All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Investment giants BlackRock and The Vanguard Group stand to benefit from their ownership stakes in most of the corporations that imposed COVID vaccine mandates, and in some of the technology firms developing vaccine passports.

After the U.S. Supreme Court last month froze the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for large private employers, some companies — including Boeing, General Electric and Starbucks — dropped plans to implement the mandate.

Others, based on guidance issued in 2020 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, left the mandates in place.

Most of the large employers that opted to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees, even though the Supreme Court ruled they didn’t have to, have something in common: BlackRock and The Vanguard Group have ownership stakes in them.

BlackRock and Vanguard, two of the world’s “Big Three” asset managers, also are among the top three shareholders of COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — which means the two investment giants stand to benefit from these companies’ soaring profits and the resulting rise in those companies’ stock prices.

BlackRock and Vanguard don’t just benefit from sales of COVID vaccines. As it turns out, they also have ownership stakes in technology companies developing vaccine passports and digital wallets.

BlackRock: the ‘fourth branch of government’?

Combined, BlackRock and Vanguard manage more than $15 trillion in global assets.

To put this figure into perspective, that amounts to more than three-fourths of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and more than triple the GDP of the European Union’s economic powerhouse, Germany.

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with more than $9.5 trillion in assets as of July 2021, while Vanguard held more than $7 trillion in assets as of January 2021.

Notably, Vanguard is the largest stockholder in BlackRock (7.61%), while BlackRock is the biggest stockholder in Vanguard (13.06%) — though the actual ownership structure of these companies has been described as “dark.”

In an August 2021 article about the two firms, Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out that, far from the appearance of competition promised by capitalism, BlackRock and Vanguard own significant shares in companies that ostensibly compete directly with each other, such as Google, Apple and Microsoft, or Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

This influence extends to the media. BlackRock alone owns significant shares in supposed “competitors” such as Fox News, CBS, Comcast (NBC), CNN, Disney (ABC), Gannett (USA TODAY and 250 daily newspapers throughout the U.S.), Sinclair Media (whose television stations reach72% of the American public), and the Graham Media Group (Slate, Foreign Policy).

BlackRock is also politically influential and well-connected, having been chosen by the Obama administration to buy up toxic assets following the 2007-2008 financial collapse.

In 2020, BlackRock received a no-bid contract from the U.S. Treasury Department to manage a $454 billion fund, under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), for businesses adversely impacted by the COVID lockdowns early that year. It wasn’t the first timeBlackRock had been granted a no-bid contract from the federal government.

BlackRock along with other firms also is engaged in a real estate purchasing spree, buying up entire neighborhoods of single-family homes and converting them to rentals, driving up home prices by reducing supply on the marketplace.

BlackRock’s real estate strategy echoes the words of the World Economic Forum: “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

This level of power and influence promoted none other than Bloomberg in 2020 to characterizeBlackRock as the “fourth branch of government.”

BlackRock, Vanguard among top 10 stockholders in most companies mandating vaccines

It is unclear to what extent BlackRock and Vanguard are able to dictate the vaccination policies of the companies in which they hold a stake — but what is clear is that the two investment firms are among the top 10 stockholders in most of these companies.

Here’s a rundown of major U.S. employers that continue to mandate COVID vaccines for their employers, and these companies’ relationships with BlackRock and/or Vanguard (all ownership figures are accurate as of this writing):

