, the AFU reached the state border of the Russian Federation in the area of the village of Ternovka. Ukrainian forces are pushing Russian troops out of the village of Cossack Lopan. Fighting also continues north of Old Saltov.

In the area of Izyum, Russian troops recently managed to take control of the villages of Velikaya Kamyshevakha, after which their advance stopped. On the other hand, the AFU’s attempts to counterattack Russian positions have not yet been crowned with any success.

The AFU attempted to stage the use of chemical weapons by Russian units to the south of Izyum.

Ukrainian forces blew up a tank with ammonium nitrate. According to the statement of the Russian Defense Ministry, Ukrainian nationalists under the leadership of the Security Service of Ukraine blew up a fertilizer storage facility near the village of Dolgenkoye in the Kharkiv region. They aimed to poison the local population and blame the Russian army for this.

To the east, the city of Liman, where fierce fighting continues, is still firmly in the hands of the AFU. At the same time, a slight advance of Russian forces was reported south of the city near the village of Yampol. The AFU were forced to retreat due to heavy losses.

In the area of Severodonetsk-Lisichansk, fierce fighting continues. The LPR troops with support of Russian forces took control over the settlements of Voevodovka and Yuzhny. Chechen fighters also reported on the liberation of the Zarya powder factory.

The offensive of the LPR on the village of Belogorovka has not yielded successful results at the moment. The AFU reportedly destroyed the Russian pontoon bridge. In the direction of Lisichansk, there are battles along the Orekhov — Toshkovka line.

In the area south of Kremennaya, forcing of the Seversky Donets by Russian troops and the breakthrough towards the grouping operating from Popasnaya have not yet succeeded.

Russian troops are slowly breaking through the defense of the AFU to the north of Popasnaya. Part of the Ukrainian forces retreated in the direction of Loskutovka. The AFU are strengthening their positions near Gorsky, waiting for the breakthrough of defensive lines near Orekhovo.

According to local sources, the AFU blew up a dam near Avdiivka in order to slow down the advance of the DPR army and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

Over the past few weeks, there have been no successes claimed by any of the parties on the southwestern outskirts of Donetsk near the village of Maryinka. Russian official sources claim that part of the village is still in the hands of the DPR Armed Forces and fighting continues on the outskirts. According to unofficial reports, the village fell again under the partial control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the DPR command is urgently pulling together forces to recapture previously taken positions.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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

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

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

***

In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial.

With the release of Pfizer trial data — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation are coming to light.

Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization — a feat that has many questioning whether fraud was committed.

The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack, who also happens to be a consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC), a current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, an investigator for Fundación Infant, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the first author of Pfizer’s paper, “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021.

Site 1231 held a second enrollment session, given the designation of “site 4444.” The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag. It supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020 — the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Was “site 4444” fabricating data to create the appearance that the jab was having an effect?

*

In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial.

Data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind. The revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. In his November 2, 2021, report, investigative journalist Paul Thacker wrote:¹

“Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …

[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”

Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas, repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues,” Thacker wrote.

When her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email. Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all.

She provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns were valid, and according to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator.

BMJ Report Censored

Disturbingly, social media actually censored this BMJ article and published pure falsehoods in an effort to “debunk” it. Mind you, the BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world! The Facebook “fact check” was done by Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor, which claimed the BMJ “did NOT reveal disqualifying and ignored reports of flaws in Pfizer’s” trials.²

In response, The BMJ slammed the fact check, calling it “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”^3,4,5 In an open letter⁶ addressed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urged Zuckerberg to “act swiftly” to correct the erroneous fact check, review the processes that allowed it to occur in the first place, and “generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.” As noted by The BMJ in its letter, the Lead Stories’ fact check:⁷

• Inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a “news blog”
• Failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
• Published the fact check on the Lead Stories’ website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”

Pfizer Trial Data Raises Suspicions of Fraud

Now, with the release of Pfizer trial data⁸ — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — internet sleuths are finding additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation. May 9, 2022, a Twitter user named Jikkyleaks posted a series of tweets questioning data from Pfizer trial sites 1231 and 4444.⁹

Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization (CRO). CROs like the Ventavia Research Group, which Jackson worked for, provide clinical trial management services. The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack,¹⁰ who also happens to be:¹¹

• A consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC) since 2017
• A current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee
• An investigator for Fundación Infant,¹² which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation¹³
• The first author of Pfizer’s paper,¹⁴ “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021

As noted by Jikkyleaks, Polack “is literally the busiest doctor on the planet,” because in addition to all those roles, he also managed to single-handedly enroll 4,500 patients in three weeks, which entails filling out some 250 pages of case report forms (CRFs) for each patient. That’s about 1,125,000 pages total. (CRFs are documents used in clinical research to record standardized data from each patient, including adverse events.)

This recruitment also took place seven days a week, which is another red flag. “Weekend recruitment for a clinical trial would be odd. Staff are needed to fill out that many record forms (CRFs) and there are potential risks to the trial, so you need medical staff. It would be highly unusual,” Jikkyleaks notes.

Is Polack just a super-humanly efficient trial investigator, or could this be evidence of fraud? As noted by Steve Kirsch in the featured video and an accompanying Substack article,¹⁵ Polack is the coordinator for a network of 26 hospitals in Argentina, so perhaps it’s possible he could have recruited 57 patients per week per hospital, but it seems highly unlikely.

Questions Surround Site 4444 Data

Now, “site 4444” does not exist. It’s actually the same as site 1231. It appears site 1231 held a second enrollment session, and these were for some reason given the designation of 4444. The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag.

Site 4444 (the second enrollment session for site 1231) supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020, and the suspicious thing about that — aside from the speed — is the fact that this was the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Jikkyleads writes:¹⁶

“My guess: they needed enough numbers of ‘positive PCR tests’ in the placebo group to show a difference between groups for that VRBPAC meeting on the 10th Dec, and they didn’t have them. So, site 4444 appeared and gave them their ‘perfect’ result. Bravo.”

Kirsch notes:¹⁷

“Was there fraud in the Pfizer trial? Without a doubt. The story of Maddie de Garay is a clear case of that. Brook Jackson has evidence of fraud; she has 17 lawyers working for her. If there wasn’t fraud, these lawyers wouldn’t be wasting their time.

This new data on Site 1231/4444 looks suspicious to me. It looks too good to be true. But we can’t make the call without more information. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will not look into this, Pfizer will remain silent, and Polack will be unreachable for comment. The lack of transparency should be troubling to everyone. That is the one thing we can say for sure.”

Pfizer Documents Reveal COVID Jab Dangers

Among the tens of thousands of Pfizer documents released by the FDA so far, we now also have clear evidence of harm. For nurse educator John Campbell, featured in the video above, these documents appear to have served as a “red pill,”¹⁸ waking him up to the possibility that the jabs may indeed be far more dangerous than anyone expected, including himself.

In the video, Campbell reviews the documents listed as “5.3.6. Postmarketing Experience,” which were originally marked “confidential.” They reveal that, cumulatively, through February 28, 2021, Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths.

To have 1,223 fatalities and 42,086 reports of injury in the first three months is a significant safety signal, especially when you consider that the 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.

As noted by Campbell, “It would have been good to know about this at the time, wouldn’t it?” referring to the rollout of the jabs. Campbell has been fairly consistent in his support of the “safe and effective” vaccine narrative, but “This has just destroyed trust in authority,” he said.

158,000 Recorded Side Effects — A World Record?

The first really large tranche of more than 10,000 Pfizer documents was released March 1, 2022. (You can find them all on PHMPT.org.¹⁹) In this batch were no less than nine single-space pages of “adverse events of special interest,” listed in alphabetical order²⁰ — 158,000 in all!

To see the first page, click the link below. The first side effect on this shockingly exhaustive list is a rare condition known as 1p36 deletion syndrome. This condition, caused by the deletion of DNA in chromosome 1p36, results in developmental delays, severe intellectual disability, seizures, vision problems, hearing loss, breathing problems, brain anomalies, congenital heart defects, cardiomyopathy, renal anomalies, genital malformation, metabolic problems and more.^21,22

Life expectancy depends on the amount of DNA that has been deleted. This, at bare minimum, sounds like something a pregnant woman might want to know before she gets the shot.

CRF Anomalies Raise Questions of Fraud

After reviewing some of the released CRFs in the March 1 tranche, investigative journalist Sonia Elijah also discovered several problems, including the following:²³

In closing, Elijah wrote:²⁴

“All the evidence gleaned over a limited time appears to back up whistleblower Jackson’s claims of poor trial site data management and raises questions as to how Ventavia conducted the Pfizer clinical trials.

The errors and anomalies in the CRFs also allude to her claims that the clinical research associates were not trained adequately, with many having had no prior clinical experience history. If such egregious findings are true at these sites, could they manifest at other trial sites around North America and beyond?”

Can You Trust Pfizer?

Pfizer, which was quickly given emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy shot, has a long list of criminal verdicts against it:

As noted in the journal Healthcare Policy in 2010,³¹ “Pfizer has been a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” The article also highlights the crimes of Johnson & Johnson, another COVID jab maker.

Despite its tarnished history, we’re now expected to trust that everything Pfizer does is above-board. I don’t think so. A company that continues getting caught committing the same crimes over and over again clearly has a deeply established ethical rot within its corporate structure that fines simply have no effect over.

Has Pfizer committed fraud in its COVID jab trials as well? It sure looks that way. Time will tell whether attorneys will have enough for a conviction in the future. If fraud did take place, Pfizer can (and likely will) be held liable for the more than one million injuries its injection has caused in the U.S. alone, and we all look forward to that reckoning.

*

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 The BMJ 2021; 375:n2635

^2, 3 Reclaim the Net December 17, 2021

⁴ Medscape December 20, 2021

⁵ ZeroHedge December 20, 2021

^6, 7 The BMJ 2021;375:n2635

⁸ Icandecide.org Released Pfizer Data

^9, 11, 16 Twitter Jikkyleaks May 9, 2022

¹⁰ DavidHealy.org March 24, 2022

¹² Infant.org.ar

¹³ Gates Foundation Fundacion Infant

¹⁴ NEJM 2020; 383: 2603-2615

^15, 17 Steve Kirsch Substack May 9, 2022

¹⁸ Steve Kirsch Substack March 11, 2022

¹⁹ PHMPT.org Pfizer Documents

²⁰ Peckford42 WordPress March 3, 2022

²¹ Applied Clinical Genetics 2015; 8: 189-200

²² Medicinenet.com 1p36 Deletion Syndrome

^23, 24 Trial Site News March 7, 2022

^{25, 26, 27, 29, 31} Healthcare Policy May 2010; 5(4): 16-25

²⁸ U.S. Department of Justice September 2, 2009

³⁰ U.S. Department of Justice May 24, 2018

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Even by Washington standards, the Biden Administration’s recent request for $33 billion for military aid to Ukraine was shocking. Surely a coalition of antiwar progressives and budget-hawk Republicans would oppose the dangerous and expensive involvement of the US in the Russia/Ukraine conflict? No! Not only did Congress not object: they added nearly seven billion MORE dollars to the package!

In the end, not a single House Democrat voted against further US involvement in the war, and just 57 Republicans said “no” to funding yet another undeclared war.