  • Abbvie, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, mandated its employees either get vaccinated or undergo weekly tests and continue to follow anti-coronavirus measures. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.80% and 4.47%, respectively.
  • Albertsons, a grocery store chain, required its office employees to get vaccinated and offeredits staff a $100 incentive to get the vaccine. BlackRock is its third-largest stockholder (0.85%), and Vanguard is the sixth largest (0.43%).
  • American Express imposed a vaccine requirement for employees in its U.S. offices. Vanguard is its top stockholder (5.78%), while BlackRock is the third largest (3.68%).
  • Anthem Inc., a health insurer, requires employees to be fully vaccinated to physically enter the company’s offices, offered financial incentives to its workforce to get vaccinated and requires new candidates to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.38% and 4.68%, respectively.
  • AstraZeneca requires its U.S. employees and visiting clients to be vaccinated. Three of the top 10 mutual funds holding shares in AstraZeneca PLC are managed by Vanguard.
  • AT&T, in two separate policies, required company managers (by Oct. 11, 2021) and unionized employees (by Feb. 1), to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.58% and 5.10%, respectively.
  • Blackstone, an investment management company, mandated employees be vaccinated and boosted in order to return to the office. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 5.57% and 3.14%, respectively.
  • CapitalOne required employees in office-based positions to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.62%), and BlackRock is its fourth largest (4.79%).
  • Carhartt, a clothing and apparel company, issued a vaccine mandate for its employees. It is one of the few exceptions on this list, as it is privately owned.
  • Centene, a healthcare provider, required its workforce to be vaccinated, and gave employees up to 10 days’ paid leave and a $1,000 discount on health premiums as incentives. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (10.25%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.34%).
  • Chevron issued a vaccination requirement for employees who travel internationally, expatriate employees, offshore workforce in the Gulf of Mexico and some onshore support personnel. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.98%) while BlackRock is the third-largest(4.57%).
  • Cigna, a healthcare and insurance company, required employees working remotely who visit the physical worksite to be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and employees whose roles can only be performed onsite to be vaccinated as of Oct. 18, 2021, with an alternate option for two weekly COVID tests. Employees also were offered a $200 incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard is Cigna’s largest stockholder (7.62%) while BlackRock is its fourth-largest (4.52%).
  • Cisco allows only vaccinated “critical workers” to go to the office, and claims that 90% of its employees are vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.54% and 4.87%, respectively.
  • Citigroup required employees be vaccinated before returning to its offices, claiming it has reached 99% compliance. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.00% and 4.75%, respectively.
  • Columbia Sportswear required employees in its corporate headquarters to get vaccinated as of Feb. 1, placing those who didn’t comply on unpaid leave and commencing a termination process against them. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (5.39%) and BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.15%).

Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle previously said his company was “thrilled” with the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate.

  • CVS Health has a no jab, no job policy, requiring corporate staff and employees who interact with patients to have been fully vaccinated as of Oct. 31, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.79% and 4.41%, respectively.
  • Deloitte, one of the Big Four accounting firms, requires its staff to be vaccinated. It is another exception in that it is a partnership firm and not publicly traded.
  • Delta Air Lines indirectly imposed a vaccine mandate for its employees, charging those who are not vaccinated a $200 monthly health insurance surcharge. CEO Ed Bastian previously saidthe company is “not opposed” to mandates and claimed 90% of Delta’s employees were vaccinated as of October 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two stockholders, at 10.15% and 4.63%, respectively.
  • DoorDash permits only fully vaccinated employees to voluntarily return to the office, even as its office return is delayed indefinitely. Vanguard is its third-largest stockholder (3.26%), while BlackRock is the tenth largest (1.57%).
  • Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company, requires all employees be vaccinated. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (6.86%), while BlackRock is the third biggest (4.04%).
  • Emergent BioSolutions, a pharmaceutical company that produced the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and which attained infamy for losing a $600 million federal contract after millions of vaccine doses were ruined, requires employees be vaccinated. The company’s federal contractallowed it to keep a “reasonable quantity” of COVID vaccine doses for its “employees and critical subcontractors, and their respective immediate families.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 10.07% and 9.81%, respectively.
  • The Equinox Group, which owns SoulCycle and a chain of gyms, required employees to provide one-time proof of vaccination. It is an exception in that it is privately owned.
  • Facebook, now known as Meta, requires employees coming to work at any of its U.S. locations to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its top stockholder at 7.30%, while BlackRock is the third largest, at 4.28%.
  • The Ford Motor Company imposed a vaccine mandate on its U.S. salaried employees. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.18% and 4.53%, respectively.
  • Frontier Airlines required employees be vaccinated or regularly take COVID tests, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its fourth-largest stockholder (1.29%).
  • Gap required employees in its New York, Bay Area and Albuquerque hubs be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and conducts weekly $1,000 drawings for vaccinated employees as an incentive. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.20%), while BlackRock is fifth largest (2.51%).
  • Gilead Sciences Inc., a pharmaceutical company, requires all workers and contractors to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second-largest and fifth-largest stockholders, at 7.96% and 6.30%, respectively.
  • Goldman Sachs requires anyone entering its offices be fully vaccinated, as of Sept. 7, 2021, while those who are not vaccinated are obliged to work remotely. Booster shots are mandatedfor employees physically working in its offices, as well as for visitors,  starting on Feb. 1. In January, the bank also required staff to receive twice-weekly COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 7.34% and 4.76%, respectively.
  • Google, also known as Alphabet, Inc., in a policy described as “compassionate,” gave most of its unvaccinated employees in the U.S. a Jan. 18 deadline to get vaccinated or be placed on paid administrative leave for 30 days. After 30 days, those who are still not vaccinated are placed on unpaid leave for up to six months, after which they will be dismissed. In November 2021, some employees at Google circulated a manifesto opposing the company’s widened vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.21% and 4.32%, respectively.
  • Hasbro implemented a vaccine requirement for its employees. Vanguard is its largeststockholder, at 11.01%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.69%.
  • Hawaiian Airlines required its U.S. workers to be vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021. On Feb. 2, a judge denied a bid by seven Hawaiian Airlines employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. BlackRock and Vanguard are their two biggest stockholders, at 14.41% and 9.71%, respectively.
  • Hershey implemented a vaccine mandate for its salaried employees that went into effect Oct. 4, 2021. Recently, the company announced a “small number” of employees who did not get vaccinated or receive an exemption were “separated from the company.” Frontline employees received four hours’ pay as an incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are the company’s two biggest stockholders, at 8.86% and 6.93%, respectively.
  • Hess, a petroleum company, mandated vaccination for its U.S. employees. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (9.39%), while BlackRock is fourth largest (4.45%).
  • Humana, a healthcare company, enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its employees, requiringthem to be vaccinated as of Oct. 22, 2021. The company offered employees rewards points as part of an existing employee incentive program to encourage them to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder at 7.39%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.32%.
  • IBM, the developer of New York State’s digital vaccine passport, the Excelsior Pass, allowedonly fully vaccinated U.S. employees to physically return to the office, as of Sept. 7, 2021, and mandated employees be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8, 2021, or face an unpaid suspension. In December 2021, some IBM employees circulated an open letter questioning the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are IBM’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 7.94% and 4.87%, respectively.
  • Intel employees were given until Jan. 4 to get vaccinated or apply for an exemption, while employees who would not get vaccinated and who were not granted an exemption were to be placed on unpaid leave in April. This policy was, however, recently “paused.” Vanguard and BlackRock are Intel’s two largest stockholders, at 7.94% and 5.33%, respectively.
  • Jefferies, a financial services company, allows only vaccinated individuals into its physical offices and outside company events, while non-vaccinated employees can continue working remotely. The company recently claimed over 95% of its global workforce has been vaccinated and said boosters would soon be required as part of the company’s “JefVaxPass strategy.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.84% and 6.46%, respectively.
  • Johnson & Johnson enacted a no-jab, no-job policy, and required all of its employees and contractors to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 4, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.46% and 4.67%, respectively.
  • KraftHeinz enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its U.S. employees and implemented a vaccine mandate as of January. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (4.21%), while BlackRock is the fourth largest (2.43%).
  • Lyft required corporate employees physically working in or entering its offices, but not its drivers, to furnish proof of vaccination to enter offices, as of Aug. 2, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.18%), while BlackRock is the fourth biggest (3.47%).
  • McDonald’s required its corporate workforce, but not its restaurant-level workers, to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (8.33%), while BlackRock is the third largest(4.56%).
  • MGM Resorts International requires salaried employees and all new-hires be fully vaccinated even if working remotely, while unvaccinated hourly employees can provide weekly negative COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.76% and 3.96%, respectively.
  • Microsoft required proof of vaccination for all employees, vendors and guests entering its physical locations in the U.S. as of September 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.75% and 4.35%, respectively.
  • Moderna requires all U.S. employees be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second- and third-largest stockholders, at 6.34% and 4.61%, respectively.
  • Morgan Stanley required employees to get vaccinated before returning to its New York offices, and required staff to disclose their vaccination status by July 1, 2021. The policy was extended to contingent workers, clients, and visitors visiting its New York City and Westchester County, New York locations, as of July 12, 2021. As of August 2021, the company claimed 90% of its employees were vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second- and third-biggest stockholders, at 6.27% and 3.81%, respectively.
  • NBCUniversal required U.S.-based workers returning to the office be fully vaccinated and provide details about their vaccination status, while a full return to the office has been indefinitely postponed. NBCUniversal is fully owned by Comcast, whose largest and third-largest stockholders are Vanguard (8.26%) and BlackRock (4.12%).