On the Senate side, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) both demanded immediate passage of the huge giveaway to Ukraine. That’s Washington’s bipartisanship for you.

Then the junior Senator from Kentucky came to the Senate Floor and did the unthinkable in Washington: he delayed the vote.

“My oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America,” Sen. Rand Paul said. “We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the US economy.” He went on to point out that the US has spent nearly as much on Ukraine’s military as the entire military budget of Russia and that the US government has sent more military money to Ukraine than it spent in the entire first year of the US war in Afghanistan.

Sen. Paul put the package into perspective: this massive giveaway to Ukraine equals nearly the entire yearly budget of the US State Department and is larger than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security!

Schumer was furious with Paul, accusing him of “preventing swift passage of Ukraine aid because he wants to add at the last minute his own changes directly into the bill.”

What was he trying to add to the bill? In his own words, “All I requested is an amendment to be included in the final bill that allows for the Inspector General to oversee how funds are spent.”

He wanted at least a bit of oversight on the nearly $50 billion in total that Washington has sent to what Transparency International deems one of the most corrupt countries on earth. Is that really too much to ask?

For Washington, the answer is “yes.” The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) was an endless thorn in Washington’s side, because he actually did his job and reported on the billions of dollars that were stolen in Afghanistan.

In its final report on the 20 year Afghanistan war, SIGAR reviewed approximately $63 billion of the total $134 billion appropriated to Afghanistan and found that nearly $19 billion of the amount was lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. Nearly one third of the funds they reviewed were outright wasted or stolen by corrupt Afghan officials. Does anyone think it would be any different in Ukraine?

Maybe that’s why they were so furious that Sen. Paul proposed that we perhaps keep track of this $40 billion to make sure it’s not wasted: Washington doesn’t want to know. And, more importantly, Washington doesn’t want us to know.

The temporary pause is important. It gives Americans a little time to let their Senators know that they do not support this ridiculous and wasteful giveaway to Ukraine. Inflation is ripping through the country. Gas prices are through the roof. Our infrastructure is crumbling. The dollar is teetering. And we’re giving money away?

The vote appears set for Wednesday. Time to let your Senators know what you think about it!

*

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

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

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

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

***

The U.S. news media’s treatment of the Ukraine issue has long been characterized by flagrant favoritism. Reports from organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Transparency International, and Freedom House showing that Ukraine’s actual conduct differed markedly from its carefully crafted image as a dedicated young democracy received little coverage in the mainstream press. That willingness to conceal Ukraine’s corruption and authoritarianism has grown even worse since the outbreak of war with Russia. Media coverage moved quickly from ignoring or minimizing inconvenient information about Kyiv’s political and economic system to channeling outright Ukrainian propaganda.

For example, multiple unfiltered stories from Ukrayinska Pravda and other Ukrainian news outlets have become a nearly daily feature on Yahoo’s news feed. Official statements and press releases from Ukraine’s government also appear on Yahoo and other outlets, frequently without an acknowledgment that the accuracy of those accounts could not be confirmed. Contents in the Washington Post and the New York Times, which set the agenda and tone throughout much of the US news media on any issue, similarly have conveyed a solidly pro-Ukraine perspective. Moreover, there are very few competing accounts in those outlets from Russian news sources or even from American analyses that challenge the dominant narrative.

The willingness of the US press to foster a favorable image of Ukraine knows few bounds. During the early weeks of the war, American news outlets even circulated the story about the “Ghost of Kyiv” – the fighter pilot who supposedly became an ace in a matter of days by shooting down numerous Russian warplanes. That account had all the earmarks of transparent propaganda, and the Ukrainian military ultimately conceded that the story was fictional. In the meantime, however, it had served its purpose well as propaganda for credulous Western audiences, and the US press aided that effort. Indeed, the coverage of Kyiv’s retraction of the story was noticeably limited.

An especially egregious performance has occurred with respect to the role of the Azov battalion (now the Azov regiment) in Ukraine’s defense effort. The Azov battalion was notorious for years before the Russian invasion as a bastion of extreme nationalists and outright Nazis. That aspect proved to be more than just a source of embarrassment for Ukraine’s supporters when the unit became a crucial player in the battle for the city of Mariupol. The Western (especially US) press sought to portray Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian siege as a heroic effort similar to battle of Stalingrad in World War II.

The prominence of the Azov regiment among the defenders certainly should have complicated that media portrayal. Yet most accounts simply focused on the suffering of Mariupol’s population, the heartless villainy of the Russian aggressors, and the tenacity of the city’s brave defenders. Such accounts typically ignored the presence of Azov fighters among the defenders or failed to disclose their ideological pedigree. A Washington Post story, for example, merely described the Azov regiment as “a nationalist outfit.” Other news accounts referred to the Azov forces in a similar vague manner, occasionally with a perfunctory acknowledgment that the regiment was controversial.

One article, though, engaged in a more extensive whitewash. A May 11, 2022, Wall Street Journal column by Jillian Kay Melchior featured an interview she had conducted with Bohdan Krotevych, the Azov regiment’s chief of staff in Mariupol. The following passage was typical of the article’s tone.

The Azov Regiment is known for its courage – and controversy. US media has reported that some members espoused neo-Nazi ideology, a claim the Kremlin has taken up. I asked Mr. Krotevych about the unit’s reputation. “Like in other units, including military units of the US army, there are some individuals who hold Nazi views,” he says. But labeling the entire regiment neo-Nazi “is like calling all Americans racist because the KKK exists in the US”

Amazingly, Melchior let that absurd, self-serving statement pass without making an effort to provide a clarification or rebuttal. Even a brief counterpoint might have mentioned that the Azov regiment uses banners and insignia that bear a striking resemblance to counterparts used by the Nazi SS and other portions of Adolf Hitler’s regime. Most Americans (much less the US military) do not openly display KKK regalia. The rest of the story is nearly as defective, allowing Krotevych to come across to readers as a heroic figure.

It is hardly a new aspect of the US media’s performance regarding foreign conflicts that journalists are willing to sanitize the image of whatever faction Washington favors. Most of the mainstream media did that with respect to the Kosovo Liberation Army during the conflict in the Balkans. The same has been true of news stories and commentaries on insurgents trying to unseat Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad. Very few accounts accurately describe the most influential components of the rebel forces as the jihadists that they are.

However, the coverage of the Ukraine war threatens to achieve a new low in media integrity and credibility. When the establishment press whitewashes the behavior of outright neo-Nazis, something is terribly amiss.

*

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.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 12 books and more than 950 articles on international affairs.

Featured image is from it-it.facebook.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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Washington has been accused of continuing its theft of Syrian oil as some 70 tankers were reported to have left the country via the illegal al-Waleed crossing into neighbouring Iraq.

The convoy was spotted leaving Syria’s northern Hasakah province accompanied by 15 lorries loaded with military equipment and six armoured vehicles on Friday, local sources reported.

It comes just a day after 46 US vehicles were seen using the same border crossing with the Syrian government warning Washington against the plunder of its resources.

Oil and wheat are regularly taken out of the country and sold abroad, depriving millions of Syrians of much-needed supplies as they suffer the effect of crippling US sanctions.

Tens of thousands of barrels of Syrian oil are believed to have been shipped out of the country into Iraq by US forces.

In a further development last week US acting assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland announced a partial waiver from the Caesar Act restrictions for areas that are not under government control.

“The United States intends in the next few days to issue a general license to facilitate private economic investment activity in non-regime-held areas liberated from Isis in Syria,” she said following a meeting in Morocco.

The exemptions will apply to areas under the control of Turkish-backed jihadist groups along with those governed by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Ms Nuland claims that the general licence, which excludes oil, will enable US companies to invest in agriculture, health, education and other areas to bring much-needed investment to help reconstruction.

The news has been welcomed by a number of Western liberal academics and supporters of the so-called Autonomous Area of North-East Syria which had lobbied for the exemptions.

But critics said it was a clear attempt by the US to annex northern Syria and divide the country.

Journalist Vanessa Beeley said Ms Nuland and Washington were “deliberately enflaming local grievances and enabling ISIS recruitment and expansion.”

She accused the US of genocide by “withholding means of sustaining life to innocent civilians in order to coerce an entire nation into submission,” which she described as economic terrorism.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has consistently asked US occupying forces to leave the country and has vowed to regain all territory currently held by foreign forces.

*

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: U.S. Battalion in eastern Syria in 2019 Photo: Creative Commons / U.S. Army Reserve

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Price: $5.00

Click to order

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

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

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

***

The Queen’s Speech was interesting this year.

For all the people outside the UK who don’t understand what the “Queens Speech” actually is, it’s a farcical state occasion in which the Queen (or, in this case, Prince Charles since her majesty is ill/secretly dead/having “mobility issues”) makes a speech about what “her government” intends to do for the next 12 months.

Of course, the Queen doesn’t actually write the speech, or have any input on its content, or have any control at all over what “her” government intends to do. She’s just a mouthpiece in a big gold hat.

It’s the UK equivalent of the State of the Union, only done in Halloween costumes made out of shiny stolen rocks.

The whole thing is nothing but a grand, gilt statement of intent from the British Deep State, wrapped in mink and draped in medals they never earned. It’s a joke, but it is worth listening to.

Or, if you have a sensitive stomach, you can just read the full text the next day on the UK government’s website (that’s what I do).

A lot of the content is entirely predictable.

More money to Ukraine, with a promise the UK will “lead the way in championing security around the world”. More online censorship via the “Online Safety Bill”. A compulsory register for homeschooled children via the “Schools Reform Bill”.

There’s also mention of “securing the constitution” by introducing the UK’s own “Bill of Rights”. We broke down that particular Trojan Horse back in February.

But the part I found most interesting is the stated plan to “encourage agricultural and scientific innovation at home” via the proposed Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.

The proposed bill (which, for some reason is not available through the parliament website) follows on from DEFRA’s announced “loosened regulation” of genetic research back in January.

To quote the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB), the legislation would “take certain precision breeding techniques out of the scope of restrictive GMO rules”.

Essentially, this would see new “gene-edited” foods as distinct from old-fashioned “genetically modified” foods, and therefore not subject to the same rules and oversight.

The claimed distinction is that gene editing, as opposed to genetic modification, doesn’t introduce DNA from other species. Therefore, in effect, is merely speeding up what could potentially naturally happen over time.

Now, you might think this is just semantics, and that such a law will just provide a loophole for ALL “genetically modified” foods to simply rebrand themselves as “genetically edited” foods, and thereby avoid regulation. But that is disgustingly cynical and shame on you for even thinking it.

All in all, this is pretty on-message stuff, and not especially surprising. What’s noteworthy is – by pure happenstance, I’m sure – it appears to coincide with a renewed push on the GM food front in other countries all over the world.

In December 2021, Switzerland added an amendment to its moratorium on GMO crops, permitting the use of certain “gene editing” techniques.

Last month, Egypt announced their new strain of GM wheat. Just two days ago, Ethiopia’s National Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center announced they had researched, and the country will now be growing, genetically modified cotton and maize.

Despite Russia’s sweeping ban on the cultivation and/or importing of genetically modified crops, they have nonetheless created a 111 billion Ruble project to create up to 30 varieties of genetically edited plants and farm animals.

Britain’s deregulation of GM food is always described as a “post-Brexit” move – with the EU chided around the world for its “precautionary principle” on GM crops – and yet as long ago as last April, the EU was calling for a “rethink” on GM crops.

In fact, just today, European Biotechnology Magazine reports:

The EU Commission has launched its final consultation on the deregulation of new breeding techniques in agriculture

Why This? Why Now?

So, we’re seeing a sudden increase in the variety of GM crops available and a simultaneous push for deregulation of the industry in Western nations.

Why would they be doing this now?

Well, there is a food crisis.

Or, more accurately, they have just created a food crisis. And as the cliched Hegelian dialectic inevitably goes, their manufactured “problem” is now in need of their contrived “solution”.

We should expect to see genetic engineering pitched as a solution to our food crisis in the very near future…like yesterday. Or indeed, two months ago.

That’s how fast they work now, with barely a pretence at concealing the plan. Spitting out the answer so fast they make it obvious they knew the question beforehand.

On March 15th, when the “special operation” in Ukraine was less than 3 weeks old, the Time was already headlining:

War forces farmers to think again about GM crops

…and reporting:

Genetic modification could make Britain’s food system less susceptible to geopolitical turmoil

A week later Verdict published an article titled “Improving food self-sufficiency with GM crops during geopolitical crises”

Last week, the Times of Israel asked:

Can gene editing help farmers satisfy the rising demand for food?

Four days ago, the Manila Times published an article titled “In times of food scarcity: Revisiting genetically modified crops”.

Two days ago (so before the Queen’s speech specifically mentioning the gene editing bill), Scotland’s Press & Journal ran an opinion piece headlined: “Scottish Government must lift GM crop ban to ease cost of living crisis”.

Yesterday, the “information services” company IHS Markit published an article on GM regulation in Europe, in which they claimed:

The Ukraine-Russia conflict has demonstrated the fragility and vulnerability of global and European food supply chains. Around the world, governments in leading agricultural-producing countries are now catching up with the United States, both to better legislate gene-edited (GE) products, as well as differentiate them from the older Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology, and its negative connotations to some consumers, commentators, farmers, retailers, politicians and lawmakers.

And just today, the Genetic Literacy Project published an article by Ukrainian-Canadian David Zaruk, railing against the EU’s “precautionary principle” on GMOs and calling for an embracing of “new technology” to prevent widespread hunger and increase food sovereignty.

It goes on and on and on.

…Let’s Not Forget Climate Change, Guys

Of course, it’s not all about the food crisis – giving corporate giants free rein to genetically alter all the food we eat will also be good for the planet. They talk about that a lot recently.

On February 8th this year, the University of Bonn published a new study claiming “Genetic engineering can have a positive effect on the climate”

On February 24th this year, the Cornell-based NGO “Alliance for Science” published an article claiming “GMOs could shrink Europe’s climate footprint”, based on the study mentioned above.

In a response to the Queen’s Speech, the UK’s National Institute of Agriculture and Botany claimed that genetic modification will make farming “more sustainable”.

In a reminder we’re not just talking about crops but genetically engineering livestock as well, in February Deutsche Welle suggested that genetically altered “Climate sheep and eco pigs could combat global heating”.

Three weeks ago, Stuff.NZ asked simply:

Can GM save the planet?”

The narrative is clearly set: Genetically engineered food will save us all from the food crisis, and global warming too. Plus anything else they can think of.

The Knives Are Out for Organics

Not content with the semi-constant fluffing of the GM business, the MSM are also turning their guns on organic farming and giving it both barrels.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Ukraine Crisis Reveals the Folly of Organic Farming: As food prices skyrocket, the world needs to admit it can’t live without modern, efficient agriculture.

The Telegraph blames organic farming policies for “tipping Sri Lanka into bloody chaos”

The “Allliance for Science” article mentioned above goes out of its way to criticise the EU’s pro-organic “farm to fork” plans, claiming “[organic farming] has lower yields and would be associated with increases in global [greenhouse gas] emissions by causing land-use changes elsewhere”.

Meanwhile, Erik Fyrwald, the CEO of the Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta (so possessing somewhat of a conflict of interests), told Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag that the West must “stop organic farming to help future food crisis”, adding that organic farming is worse for the planet, because ploughing up fields releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

We already saw wellness “cults” accused of peddling “anti-vax conspiracy theories” last year, this will easily extend to organic farmers and their customers.

NOTE: In an interesting (again, probably totally accidental) parallel, the currently simmering “Bird Flu outbreak” has also hit organic and free-range farmers hard, with one (sponsored) Guardian article asking if “year-round” bird flu could spell “the end of free-range eggs”.

Conclusion

Having just seen how the Covid19 “vaccine” campaign unfolded, it’s not hard to see how the pro-GM push will go from here. Genome-edited crops and farm animals are going to become the new “settled science”.

They will be sold to the public as cheaper, more nutritious, better for the environment and good for “preventing future pandemics” (yes, they literally did say that already).

Naturally, anyone who resists the push for gene-edited food, and/or mourns the planned death of organic farming, will be accused of “questioning the science”.

Eating British GM foods will be “doing your part” and “helping Ukraine”, while people who want more expensive organic products will be deemed “unpatriotic” or “selfish”.

Just as we saw Covid sceptics denounced as spreading “Russian disinformation”, despite Russia’s willing complicity in the Covid lie, those who argue against genome-edited food will be said to be “sharing Russian talking points” or “doing Putin’s work for him” despite Russia being well onboard the gene-editing train.

It all gets very predictable from there. Organic farmers will probably be “anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Russian spies” by the end of the summer.

…This probably explains why Bill Gates was buying up so much farmland last year, too.

*

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 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

While we are all familiar with Sun Tzu, the Chinese general, military strategist and philosopher who penned the incomparable Art of War, less known is the Strategikon, the Byzantium equivalent on warfare.

Sixth century Byzantium really needed a manual, threatened as it was from the east, successively by Sassanid Persia, Arabs and Turks, and from the north, by waves of steppe invaders, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, semi-nomadic Turkic Pechenegs and Magyars.

Byzantium could not prevail just by following the classic pattern of Roman Empire raw power – they simply didn’t have the means for it.

So military force needed to be subordinate to diplomacy, a less costly means of avoiding or resolving conflict. And here we can make a fascinating connection with today’s Russia, led by President Vladimir Putin and his diplomacy chief Sergei Lavrov.

But when military means became necessary for Byzantium – as in Russia’s Operation Z – it was preferable to use weaponry to contain or punish adversaries, instead of attacking with full force.

Strategic primacy, for Byzantium, more than diplomatic or military, was a psychological affair. The word Strategia itself is derived from the Greek strategos – which does not mean “General” in military terms, as the west believes, but historically corresponds to a managerial politico-military function.

It all starts with si vis pacem para bellum: “If you want peace prepare for war.” Confrontation must develop simultaneously on multiple levels: grand strategy, military strategy, operative, tactical.

But brilliant tactics, excellent operative intel and even massive victories in a larger war theater cannot compensate for a lethal mistake in terms of grand strategy. Just look at the Nazis in WWII.

Those who built up an empire such as the Romans, or maintained one for centuries like the Byzantines, never succeeded without following this logic.

Those clueless Pentagon and CIA ‘experts’

On Operation Z, the Russians revel in total strategic ambiguity, which has the collective west completely discombobulated. The Pentagon does not have the necessary intellectual firepower to out-smart the Russian General Staff. Only a few outliers understand that this is not a war – since the Ukraine Armed Forces have been irretrievably routed – but actually what Russian military and naval expert Andrei Martyanov calls a “combined arms police operation,” a work-in-progress on demilitarization and denazification.

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is even more abysmal in terms of getting everything wrong, as recently demonstrated by its chief Avril Haines during her questioning on Capitol Hill. History shows that the CIA strategically blew it all the way from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq. Ukraine is no different.

Ukraine was never about a military win. What is being accomplished is the slow, painful destruction of the European Union (EU) economy, coupled with extraordinary weapons profits for the western military-industrial complex and creeping security rule by those nations’ political elites.

The latter, in turn, have been totally baffled by Russia’s C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) capabilities, coupled with the stunning inefficiency of their own constellation of Javelins, NLAWs, Stingers and Turkish Bayraktar drones.

This ignorance reaches way beyond tactics and the operational and strategic realm. As Martyanov delightfully points out, they “wouldn’t know what hit them on the modern battlefield with near-peer, forget about peer.”

The caliber of ‘strategic’ advice from the NATO realm was self-evident in the Serpent Island fiasco – a direct order issued by British ‘consultants’ to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valery Zaluzhny, thought the whole thing was suicidal. He was proven right.

All the Russians had to do was launch a few choice anti-ship and surface Onyx missiles from bastions stationed in Crimea on airports south of Odessa. In no time, Serpent Island was back under Russian control – even as high-ranking British and American marine officers ‘disappeared’ during the Ukrainian landing on the island. They were the ‘strategic’ NATO actors on the spot, doling out the lousy advice.

Extra evidence that the Ukraine debacle is predominantly about money laundering – not competent military strategy – is Capitol Hill approving a hefty extra $40 billion in ‘aid’ to Kiev. It’s just another western military-industrial complex bonanza, duly noted by Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev.

Russian forces, meanwhile, have brought diplomacy to the battlefield, handing over 10 tons of humanitarian assistance to the people of liberated Kherson – with the deputy head of the military-civil administration of the region, Kirill Stremousov, announcing that Kherson wants to become part of the Russian Federation.

In parallel, Georgy Muradov, deputy prime minister of the government of Crimea, has “no doubts that the liberated territories of the south of the former Ukraine will become another region of Russia. This, as we assess from our communication with the inhabitants of the region, is the will of the people themselves, most of whom lived for eight years under conditions of repression and bullying by the Ukronazis.”

Denis Pushilin, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, is adamant that the DPR is on the verge of liberating “its territories within constitutional borders,” and then a referendum on joining Russia will take place. When it comes to the Luhansk People’s Republic, the integration process may even come earlier: the only area left to be liberated is the urban region of Lysychansk-Severodonetsk.

The ‘Stalingrad of Donbass’

As much as there’s an energetic debate among the best Russian analysts about the pace of Operation Z, Russian military planning proceeds methodically, as if taking all the time it needs to solidify facts on the ground.

Arguably the best example is the fate of Azov neo-Nazis at Azovstal in Mariupol – the best-equipped unit of the Ukrainians, hands down. In the end, they were totally outmatched by a numerically inferior Russian/Chechen Spetsnaz contingent, and in record time for such a big city.

Another example is the advance on Izyum, in the Kharkov region – a key bridgehead in the frontline. The Russian Ministry of Defense follows the pattern of grinding the enemy while slowly advancing; if they face serious resistance, they stop and smash the Ukrainian defensive lines with non-stop missile and artillery strikes.

Popasnaya in Luhansk, dubbed by many Russian analysts as “Mariupol on steroids”, or “the Stalingrad of Donbass,” is now under total control of the Luhansk People’s Republic, after they managed to breach a de facto fortress with linked underground trenches between most civilian houses. Popasnaya is extremely important strategically, as its capture breaks the first, most powerful line of defense of the Ukrainians in Donbass.