Comcast, in turn, has required all of its employees to get vaccinated.

  • Netflix implemented a vaccine requirement for its U.S. offices and filming locations. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.14%), while BlackRock is the sixth largest (4.03%).
  • The New York Times Company requires proof of vaccination for employees who voluntarily wish to return to the office, and is eyeing a full return to the office in the first quarter of this year. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 9.25% and 7.32%, respectively.
  • Nike requires office-based employees be vaccinated, and in January made headlines for firinga vaccinated employee who refused to furnish proof of vaccination to a third-party verification service hired by the company. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.88% and 4.62%, respectively.
  • Novartis, a pharmaceutical company, requires U.S. staff to be vaccinated. Vanguard mutual funds are four of the top 10 mutual funds holding stock in Novartis AG.
  • Pfizer required all U.S. workforce and contractors to get vaccinated or participate in weekly COVID testing. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.77%), while BlackRock is its third largest(4.63%).
  • Pioneer Natural Resources mandated vaccination for its new-hires and offered a $1,000 incentive to employees who get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (9.53%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.57%).
  • PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) required staff visiting any physical office or client location to be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and introduced a work-anywhere policy for its U.S. employees, allowing them to work remotely in perpetuity. PwC is an exception in that it is not publicly traded — it is the fourth biggest privately owned company in the U.S.
  • Roblox, a tech company, requires U.S. employees to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its seventh biggest stockholder (1.96%).
  • Roche, a pharmaceutical and medical equipment company, requires U.S. employees be vaccinated. The company is largely family-owned, but Vanguard mutual funds are two of the five largest mutual funds holding shares in Roche Holding AG.
  • Salesforce, a cloud software provider, requires office employees be vaccinated, but allows the majority of its global workforce to choose remote work. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.07%); BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.28%).
  • TJX, the parent company of retail chains such as HomeGoods, Marshalls and T.J. Maxx, required U.S. “home and regional office associates” be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and mandated a booster shot by Feb. 1. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.17%), while BlackRock (4.13%) is the third largest.
  • T-Mobile US announced it will fire corporate employees who are not fully vaccinated by April 2. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 3.28% and 2.38%, respectively.
  • Twitter requires employees be vaccinated and demonstrate proof of vaccination prior to returning to the company’s offices in San Francisco and New York City. In May 2020, the company announced an indefinite work-from-home option for its workforce. Vanguard (8.35%) and BlackRock (4.49%) are its second- and third-largest stockholders, respectively.
  • Tyson Foods mandated vaccination for its employees, and in Nov. 2021, announced 96% of its workforce was vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 11.38% and 4.91%, respectively.
  • Uber requires U.S. office staff be vaccinated in order to return to the office, but did not extend this requirement to its drivers. Vanguard (4.07%) is its second-largest stockholder, while BlackRock (2.50%) is the fourth largest.
  • United Airlines implemented a no-jab, no-job policy and required employees be vaccinated five weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fully approved a COVID vaccine or five weeks after Sept. 20, 2021, whichever came first. In December 2021, a court declined a bid by some United employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are the airline’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 10.16% and 4.28%, respectively.
  • UPS required office workers in some of its U.S. locations get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 8.39% and 4.60%, respectively.
  • Valero required new hires at its Louisiana and Texas refineries to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (10.98%), while BlackRock (5.58%) is its third biggest.
  • Verizon required non-union employees — representing most of its workforce — provide proof of vaccination as of Dec. 8, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 7.44% and 4.71%, respectively.
  • ViacomCBS requires all of U.S.-based employees working onsite during the company’s “Yellow Phase” be fully vaccinated, while the company is “still assessing” whether this mandate will be extended into its “Green Phase,” when most staff will physically return to the office. Vanguard (10.29%) is its largest stockholder, while BlackRock (5.03%) is third largest.
  • Walgreens required employees in the company’s U.S. support offices be fully vaccinated by Sept. 30, 2021, or enroll in a COVID testing program. Vanguard is the top stockholder of the Walgreens Boots Alliance (6.61%), while BlackRock is third largest (4.22%).
  • Walmart implemented a no-jab, no-job policy for corporate staff, but not for store or warehouse employees. It has, however, offered a $150 incentive to store and warehouse workers to get vaccinated. The company claimed the “overwhelming majority” of its employees who were mandated to get vaccinated, have done so. Notably, the company enforced a vaccine mandate for shoppers in Canada, generating criticism. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (4.31%), while BlackRock is the third largest (2.30%).
  • The Walt Disney Company required much of its U.S. workforce be vaccinated, though the company was obliged to pause this policy for its Florida employees after state lawmakers barred employers from requiring workers to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are Disney’s two biggest stockholders, at 7.15% and 4.24%, respectively.
  • Warner Media, a subsidiary of AT&T, required salaried and non-union U.S. employees to get vaccinated before returning to the office in September 2021, while proof of vaccination is required to enter a WarnerMedia office building.
  • The Washington Post requires all employees, including new employees, to provide proof of vaccination, implementing a no jab, no job policy. The newspaper is owned by Nash Holdings LLC, which is fully owned by Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chairman of Amazon, whose two largest stockholders are Vanguard (6.19%) and BlackRock (3.51%).