That will probably lead to the next stage, with an offensive on Bakhmut along the H-32 highway. The frontline will be aligned, north to south. Bakhmut will be the key to taking control of the M-03 highway, the main route to Slavyansk from the south.

This is just an illustration of the Russian General Staff applying its trademark, methodical, painstaking strategy, where the main imperative could be defined as a personnel-preserving forward drive. With the added benefit of committing just a fraction of overall Russian firepower.

Russian strategy on the battlefield stands in stark contrast with the EU’s obstinacy in being reduced to the status of an American dog’s lunch, with Brussels leading entire national economies to varying degrees of certified collapse and chaos.

Once again it was up to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov – a diplomatic master – to encapsulate it.

Question: “What do you think of Josep Borrell’s (Lavrov’s EU counterpart) initiative to give Ukraine frozen Russian assets as ‘reparations?’ Can we say that the masks have come off and the west is moving on to open robbery?”

Lavrov: “You could say it is theft, which they are not trying to hide … This is becoming a habit for the west … We may soon see the post of the EU chief diplomat abolished because the EU has virtually no foreign policy of its own and acts entirely in solidarity with the approaches imposed by the United States.”

The EU cannot even come up with a strategy to defend its own economic battlefield – just watching as its energy supply is de facto, incrementally turned off by the US. Here we are at the realm where the US tactically excels: economic/financial blackmail. We can’t call these ‘strategic’ moves because they almost always backfire against US hegemonic interests.

Compare it with Russia reaching its biggest surplus in history, with the rise and rise of commodity prices and the upcoming role of the stronger and stronger ruble as a resource-based currency also backed by gold.

Moscow is spending way less than the NATO contingent in the Ukrainian theater. NATO has already wasted $50 billion – and counting – while the Russians spent $4 billion, give or take, and already conquered Mariupol, Berdyansk, Kherson and Melitopol, created a land corridor to Crimea (and secured its water supply), controls the Sea of Azov and its major port city, and liberated strategically vital Volnovakha and Popasnaya in Donbass, as well as Izyum near Kharkov.

That doesn’t even include Russia hurling the entire, collective west into a level of recession not seen since the 1970s.

The Russian strategic victory, as it stands, is military, economic, and may even coalesce geopolitically. Centuries after the Byzantine Strategikon was penned, the Global South would be very much interested in getting acquainted with the 21st century Russian version of the Art 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.

This article was originally published on The Cradle.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

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

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

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

***

Some service members requesting religious exemptions from vaccine mandates are separated from their families indefinitely, and a subset has also been kicked off base, according to a legal group aiding them and challenging the military mandate in court.

The Army is stalling religious accommodation requests (RARs) from service members seeking exemptions from the military’s sweeping COVID-19 vaccination mandate, leaving objectors in “limbo and frozen in time,” claims religious freedom legal defense organization Liberty Counsel.

“The Army will not process the RARs,” wrote Mat Staver, chairman and founder of the Christian nonprofit. “Instead, it is effectively holding hostage every military member who files an RAR, whether the member is in the states or in a foreign country. The Army hopes the pressure of being separated from family with their careers frozen will force the faithful to bow the knee to Joe Biden.”

Liberty Counsel shared a message April 29 from “Sheldon,” an Army service member who is stuck in South Korea even though his one-year “unaccompanied” tour ended in December.

“I’m being held hostage here, separated from my family, including my 9-month-old daughter who barely knows me because of my pending exemption request,” Sheldon wrote, adding that his wife’s “mental health is deteriorating” under the stress of indefinite separation.

Staver told Just the News his organization was working with about 1,100 service members and does calls every week to gather more stories.

One service member transferring from Hawaii to Florida is stuck without family in Alabama, a required training location before Florida, while an intended East Coast transfer who already sent a car and furniture is stuck in California and can’t live on base, according to Staver.

Army media relations officer Lt. Col. Terry Kelley told Just the News he couldn’t comment on a pseudonymous service member’s case, but wrote in an email he was “unaware of any policy directing unvaccinated Soldiers must reside off base.”

Given the Army’s response, Staver clarified “there is no written policy” but that Liberty Counsel has dealt with several situations where a soldier or couple was verbally ordered to leave the base and given no housing reimbursement, leading some to live out of their cars.

Staver said he would ask service members to provide any written explanations they were given for eviction for Just the News to review.

Kelley also shared Army vaccination rates and exemption request tallies as of May 5. Among 4,302 religious requests, eight have been approved and 927 rejected.

“They’re not denying anybody” the chance to appeal, just sitting on requests to avoid litigation, Staver said. By keeping service members in limbo and putting them on menial details such as “broom closet” work, the Army’s goal is coercing vaccinations, he claimed.

*

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: Pfc. Shaniah Edwards, Medical Detachment, prepares to administer the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to soldiers and airmen at the Joint Force Headquarters, February 12, 2021. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Leona C. Hendrickson – Source.)

The War in Ukraine. Scott Ritter’s Switcheroo: “Why I Radically Changed My Overall Assessment”

By Mike Whitney, May 16, 2022

On Sunday, the foreign policy blogs were abuzz with the news that Scott Ritter had done “an about-face in his assessment of the war”. It appears that the ex-Marine had examined recent developments in Ukraine and concluded that it’s going to be much harder for Russia to win than he had originally thought…

“Preemptive Nuclear War”: The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. A Third World War Threatens the Future of Humanity

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 16, 2022

Although the Ukraine conflict has so-far been limited to conventional weapons coupled with “economic warfare”, the use of a large array of sophisticated WMDs including nuclear weapons is on the drawing board of the Pentagon. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the total number of nuclear warheads Worldwide is of the order of 13,000.  Russia and the United States “each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles”.

Did CIA Train Ukrainian Torturers?

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, May 16, 2022

Western media accuse Russia of perpetrating war crimes in Ukraine and committing human rights violations against civilians and prisoners. However, these same agencies are absolutely silent in the face of the evident practices of torture by Kiev’s agents against their enemies, which, curiously, present several similarities with the already known torture techniques applied by the CIA, according to a recent report by a journalist.

The NATO-Russia Conflict in Ukraine Prevents Progress at the China-EU Summit

By Jan Oberg, May 16, 2022

Since 1949, NATO has promised its taxpayers that they would live in peace. But today’s Europe is closer to catastrophe than ever before. The world-domineering Western paradigm of security politics has come to its end. But more dollars and weapons are pumped into it.

Why Ukraine War Has No Winners

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, May 16, 2022

The US President Joe Biden and Britain’s Boris Johnson vow that they will be satisfied with nothing less than a Russian defeat. The New Europeans — Poland and the Baltic States principally — also demand an apocalyptic end to Russia’s history.

Pfizer Appears to Have Committed Fraud, and If It Can be Proven in Court, Then Pfizer Will be Liable for All Injuries and Deaths Caused by Its COVID Vaccines

By Ethan Huff, May 16, 2022

The so-called “clinical trials” that Pfizer conducted on its messenger RNA (mRNA) Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” appear to have been completely fraudulent, which means the company could one day be held liable for all associated injuries and deaths.

Neoliberalism Coupled with GMO: Farmers’ Struggle Not Over, Corporate Takeover of Indian Agriculture Still Looms

By Colin Todhunter and Ranjit Singh Srai, May 16, 2022

The government’s apparent reluctance to implement the demands of farmers might indicate that the global corporations and financial institutions behind the legislation remain steadfast in seeking to secure what the laws aimed to bring about – the full-scale neoliberal marketisation of India’s agrifood sector, including the displacement of peasant farmers and independent, indigenous enterprises.     

Video: Bill Gates Says Adults Over 50 Will Probably Have to Get COVID Boosters Every 6 Months… Until We Get Better Vaccines

By Cristina Laila, May 16, 2022

Why doesn’t Anderson Cooper ask his own doctor when he should get another booster shot? Bill Gates answered the question as if he’s a doctor: “It’ll be safe every six months…they might even make that shorter for people over 60 or 70… so we’re in for ongoing vaccination to stay absolutely safe.”

A ‘Precision Breeding’ Bill to Fast-track GMO Deregulation in England

By Beyond GM, May 16, 2022

According to the government purpose of the proposed Bill is to remove unnecessary barriers inherited from the EU to enable the development and marketing of precision bred plants and animals, which will drive economic growth and position the UK as the leading country in which to invest in agri-food research and innovation.

Cause to Fear a Remilitarized Japan

By Ra Mason, May 16, 2022

Japan is proposing to double its defense budget to around US$106 billion, or 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP). This move – like recent pledges by Germany to massively increase its military spending in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – brings the country full circle since it was militarily neutered following defeat in the second world war.

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

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

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

***

Never underestimate the potency, and deceptive malice, of the British political mind.  In responding to the threat posed by Imperial Germany during the First World War, the British propaganda campaign made much of the atrocity tale, the nun raping German and the baby bayoneting Hun.  The effectiveness of the campaign was so impressive it sowed doubt amongst a generation about the reliability of war crimes accounts.

In its efforts to try to win US support for its cause against Hitler in World War II, the train of British propaganda again operated with a concerted effect, demonising isolationists and denigrating supporters and members of the America First Committee.  The great hope there was that Britain would fight the Germans to the last American.  It led to one of the largest covert operations in UK history conducted under the auspices of an agency known as “British Security Coordination”.  During the course of its operations, BSC subject matter entered the American political bloodstream, aided by the injecting activities of Walter Winchell, Drew Pearson, a radio station (WRUL) and the Overseas News Agency (ONA).

During the Cold War, the black propagandists were again in high demand.  In 2021, the Observer revealed that the Information Research Department (IRD) had done its bit to egg on the massacres of communists and sympathisers in Indonesia in 1965.  Pamphlets supposedly authored by seething Indonesian patriots but cooked up by the dark musings of the IRD, called for the elimination of the Indonesian communist party, the PKI.  The deaths that followed numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

The IRD, which had, at its height in the mid-1960s, a staff of 360, had a primary purpose: to counter Soviet propaganda and its effects in Britain.  It had its origins in the opening shots of the Cold War, established in 1948 but found itself behind the efforts of various sections of Whitehall already dedicated to the anti-Soviet effort.

Its program was more engaged and more ambitious than previously thought.  “It’s very clear now,” Rory Cormac, an authority on subversion and intelligence history, explained to the Guardian, “that the UK engaged in more black propaganda than historians assume and these efforts were more systemic, ambitious and offensive.  Despite official denials, [this] went far beyond merely exposing Soviet disinformation.”

The effects of propaganda can be perversely insidious.  Allies or friendly nations can be used and abused if the aim is to advance the security of the propagandist.  As Howard Becker laconically puts it in describing the consequences of black propaganda, “truth or falsity, as determined by any standard, is not raised.  Propaganda which achieves its end may be entirely true, it may be entirely false; expedient rationality alone governs the choice of means.”

The IRD shows that, while it was more modest in scale to its US, Soviet and East European counterparts, it could hold its own in terms of inventiveness.  It specialised in creating fake news sources and false statements designed to stir pots of racial tension, create instability, and foster social and political chaos.

A feature of the black propaganda campaign was the forging of statements by official Soviet bodies and entities.  The Soviet-run news agency Novosti was something of a favourite, given the release of 11 fake statements supposedly authored by the body between 1965 and 1972.

In the wake of Israel’s lightning victory during the Six-Day War of 1967, the outfit drafted a number of documents claiming to be authored by disgruntled Muslim organisations sore at defeat and seeking answers.  One did not have to look far for the culprit of godless Communism.  “Why is the Arab nation at this time afflicted by so much sorry and disaster?” asks a statement purportedly issued from the League of Believers, a fictional Islamist organisation.  “Why were the brave forces defeated in the jihad by the evil heathen Zionists?”  The reason: that “we are departing from the right path, we are following the course chosen for us by the communist-atheists for whom religion is a form of social disease.”

Other material focused on existing and influential organisations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.  One pamphlet from the IRD, supposedly issued by the group, takes issue with the quality of Soviet weaponry.  As for the Soviets themselves, they were “filthy-tongued atheists” who had little time for Egyptians, mere “peasants who lived all their lives nursing reactionary superstitions”.

In Africa, propaganda efforts were made to malign the activities of Soviet front organisations such as the World Federation of Democratic Youth.  Nationalist, revolutionary figures were also targeted.  A statement from early 1963, forged by the IRD, has the WFDY falsely accusing Africans of being morally feeble, uncivilised, and “primitive”.  The theme is repeated in another forged statement three years later, and in a fake release by Novosti noting the poor quality of African students enrolled at an international university in Moscow.

These recent revelations do have a certain flavour of told-you-so obviousness, but serve as reminders that the news, however official, reeks when consulted between the lines (and lies).  Cormac reminds us that the current UK foreign secretary, Liz Truss, has her own “government information cell”, a distant echo of the IRD.  It pays to look behind the merits of the next news bulletin, if only to be disillusioned.

*

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]

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

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

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

***

Geopolitical Update: Historic Shifts In Europe’s Balance Of Power As NATO Expands North With Sweden And Finland Joining The Military Alliance  

Sweden’s ruling party dropped the country’s historic military nonalignment on Sunday and agreed to join NATO, shortly after Finland’s leaders officially announced they would do the same.

Media reports from Europe and other places said:

The moves were major steps in ending decades of military neutrality for the two Nordic nations, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continued to dramatically shift security considerations in Europe.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said their accession would be a “turning point for security” in Europe. “Their membership in NATO would increase our shared security, demonstrate that NATO’s door is open, and that aggression does not pay.”

“We arre now facing a fundamentally changed security environment in Europe,” Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said.

Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde said:

While the country’s “200-year-long standing policy of military nonalignment has served Sweden well,” the nation now faced a “fundamental change,” she said. “As a member of NATO, Sweden not only achieves more security, but also contributes to more security.”

Speaking at a news conference earlier in Helsinki alongside Prime Minister Sanna Marin, Finnish President Sauli Niinisto described Sunday as a “historic day.”

Image on the right: Niinistö with US President Joe Biden in the White House in 2022 (Licensed under public domain)

Sweden had been closely coordinating with Helsinki on its decision to join the military alliance.

Once formal requests are submitted, each of NATO’s 30 member nations must approve, a process that could take months or longer.

At the heart of NATO is Article 5, which says that “an armed attack against one or more” members “shall be considered an attack against them all.”

Among Russia’s preinvasion demands was a rollback of NATO’s “open door” policy, under which countries once part of the Soviet Union have joined the alliance. Instead of a rollback, the Russian invasion appears to be producing further expansion, right on Russia’s roughly 800-mile border with Finland.

Both decisions represent a seminal shift in military thinking on the continent.

Finland’s leaders said Thursday that the countries should join NATO without delay, but the formal decision came Sunday after the president and a committee on foreign and security policy finalized a report on Finland’s accession to the alliance. The report will be submitted to Parliament on Monday.

Sweden’s course was also advanced last week, when the ruling party leadership presented a paper exploring the pros and cons of NATO membership. “Finland will maximize its security,” Niinisto said.

“In Finland, we still have the parliamentary process ahead of us,” Marin said, “but I trust the Parliament will debate this historic decision with determination and responsibility.”

The announcements came as NATO foreign ministers and those of Finland, Sweden and Ukraine met in Berlin to discuss the Nordic countries’ path to membership and military assistance to Kyiv.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he was “very confident” that NATO would reach consensus on admitting Sweden and Finland to the military alliance. “I heard almost across the board very strong support” for adding the Nordic countries, he said.

Blinken did not offer a timeline for their accession, noting that the organization has a “process.”

When NATO was formed with the intention of balancing the security threats from the Soviet Union and its allies, Finland and Sweden chose instead to adopt a position of neutrality and nonalignment.

NATO requires unanimity on the approval of new members, and Turkey has expressed skepticism over admitting Finland and Sweden to the alliance. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has criticized the countries as “home to many terrorist organizations.”

The comments — referring mainly to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a militant organization known as the PKK — were seen as a threat by Turkey to veto any NATO expansion.

U.S. officials are hoping to smooth out differences within the alliance, and Blinken spoke to Turkey’s foreign minister on Sunday but said he did not want to “characterize” those discussions.

In response to questions about whether Turkey will block or significantly delay membership for the Nordic countries, Stoltenberg expressed confidence that NATO would move swiftly.

“Turkey has made it clear: Their intention is not to block membership. Therefore, I am confident we’ll be able to address the concerns that Turkey has expressed in a way that doesn’t delay the accession process,” he said, without offering a specific timeline.

Baerbock also said the two countries could join “very quickly” if they made that decision.

“Our doors are more than open, and if their parliaments and their societies are going to decide to join NATO, this will make us even stronger,” she said. Germany is prepared to do everything it can for a “quick ratification process,” she added.

During the Berlin meeting, Blinken also met with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba to discuss military aid for Ukraine and the continuation of food exports to the developing world.

“More weapons and other aid is on the way to Ukraine,” Kuleba tweeted after the meeting. “We agreed to work closely together to ensure that Ukrainian food exports reach consumers in Africa and Asia.”

The State Department said Blinken discussed “details regarding the latest tranche of U.S. security assistance to bolster Ukraine’s defenses” and potential solutions to exporting Ukraine’s grain to international markets. The ongoing fighting in Ukraine, a major food exporter, has been linked to rising food prices and inflation in the developing world.

Putin-Niinisto Talk

Niinisto told Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone about Helsinki’s plans to join NATO, Interfax news agency cited Bloomberg as saying on Saturday.

According to TASS, Putin and Niinisto had a “sincere exchange of views over the announced decision by Finland’s leadership to apply for NATO membership,” the press service of the Kremlin said.

“Putin stressed that rejecting the traditional policy of military neutrality would be wrong since there are no threats to Finland’s security. Such a change in the country’s foreign policy course could have a negative effect on Russia-Finland relations, which have been built over the course of many years in the spirit of neighborliness and partnership cooperation and have a mutually beneficial nature,” the Kremlin noted.

Uncertainty Added To Europe, Say Chinese Analysts

Chinese analysts said that this could add new uncertainty to the security of Europe, but it does not mean there will be new military conflicts in the continent as they believe Russia can solve its concerns with these two countries in political ways, otherwise they will fall into a U.S. trap to further worsen the security situation of Europe.

The U.S. can deploy missile defense systems and other military equipment in the territories of NATO members, to weaken the nuclear deterrence of Russia and maximize the military advantage against Russia, said analysts, noting that this is the fundamental reason why the tensions between Russia and some other European countries cannot be effectively resolved, and also a reason that causes the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

No Stationing Of Nuclear Weapons, NATO Bases On Sweden’s Territory, Says Ruling Party

The ruling Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Sweden supported the country’s entry into NATO with one reservation: the alliance must not station nuclear weapons and permanent bases on the territory of the kingdom. The relevant statement has been posted on the website of this political force.

“The party board has at its meeting on May 15, 2022 decided that the party will work toward Sweden applying for membership in NATO,” the Social Democrats said in a statement.

At the same time Sweden expressed “unilateral reservations against the deployment of nuclear weapons and permanent bases on Swedish territory.”

On May 13, a cross-party parliamentary report was released in the country, which concluded that NATO membership would increase the security level of the kingdom. The debate on this document will be held in Parliament on May 16, on the same day the Swedish government will hold an additional meeting to make a formal decision on the application to join the alliance. According to the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, the kingdom can send documents to Brussels on May 17.

U.S. Ready To Provide Military Support To New NATO Hopefuls

The U.S. is prepared, if needed, to provide Sweden and Finland with military support as these countries await NATO’s response to their membership applications, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby has said.

In a BBC interview which was recorded on Friday and broadcast on Sunday, Kirby said that Russia’s warnings are “clearly concerning.”

“But it is not up to Russia to determine whether Finland and Sweden become NATO allies, it’s up to the people of Finland and the people of Sweden,” the US military spokesman said.

When asked if the U.S. would send troops to defend Finland and Sweden if they were attacked, Kirby first said that he would not want to speculate on a hypothetical scenario but nevertheless gave a detailed response.

“If in the period of their application to NATO and their accession to NATO they would need some additional capabilities or support … we will be able to provide some additional support if needed,” he said.

NATO Confident Of Overcoming Turkey’s Objections

NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana has said he is sure the organisation will be able to overcome Turkey’s objections to Finland and Sweden becoming new members.

“Turkey is an important ally and expressed concerns that are addressed between friends and allies,” Geoana told reporters during an informal NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Berlin on Sunday.

“I am confident if these countries [Finland and Sweden] decide to seek membership in NATO we will be able to welcome them, to find all conditions for consensus to be met,” he added.

Finland and Sweden stayed out of NATO during the Cold War.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told reporters at the meeting that Berlin “has prepared everything to do a quick ratification process” of the Finnish and Swedish bids, adding that NATO ministers agreed that the process, which usually takes a year, should be accelerated.

However, those plans could be derailed by Turkey’s opposition to Finland and Sweden’s membership.

On Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan slammed the two Nordic nations as “guesthouses for terrorist organizations,” referring the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front (DHKP/C), which have been outlawed in Turkey. “At this point, it is not possible for us to have a positive approach” to their bids, he said.

Erdogan’s top adviser Ibrahim Kalin clarified to Reuters on Saturday that Ankara was “not closing the door” for Helsinki and Stockholm, but was “basically raising this issue as a matter of national security for Turkey.”

Ukraine Can Defeat Russia, Says NATO Sec. Gen.

Ukraine can score a victory in its fight against Russian forces, as the situation on the battleground is not developing according to Moscow’s plans, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg claimed on Sunday.

Speaking to the reporters after informal meetings of the military bloc’s foreign ministers, Stoltenberg revealed that the main topics of the discussions were “strong support for Ukraine, the further strengthening of NATO’s deterrence and defense, and the longer-term implications of the war,” including the alliance’s future stance towards Russia.

“Russia’s war in Ukraine is not going as Moscow had planned. They failed to take Kiev. They are pulling back from around Kharkiv, their major offensive in the Donbass has stalled. Russia is not achieving its strategic objectives,” Stoltenberg said.

He added that, contrary to the alleged wishes of the Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine continues its fight, “NATO is stronger than ever” and the US and Europe are “solidly united.”

“Ukraine can win this war. Ukrainians are bravely defending their homeland,” the NATO SG said, adding that weapons supplies and other support from its backers are “making a real difference on the battlefield.”

Therefore, Stoltenberg argued, the bloc should continue supporting Ukraine.