What about the two asset management companies, BlackRock and Vanguard?

Of the two, only BlackRock has implemented a vaccine mandate, allowing vaccinated staff to return to the office in July 2021.

Vanguard has not implemented a mandate, but offered a $1,000 incentive to its employees to encourage them to get vaccinated.

Vaccine passport technology — another way BlackRock, Vanguard profit from vaccines

BlackRock and Vanguard also are stakeholders in tech companies involved in the development of digital vaccine passports or “digital wallets” and technology that can track and allocate “personal carbon allowances.”

These companies include:

  • Apple, which is collaborating with several U.S. states to make official documents such as drivers’ licenses and medical records available digitally via Apple Wallet. Vanguard is its top shareholder (7.35%) and BlackRock is its third-biggest (4.12%).
  • Mastercard, which supports the Good Health Pass vaccine passport initiative that is also backed by the ID2020 alliance, and promoted technology that can be embedded into the DO Card, a credit/debit card that can keep track of one’s “personal carbon allowance.” Its top two stockholders are Vanguard (6.82%) and BlackRock (4.13%).

In turn, Mastercard is the fifth largest investor in Doconomy, a Swedish “FinTech” firm that is also heavily involved in the development of the DO Card.

Doconomy, in turn, collaborates with another Swedish “FinTech” firm, Klarna, in providing 90 million customers with “carbon footprint insights” based on their Doconomy transactions. While Klarna is privately held, its top investors include BlackRock and Visa.

  • Oracle is a backer of the SMART Health Card, which is gaining prominence in the U.S. as a de facto national digital vaccine ‘passport’, and also is a provider of cloud services to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its top two stockholders are Vanguard and BlackRock, with 5.16% and 2.99%, respectively.
  • Thales Group, is a founding member of the Security Identity Alliance, which is a stakeholder in the UN’s Legal Identity Agenda Task Force that has set the establishment of digital identification for all by 2030. Thales Group has also developed a “smart health card” and digital ID wallet technology.

While the government of France, which has imposed among the strictest COVID-19 restrictions in Europe and has used ‘vaccine passports’ to shut the unvaccinated out of many public spaces and activities, is Thales’ top shareholder (25.7%), Vanguard is the sixth largest, at 1.31%.

No moral core . . . no moral purpose

In podcaster Joe Rogan’s interview last month with Dr. Robert Malone — the interview that triggered the exodus of musicians and others from Spotify — Malone described companies like BlackRock and Vanguard as “large massive funds that are completely decoupled from nation states” and that “have no moral core … no moral purpose,” their only purpose being a “return on investment.”

As it turns out, BlackRock and Vanguard — and Moderna — also have ties to Spotify.

BlackRock is Spotify’s seventh-largest shareholder (1.37%), while Vanguard manages the top mutual fund holding Spotify Technology SA.

Baillie Gifford, a Scotland-based asset management firm in existence since 1909, is the top institutional stockholder (11.60%) in Spotify — and the top stockholder of Moderna (11.29%), the company that carries the largest overall weight in the firm’s portfolio, at $12 billion in holdings.

Other major Baillie Gifford holdings — including some companies listed above among those mandating COVID vaccines — include Tesla (second highest at 6.3% of its portfolio’s value), Amazon (fourth highest at 3.8%), Spotify (seventh highest at 2.8%), Netflix (ninth highest at 2.6%), Meta (12th, 1.4%), Microsoft (16th, 1.3%), Anthem (21st, 1.2%), Alphabet Inc. (22nd, 1.1%), BioNTech (29th, 0.9%), Mastercard (39th, 0.6%), DoorDash (45th, 0.6%), Salesforce (53rd, 0.5%), and Lyft (93rd, 0.2%).