The SG revealed that the June NATO summit in Madrid will see members making “important decisions,” including measures aimed at reinforcing the bloc’s deterrence posture.

No Capitulation 

Russia insists that it is fulfilling all its objectives in Ukraine and will not turn off its intended path. During a TV broadcast on Saturday, the Russian Ambassador in the U.S. said there would be no “capitulation.”

“We will never give up, we will not step back,” he claimed.

Earlier this month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the Russian “military operation” in Ukraine was going “according to plan.”

Moscow has consistently warned the West against “pumping up” Ukraine with weapons, claiming that it would only lead to prolongation of the conflict and create long-term problems. It has also stressed that any foreign weapons on Ukrainian territory would be considered as legitimate targets.

EU Candidate Serbia Accuses West Of Hypocrisy

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has said his “guts turn” when he hears Western countries talk about their respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while simultaneously insisting on the independence of the Serbian breakaway region of Kosovo.

During a Sunday broadcast on Prva TV, Vucic claimed there were no principles in modern international politics and accused the West of double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to the Ukraine and Kosovo conflicts. Serbia is a candidate for EU membership.

Belgrade does not recognize Kosovo’s 2008 self-declaration of independence and considers the territory to be a Serbian province. Nearly 100 countries, including the U.S. – but not Russia – have recognized the independence of the region.

“My guts turn when I hear about the principles and respect for territorial integrity. They (the Western countries) ask us to respect someone’s integrity, and what about ours?” said Vucic.

As the G7 pledged that it would never accept the violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the Serbian government will continue to insist on the same principle for its own country, Vucic argued.

“For Serbia to give up its integrity, it can only happen with a gun to the forehead, and not to us but to our children,” he stressed.

The Serbian leader also questioned why, if Russia is really committing terrible crimes in Ukraine, NATO is not bombing it as it did in former Yugoslavia in 1999.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last month that Moscow’s move to recognize the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Lugansk was based on the Kosovo precedent.

Belgrade has taken a neutral stance in relation to the conflict, with Vucic vowing to punish Serbs if they attempt to fight on either side.

Serbia Will Fight Sanctions Pressure

Despite suffering “enormous damage,” Serbia will fight to maintain its policy of not joining the Western sanctions introduced against Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine, its president has insisted.

“We have lasted eighty days” without restricting Russia and “the price we pay is huge,” Alexander Vucic told local broadcaster Prva on Sunday. Serbia lacks access to the capital market and can’t service its foreign loans, which affects the well-being of the population, he complained.

“They say: ‘Vucic is announcing the introduction of Russian sanctions.’ No, we will fight as long as we can. We suffered enormous damage, but we aren’t looking for ‘a thank you’,” the president insisted.

Serbia is acting this way because it is “a sovereign and independent country” that is well aware of “how unfair and unnecessary” the sanctions are, he said.

The issue of restrictions against Moscow is also closely linked to the supply of Russian gas and oil, on which Serbia is entirely dependent, Vucic said, expressing hope that Belgrade will be able to agree a “good price” on energy at the upcoming talks between the sides.

Last month, the Serbian president claimed that he was blackmailed into placing restrictions on his country’s ally Russia, with Belgrade being threatened with energy sanctions of its own if it refused.

Zelensky Bans Ukrainian Opposition Parties

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday signed into law a bill establishing a mechanism to outlaw political parties, who oppose his policies on western integration. The legislation is aimed at political parties deemed to be engaging into “anti-Ukrainian” activities.

The list of wrongdoings which can be used as a pretext to ban a faction suggests that challenging the official position of the Ukrainian authorities on the ongoing conflict with Moscow can lead to a ban.

Specifically, it outlaws denial of the “aggression against Ukraine,” calling it an internal conflict, a civil war and so on. Any positive remarks about those deemed to be perpetrating “aggression” are prohibited as well, including referring to the forces of the breakaway Donetsk as Lugansk republics as “insurgents.”

The new legislation also outlines a simplified procedure to ban a political party. It now requires a court ruling, with all related cases – including pending ones – transferred to a court in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv for as long as the country is under martial law. A ruling on such cases is final and cannot be appealed.

In March, Ukraine’s national Security Council suspended multiple political parties it deemed to be “pro-Russian.” The list included assorted minor, primarily left-wing parties, as well as Ukraine’s second-largest group ‘Opposition Platform – For Life’, led by Viktor Medvedchuk, a businessman with alleged ties to Russia. Having previously been placed under house arrest, in April of last year the politician ended up in custody of the country’s security services.

His initial incarceration came after his faction passed out Zelensky’s Servant of the People in terms of popularity, according to polling.

Pentagon Chief And Ukraine’s counterpart Talk About Phone Call With Russian Defense Minister

Pentagon Chief Lloyd Austin told Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexei Reznikov in a phone conversation on Sunday about his conversation with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu on May 13, US Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said in a written statement following the talks.

According to him, Austin and Reznikov discussed the situation in Ukraine and the needs of Kiev in armaments.

“Secretary Austin provided an update on his May 13th phone call with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu in which he urged an immediate end to the conflict in Ukraine and emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication. Secretary Austin reiterated the unwavering U.S. support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and security assistance efforts to bolster Ukraine’s capacity to counter Russian aggression. The leaders pledged to remain in close contact,” Kirby said.

Oil Prices Drop On Profit-Taking, Supply Fears Linger

A Reuters report from Tokyo said:

Oil prices slipped on Monday, giving up earlier gains as investors took profits after a surge in the previous session, but global supply fears loomed with the European Union preparing to phase in a ban on imports from Russia.

Brent crude futures were down 64 cents, or 0.6%, at $110.91 a barrel at 0137 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures dropped 60 cents, or 0.5%, to $109.89 a barrel.

Both benchmarks, which jumped about 4% last Friday, earlier increased by more than $1 a barrel, with WTI reaching its highest since March 28 of $111.71.

“Oil markets are expected to gain this week as a pending ban by the European Union on Russian oil will further tighten global supplies of crude and fuels,” said Kazuhiko Saito, chief analyst at Fujitomi Securities Co Ltd.

The EU still aims to agree a phased embargo on Russia oil this month despite concerns about supply in eastern Europe, four diplomats and officials said on Friday, rejecting suggestions of a delay or watering down proposals.

Last week, Moscow slapped sanctions on several European energy companies, causing worries about supplies.

U.S. Gasoline Futures Set A Fresh All-Time High The Reuters report added:

Meanwhile, U.S. gasoline futures set a fresh all-time high again on Monday as falling stockpiles fuelled supply concerns.

“Oil prices remained bullish, especially WTI’s near-term contract, as U.S. gasoline prices continued to rise amid weaker imports of petroleum products from Europe,” Fujitomi Securities’ Saito said.

On the supply side, U.S. energy firms in the week to May 13 added oil and natural gas rigs for an eighth week in a row as high prices and prodding by the federal government prompted drillers to return to the wellpad.

Elsewhere OPEC+ – the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allies including Russia – has been undershooting previously agreed plans for output increases due to under-investment in oilfields in some OPEC members and, more recently, losses in Russian output.

The latest monthly report from OPEC showed its output in April rose by 153,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 28.65 million bpd, lagging the 254,000 bpd rise that OPEC is allowed under the OPEC+ deal.

Saudi Aramco Net Profit Soars 82% In Q1 On High Oil Prices

Another Reuters report from Dubai said:

State-owned oil producer Saudi Aramco on Sunday reported an almost 82% rise in first-quarter net profit, broadly in line with analyst forecasts, helped by strong oil prices.

Aramco, which is at par with Apple Inc as the world’s most valuable company, reported a net income of $39.5 billion for the quarter to March 31 from $21.7 billion a year earlier.

The world’s top oil exporter was forecast to post a net income of $38.5 billion, according to a median estimate from 12 analysts provided by the company.

Aramco, which listed in 2019 with the sale of a 1.7% stake mainly to the Saudi public and regional institutions, said its earnings were the highest in any quarter since it went public, boosted by crude prices, volumes sold and improved downstream margins.

The Reuters report said:

Earnings by global energy companies such as BP and Shell have risen to their highest in at least a decade on the back of rising commodities prices, even as many of them incur mostly write-downs from exiting Russia.

Brent crude prices ended the first quarter up almost 70% to $107.91 a barrel from end of March 2021.

OPEC+ agreed this month to another modest increase in its monthly oil output target, arguing it could not be blamed for disruptions to Russian supply that have driven up prices. It also said China’s coronavirus lockdowns was threatening the outlook for demand.

“Our view is Brent will end up lower in the second half of the year and so we are expecting (Aramco) earnings to pull back and for the second quarter to be a peak,” said Yousef Husseini, associate director for equity research at EFG Hermes.

The company declared a dividend of $18.8 billion to be paid in the second quarter, in line with market expectations, and approved the distribution of one bonus share for every 10 shares held in the company.

Aramco said it saw improved downstream margins in the first quarter and is looking to develop opportunities in the downstream sector.

“During the first quarter, our strategic downstream expansion progressed further in both Asia and Europe, and we continue to develop opportunities that complement our growth objectives,” Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said in a statement.

Shares of the company have risen 37% since the start of the year, outperforming the Saudi index which is up nearly 14%.

German Industry Issues Warning Over Impact Of Cutting Russian Gas Deliveries

Media reports from Germany said:

The cessation of Russian gas deliveries would have a catastrophic effect on the German economy, according to Siegfried Russwurm, president of the country’s biggest industry association BDI.

“The consequences of cutting off Russian gas supplies would be catastrophic,” he told tabloid Bild am Sonntag in an interview published on Saturday evening.

Russwurm added that such a step would deprive the country’s businesses of the fuel, forcing them to shut down production lines.

“A host of companies in this case would be completely cut off from gas supplies,” he said. “In many cases, the affected firms will be forced to stop production, some enterprises may never be able to start it again.”

Berlin believes Russia may stop gas supplies over sanctions imposed on Moscow and the supply of weapons by Germany to Ukraine. Earlier this week, German vice-chancellor and economy minister, Robert Habeck, said the country was not yet ready for a total embargo on Russian gas.

On Wednesday, Russia imposed sanctions on Gazprom’s European subsidiaries including Gazprom Germania, an energy trading, storage and transmission business that Germany placed under trusteeship last month to secure supplies. The sanctions list also includes Gazprom Schweiz AG, Gazprom Marketing & Trading USA, Vemex, Wingas, and EuRoPol GAZ.

Earlier, Ukraine suspended the flow of Russian natural gas to Europe, while blaming Moscow for the disruption. Russian gas had previously been flowing uninterrupted through pipelines across Ukraine despite tensions between the two countries.

Egypt Assesses Impact Of Ukraine-Related Crisis

Egypt’s economy has sustained losses of up to 130 billion Egyptian pounds ($7 billion) amid the Ukrainian crisis, according to the country’s Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouly.

“The aftermath of the war has placed a huge financial burden on us and we have invested 130 billion pounds to cover rising prices for strategic goods,” Madbouly said on Sunday, pointing out that the indirect consequences of the events in Ukraine are estimated at another over $18 billion.

According to the PM, the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine has sent prices for vital produce soaring, having posed enormous challenges to the Egyptian economy.

“In May 2021, the price of a barrel of oil was $67, now it has reached $112, while a ton of wheat cost $270 a year ago, now we pay for the same volumes based on a price of $435 per ton,” Madbouly explained.

“Previously, we had imported 42% of grain, while 31% of tourists were from Russia and Ukraine, and now we have to look for alternative markets.”

The PM also said that Egypt had managed to restore tourism after the Covid-19 pandemic and “achieve budget profitability of $5.8 billion ahead of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.”

He added that despite Covid-related crisis and turmoil in the movement of world trade, the nation saw an unprecedented increase in income from the Suez Canal.

Egypt’s unemployment rate dropped to 7.2% in January-March, down from 7.4% in the previous quarter, the state statistics agency CAPMAS said on Sunday.

The agency also reported that Egypt’s annual inflation rate surged to 14.9% in April, significantly higher than the previous month’s 12.1%.

In March, Egypt’s Central Bank raised its key interest rate for the first time since 2017, citing inflationary pressures triggered by the coronavirus pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which hiked oil prices to record highs.

Germany Warns Of Brutal Global Hunger

Skyrocketing food prices worldwide are the result of Russia pursuing a hybrid war strategy, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock claimed on Saturday following a G7 meeting.

However, Moscow immediately hit back by blaming Western sanctions for the spike.

“Russia made a conscious decision to turn the war against Ukraine into a ‘grain war,’” the German minister insisted. This, she alleged, is now affecting a wide range of states, especially those in Africa.

”There is a threat of brutal hunger,” she said.

“We must not be naive about this,” Baerbock warned. “It’s not collateral damage, it’s a perfectly deliberate instrument in a hybrid war that is currently being waged.”

She said the countries of the G7 wanted to look for alternative ways of delivering grain from Ukraine to the world.

Earlier in the week, the US State Department tweeted: “While Ukraine used to export up to five million tons of grain per month, shipments have all but stopped due to the Kremlin’s blockade of Ukrainian ports.” Washington claimed that such actions put “millions at risk of famine.”

Ukraine is currently unable to export about 90 million tons of agricultural products, as Russia has blocked Ukrainian ports, its Prime Minister Denys Shmygal told local media. The country produces a significant share of world food – about 27% of its sunflower seeds, 5% of its barley, 3% of its wheat and rapeseed, and 2% of its corn.

Russia is the largest exporter of wheat in the world. Although it has the ability to export grain, it also faces problems due to sanctions and its own requirements.

Russia’s Response To German Accusation

Responding to the German foreign minister’s comments, Moscow accused the West of causing the spike in food prices.

“Prices are rising due to sanctions imposed by the collective West under pressure from the United States. This is if we talk about the direct reason. Failure to understand this is a sign of either stupidity or deliberate misleading of the public,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote in her Telegram channel.

According to the diplomat, the threat to Ukraine’s statehood is also the work of the West. “Ms. Baerbock’s predecessors are also involved in it, who not only interfered in the situation in this country, but modeled Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy in manual mode,” she wrote.

*

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 http://nousnatobases.org

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

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

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

***

This article was first published in April 2022.

The first public hearings on the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” are closed, with the next round due to start in mid-June.

We’ve been trying to keep this issue on our front page, entirely because the mainstream is so keen to ignore it and keep churning out partisan war porn and propaganda.

When we – and others – linked to the public submissions page, there was such a response that the WHO’s website actually briefly crashed, or they pretended it crashed so people would stop sending them letters.

Either way, it’s a win. Hopefully one we can replicate in the summer.

Until then, the signs are that what scant press coverage there is, mostly across the metaphorical back-pages of the internet, will be focused on making the treaty “strong enough” and ensuring national governments can be “held accountable”.

An article in the UK’s Telegraph from April 12th headlines:

Real risk a pandemic treaty could be ‘too watered down’ to stop new outbreaks

It focuses on a report from the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC), and quotes one of the report’s authors Dame Barbara Stocking:

Our biggest fear […] is it’s too easy to think that accountability doesn’t matter. To have a treaty that does not have compliance in it, well frankly then there’s no point in having a treaty,”

The GPHC report goes on to say that the current International Health Regulations are “too weak”, and calls for the creation of a new “independent” international body to “assess government preparedness” and “publicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements”.

Another article, published by the London School of Economics and co-written by members of the German Alliance on Climate Change and Health (KLUG), also pushes the idea of “accountability” and “compliance” pretty hard:

For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance.

It also echoes the UN report from May 2021 in calling for more powers for the WHO:

In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.

It recommends the involvement of “non-state actors” such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and International Labour Organisation in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of “health emergencies” [emphasis added]:

In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.

It doesn’t stop there, however. They also raise the question of countries being punished for “non-compliance”:

[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

To translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English:

• If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.
• If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

In combination, these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible “disease outbreaks”. Far from preventing “future pandemics”, they would actively encourage them.

National governments who refuse to play ball being punished, and those who play along getting paid off is not new. We have already seen that with Covid.

Two African countries – Burundi and Tanzania – had Presidents who banned the WHO from their borders, and refused to go along with the Pandemic narrative. Both Presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new Presidents who instantly reversed their predecessor’s covid policies.

Less than a week after the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, the IMF agreed to forgive almost 25 million dollars of Burundi’s national debt in order to help combat the Covid19 “crisis”.

Just five months after the death of President John Magufuli, the new government of Tanzania received 600 million dollars from the IMF to “address the covid19 pandemic”.

It’s pretty clear what happened here, isn’t it?

Globalists backed coups and rewarded the perpetrators with “international aid”. The proposals for the Pandemic treaty would simply legitimise this process, moving it from covert back channels to overtofficial ones.

Now, before we discuss the implications of new powers, let’s remind ourselves of the power the WHO already possesses:

• The World Health Organization is the only institution in the world empowered to declare a “pandemic” or Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
• The Director-General of the WHO – an unelected position – is the only individual who controls that power.

We have already seen the WHO abuse these powers in order to create a fake pandemic out of thin air…and I’m not talking about covid.

Prior to 2008, the WHO could only declare an influenza pandemic if there were “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” AND there was a new and distinct subtype. In 2008 the WHO loosened the definition of “influenza pandemic” to remove these two conditions.

As a 2010 letter to the British Medical Journal pointed out, these changes meant “many seasonal flu viruses could be classified as pandemic influenza.”

If the WHO had not made those changes, the 2009 “Swine flu” outbreak could never have been called a pandemic, and would likely have passed without notice.

Instead, dozens of countries spent millions upon millions of dollars on swine flu vaccines they did not need and did not work, to fight a “pandemic” that resulted in fewer than 20,000 deaths. Many of those responsible for advising the WHO to declare swine flu a public health emergency were later shown to have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.

Despite this historical example of blatant corruption, one proposed clause of the Pandemic Treaty would make it even easier to declare a PHEIC. According to the May 2021 report “Covid19: Make it the Last Pandemic” [emphasis added]:

Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted

Yes, the proposed treaty could allow the DG of the WHO to declare a state of global emergency to prevent a potential pandemic, not in response to one. A kind of pandemic pre-crime.

If you combine this with the proposed “financial aid” for developing nations reporting “potential health emergencies”, you can see what they’re building – essentially bribing third world governments to give the WHO a pretext for declaring a state of emergency.

We already know the other key points likely to be included in a pandemic treaty. They will almost certainly try to introduce international vaccine passports, and pour funding into big Pharma’s pockets to produce “vaccines” ever faster and with even less safety testing.

But all of that could pale in comparison to the legal powers potentially being handed to the director-general of the WHO (or whatever new “independent” body they may decide to create) to punish, rebuke or reward national governments.

A “Pandemic Treaty” that overrides or overrules national or local governments would hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria.

This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.

*

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 Adobe Stock

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

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

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

***

This was first published in August 2021.

If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent.

None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these steps does not exist in the medical literature.

Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fraud.

The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fraud.

From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolation. You will hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:

1. There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.
2. Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.

If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?

Finally, questioning these virology techniques and conclusions is not some distraction or divisive issue. Shining the light on this truth is essential to stop this terrible fraud that humanity is confronting.

For, as we now know, if the virus has never been isolated, sequenced or shown to cause illness, if the virus is imaginary, then why are we wearing masks, social distancing and putting the whole world into prison?

Finally, if pathogenic viruses don’t exist, then what is going into those injectable devices erroneously called “vaccines,” and what is their purpose? This scientific question is the most urgent and relevant one of our time.

We are correct. The SARS-CoV2 virus does not exist.

Sally Fallon Morell, MA

Dr. Thomas Cowan, MD

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD

*

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 Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, KenyaJuliah Khayeli Akhwale et al, PLOS One, Published: April 25, 2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734 — accessed 2/15/21

² “Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential Link Between Death and Regeneration,” Maojiao Li1 et al, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020 October 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.573511/full — accessed 2/15/21

³ “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses,” Flavia Giannessi, et al, Viruses, 2020 May

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

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

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

***

While elite control over human societies started to gather pace with the Neolithic revolution 12,000 years ago, it was rapidly accelerated with the dawn of human civilization 7,000 years later. Since that time, ‘ordinary’ human beings like you and me have fought an unending sequence of battles to defend ourselves against these ongoing efforts by elites to kill or control us and capture the bulk of Earth’s resources for their own use.

We have had to fight off elites in a vast range of contexts: Pharaohs and Emperors politically, the Popes and other Vatican officials religiously, the City of London Corporation and other financial elites economically, monarchs and political elites nationally, and now a Global Elite that exercises enormous control technologically, economically, politically, militarily and otherwise over the entire world. For a fuller explanation of this point, see ‘Why Activists Fail’.

But there is a profound difference between all of the battles in earlier eras and the one we are in now.

If we lose this battle, there will be no subsequent battle.

The Long War against humanity will have been lost, once and for all.

Why? Because this battle is for everything that it means to be human – human identity, human freedom, human rights, privacy, dignity, free will and anything else that makes life worth living – and for control of the Earth and all its resources.

And while it is true that no human has any of these elements in anything like its entirety – who would claim to be fully ‘free’ in this world? – and many humans still lack all of these elements in any meaningful form, it is nevertheless true that the totalitarian nature of the program being imposed on us will transform the very concept of ‘human’ in a way that has only been conceived in the past 100 years or so and not previously attempted. Moreover, if successful, any ‘free will’ that humans might still possess will be utterly eliminated.

How is this Happening? The Deep Level

Despite the unending efforts of those people aware enough to perceive the true depth of this conflict, elites have been able to use a long series of techniques to ensure that the vast bulk of ‘ordinary’ people either do not perceive the conflict or waste their dissent by expressing it within frameworks designed and controlled by elites for that precise purpose. By doing this, it appears that dissent is ‘allowed’ and valued when, in fact, it is simply dissipated.

Thus, one key way in which elites have been able to subdue effective resistance is to convince us to believe in the delusion of ‘democracy’: to make us believe the twin delusions that we actually make choices about who will govern us and that those we elect will then represent us.

See ‘Killing Democracy Once and for All: The Global Elite’s Coup d’état That Is Destroying Life as We Know It’.

A second way in which elites have been able to distract us from where the real power in society lies is by convincing us that we have ‘legal recourse’ against injustice, including against elites who kill and exploit us. See

‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

A third way in which elites retain control over societies is by designing compulsory education systems that ensure that whatever unique emotional, intellectual, sensory and physical potential a child has at birth is either utterly eliminated within a few years of that birth or channeled to serve elite will.

See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

And, of course, elites control populations by using extensive propaganda – marketed variously as ‘education’, ‘entertainment’ and ‘news’ – to ensure the passive submission of the bulk of the population to elite directives.

In short, an unending sequence of violence – ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ – is used to terrorize the individual throughout childhood and adolescence into submissive obedience. This violence ensures that only a rare individual survives with any sense of ‘Self’, with the capacity to critique society and resist violence and exploitation strategically. See

‘Why Violence?’ and

‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

So here we are in 2022, deeply engaged in the final battle to defend humanity, with most of the population unaware of what is happening and the bulk of those who are aware dissipating their dissent through elite-controlled channels.

Hence, as the World Economic Forum puts it so clearly in one of its promotional videos: By 2030, ‘You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.’

See ‘8 predictions for the world in 2030’.

And that could well become true for the simple reason that key measures of the transformation taking place are shifting wealth from those with less to those who will shortly own everything, including you, as Dr Joseph Mercola points out – see ‘Who Will Eventually Own Everything, Including You?’ – and the technologies that will destroy your volition will also remove any concept of happiness.

In short, a transhuman slave needs nothing and experiences only those emotions that are programmed. A transhuman slave, whether as worker, soldier or consumer, will simply perform its programmed tasks until it is no longer functional and is ‘decommissioned’.

A human being without free will cannot resist because they do not know that they are enslaved.

How is this Happening? The Superficial Level

Well, under cover of a ‘virus’ that has never been isolated (and hence proven to exist) – see ‘COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed!’, ‘Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)’ and

‘187 health/science institutions globally all failed to cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever’ – the Global Elite has been implementing its final ‘kill and control’ agenda via the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ which details changes to some 200 areas of human life. See ‘The Great Reset’. As a matter of interest, do you remember being consulted about whether, for example, you would prefer to eat laboratory-grown ‘meat’ and insects rather than real food?

In fact, this ‘Great Reset’ is a long-planned and complex series of actions designed to kill off a substantial proportion of the human population and leave those left alive as transhuman slaves in a technocratic world. For some detail, see

‘The Global Elite’s “Kill and Control” Agenda: Destroying Our Food Security’ and

‘Sleepwalking into Hell: The Global Elite’s Technological Coup d’état Against Humanity’.

Every day, while most people content themselves with trying to get on with living some version of the life that they experienced prior to 2020, another detail is mapped out and another measure is taken by compliant politicians in one or more countries around the world to destroy everything we have ever known. And the noose is ever-tightening.

Let me offer you just a taste of what else is happening, beyond what is ordinarily discussed as part of the ‘Great Reset’, as elements of the Global Elite’s agenda, about which you are not being consulted or even given thoughtful critiques to consider in government and corporate media.

The World Health Organization: International Health Regulations & the Pandemic Treaty

The World  Health Organization continues to promote its initiative to create a ‘Pandemic Treaty’. Using wonderful-sounding words such as ‘to build a more robust global health architecture that will protect future generations’, the Treaty sounds like something we have all been dreaming about. See

‘Global leaders unite in urgent call for international pandemic treaty’.

But like all elite initiatives of this nature, the devil is in the detail and, often enough, hidden in plain sight. Rather than offer a detailed critique here, you can consider several fine critiques by thoughtful scholars in the following articles or videos:

• James Roguski: ‘These proposed amendments will cede additional sovereignty, control and legal authority over to the World Health Organization.’ See ‘WAKE UP and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution’.

• Kit Knightly: The ‘Pandemic Treaty’ would ‘hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria. This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.’ See ‘“Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government’.
• Tessa Lena: ‘the proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty… can potentially eradicate national sovereignty as we know it’. See ‘WHO Pandemic Treaty and the Banality of Evil’.
• Dr Joseph Mercola: ‘Make no mistake, the WHO pandemic treaty is a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.’ See ‘The WHO Pandemic Treaty. A Backdoor to Global Governance: “Stripping Away Individual Rights and Liberties”’.
• Professor Anthony J. Hall: ‘The creation of such a treaty would strip away jurisdiction from national, state, and provincial governments. Elected governments would cede away the right to formulate local health care policies through democratic means in the public interest.’ See ‘“Financial Reset” and Economic Warfare against Humanity: How Global Relations Should Be Restructured to Ensure National Sovereignty’.

But it would be unwise to ascribe too much significance to these latest, ongoing encroachments on national sovereignty. As explained above, the Global Elite has long exercised control over national governments (as well as international organizations) and the ongoing formalization of this process through the various measures outlined immediately above are simply the latest (health) details in this long-standing process.

Consequently, rather than focusing our resistance on these latest details by, yet again, falling for the trap of lobbying elite agents, as suggested by organizations such as the World Council for Health – see ‘#StopTheWHO: How You Can Take a Stand Against International Health Regulation Amendments’ – it is superior strategy to focus our resistance on the entire elite agenda by undermining elite power at its source.

World Government Summit

The World Government Summit was held in Dubai on 29-30 March 2022. See ‘World Government Summit 2022’. The event was sponsored and hosted by the United Arab Emirates, that bastion of ruthless dictatorship and human rights abuses – see ‘United Arab Emirates 2021’ – and brought together ‘thought leaders, global experts and decision makers from around the globe to share and contribute to the development of tools, policies, and models that are essential in shaping future governments.’ See ‘World Government Summit 2022’.

Klaus Schwab at the 2022 World Government Summit (Source: The Last American Vagabond)

‘The World Government Summit community is an opportunity for thought-leaders from the public and private sectors to join forces with world-renowned experts to design a better life for citizens across the world. Through Memberships and Partnerships, the Summit brings together change makers to shape a better future for humanity.’ See ‘World Government Summit: Community’.

It is reassuring to know that the WGS felt that the views of constituencies of ‘ordinary’ people – women, indigenous peoples, working people, the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, farmers, non-white peoples, religious people… – were not required and that the ‘world renowned experts’ were quite capable of designing ‘a better life for citizens across the world’ without even consulting us. Surely, after all, these high profile people fully understand the daily struggles of those who battle to survive, have a different worldview or are just simply not white, wealthy and ‘well-connected’.

In any case, as the host country’s long record reminds us, human rights are to be eviscerated in the world that is now being introduced, which is why those attending the Summit were obviously very supportive of the UAE’s ruthless approach to human rights.

As Derrick Broze noted in his thoughtful critique of this gathering: ‘Anyone with a functioning brain should… pay attention to this little known gathering of globalist Technocrats… [who] imagine a world where the tyrannical technological systems are invisible and the average person has zero recourse for preventing exclusion or punishment based on their social credit score.’ See ‘While You Were Distracted by Will Smith, the International Elitists Met at The World Government Summit’.

The Great Narrative

The Great Narrative was a forum sponsored by the World Economic Forum from 10-13 November 2021. According to the WEF: It was ‘a collaborative effort of the world’s leading thinkers to fashion longer-term perspectives and co-create a narrative that can help guide the creation of a more resilient, inclusive and sustainable vision for our collective future.’ The gathering involved ‘Top thinkers from a variety of geographies and disciplines – including futurists, scientists and philosophers – [to] contribute fresh ideas for the future.’

See ‘The Great Narrative’.

Again, perhaps like me, you find it difficult to identify with the people at this gathering. I wonder if they could see things from your perspective? Or mine?

The good news is that Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, authors of the original book on Covid-19: The Great Reset, also wrote a book about The Great Narrative: For a Better Future. So at least you can read what they are doing to you and plan to do to you. As long as you can read between the lines.

But, again, Derrick Broze has been kind enough to offer a thoughtful critique:

Authoritarians use great narratives to legitimize their own power, and they do this by claiming to have knowledge and understanding that speaks to a universal truth…. With this understanding, the WEF’s call for a ‘Great Narrative’ should be seen for what it truly is – an attempt to displace all other visions of the future of humankind by placing the WEF and their partners at the heart of a narrative which paints them as the heroes of our time. This fits perfectly with the Technocratic philosophy employed by WEF founder Klaus Schwab. He envisions a future where ‘public-private partnerships’ of government and private business and so-called philanthropies use their wealth, influence, and power to design the future they believe is best for humanity. In actuality, the Technocrat philosophy merges with a Transhumanist mindset that sees humanity as limited, flawed, and in need of augmentation by technology in order to accelerate what Schwab calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution…. Of course, for Schwab and other globalists, the 4IR also lends itself towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out of society via social credit scores. See ‘The Great Narrative and The Metaverse, Part 1: A Dystopian Vision of the Future’.

Sound like the sort of world that will be good for you?

Defeating the Global Elite’s Agenda

As you ponder the enormity of this elite project, I hope it will encourage you to deeply consider what meaningful resistance in this context will entail. We cannot succeed if we beg elite agents, including politicians, to fix it for us. In the last 18 months, five presidents who resisted the elite-driven narrative have been assassinated to remind us of that.

A Global Elite that is criminally insane – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ – is dealing with us ruthlessly and comprehensively.

So resisting it effectively and, ultimately, defeating its agenda, will require focused, strategic action that undermines the power of the Elite to implement its plan.

If you are interested in being part of this strategy, you can read how to do so on the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ website which offers further analysis, resources and a list of 29 strategic goals for doing so.

This includes campaigning to cause all sectors of society to refuse to develop and make available, or to purchase/use, technologies associated with the fourth industrial revolution and transhumanism (including 5G and 6G, military weapons, artificial intelligence [AI], big data, nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things [IoT], and quantum computing) because these technologies will subvert human identity, human freedom, human dignity, human volition and/or human privacy.

See ‘Strategic Goals related to resisting the fourth industrial revolution and/or transhumanism’.

Beyond this it involves engaging with frontline personnel – ranging from police, the military (as well as veterans) and firefighters to healthcare professionals as well as emergency call-takers – to not enforce elite directives that are being implemented by governments. For just a few examples of frontline worker organizations already resisting part or all of the elite program,

see Police for Freedom, Global Veterans Alliance, World Doctors Alliance, Operation Freedom of Choice, Australian Firefighters Alliance and Bravest For Choice.

In addition and more simply, you can download a one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 15 languages (Czech, Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish & Slovak) with more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here:

‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’.

Notably, these latter actions avoid certain problems. Because they involve actions by people dispersed throughout the population, rather than people concentrated in one location (as with rallies), they are extremely difficult to interrupt. Hence, they virtually eliminate the risk of violent repression.

If strategically resisting the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram group (with a link available from the website).

Conclusion

The insane Global Elite has launched the final stage of a long-planned program to kill off a substantial proportion of the human population and enslave those left alive. They have agents (including international organizations such as the UN and WHO, politicians, medical personnel, government and corporate media) throughout society playing a part in implementing this program on their behalf.

If we are to defeat this program we must mobilize sufficient thoughtful and courageous people to act strategically to undermine the power of the Global Elite to inflict this program upon us. This can be done as described above.

As you ponder your involvement, remember this. If we do not fight successfully now to defend our humanity, no human being will have the opportunity to fight in future. It is ‘now or never’ for us all.

In that sense, this is the final battle.

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a regular contributor to ‘Global Research’.