Baillie Gifford, through its Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, also maintains a significant stakein Palantir (0.2% of the firm’s net asset value, or NAV).

As reported by The Defender, Palantir developed the Tiberius vaccine allocation planning systemoperated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal (which terminated the contracts of nonprofits opposed to vaccine mandates) and a Facebook board member, also is a co-founder of Palantir and serves on its board of directors.

Palantir’s top two stockholders are Vanguard (6.08%) and BlackRock (3.31%).

In turn, the top stockholders of BioNTech, Pfizer’s partner in the development of its COVID vaccine, include Baillie Gifford (biggest stockholder, 2.69%) and BlackRock (seventh highest, 0.59%), while Vanguard manages the top mutual fund with holdings in BioNTech (0.92%), and Baillie Gifford the ninth biggest (0.23%).

Tangled web of corporate connections raises host of questions

BlackRock and Vanguard are poised to continue expanding— as far back as 2017, Bloomberg predicted that by 2028, these two companies would be managing $20 trillion worth of investments.

The size and scope of the firms’ investments raise questions about how much influence BlackRock and Vanguard can wield over the formulation of corporate policies by the companies in which the two firms are heavily invested.

This ever-growing influence has led some analysts to describe the two firms as “kingmakers,” arguing their growing voting share in an increasing number of corporations would “hand them a de-facto veto on all major corporate decisions by 2040.

To what extent do companies mandating COVID vaccines have the best interest of their employees in mind? Or are these companies implementing policies under the guise of “protecting” employees, when in fact they are more concerned about appeasing major investors?

What else might these companies do, if “encouraged” in some way by major stockholders?

Moreover, do mandatory (or strongly encouraged) vaccination policies reflect the worldview of funds such as BlackRock and Vanguard, and their managers — in much the same way major corporations have embraced purportedly “green” policies which only barely cloak potentially totalitarian restrictions on civil liberties, such as “personal carbon allowances” and digital “vaccine passports”?

The answers may lie, in part, in the words of BlackRock CEO and chairman, Larry Fink.

In his 2022 annual letter to CEOs, Fink wrote that “employees are increasingly looking to their employer as the most trusted, competent and ethical source of information — more so than government, the media and NGOs.”

Fink said, “workers demanding more from their employers is an essential feature of effective capitalism” — an interesting viewpoint given that the BlackRock and Vanguard strategy to control as many corporations as possible, including competing ones, would seem to contradict the principles of capitalism, competition, and a free market.

Fink also warned that “companies not adjusting to this new reality and responding to their workers do so at their own peril.”

In other words, employees and workers of companies that have imposed vaccine mandates should take comfort in such policies, as their employer appears to know what’s best for them — at least according to Fink.

*

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

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).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

It has become something of a habit in both the American and Canadian media to insist that the Canadian trucker protest against vaccine mandates is an “illegal protest.” They are “illegal border protests,” one American news affiliate proclaims. Canada’s National Post dutifully refers to the protests in its headlines as illegal acts. The term “illegal” has been used a multitude of times by Liberal Party politicians in the House of Commons. The premier of Ontario—one of Canada’s most hysterical politicians—not only paints the protests as illegal but as a “siege.” Other opponents of the protests refer to them as an “occupation” and as an “insurrection.”

“Lawbreaker” as a Political Slur

So why the obsession with labeling the protests illegal? The idea, of course, is to cast suspicion on them and portray them as harmful and morally illegitimate. We could contrast the rhetoric surrounding the trucker protest with that of the Black Lives Matter protests. In the case of the BLM protests, illegal acts were downplayed and ignored, with one obvious riot labeled a “mostly peaceful” protest. when it comes to protests and other acts of which the regime approves, legality is never an issue.

The regimes of the world, of course, like to use legality as a standard for judging human behavior because the regimes make the laws. Whether or not the laws actually have anything to do with human rights, private property, or just basic common sense is another matter entirely. Thus history is replete with pointless, immoral, and destructive laws. Slavery has been lawful throughout much of human history. Temporary slavery—known as military conscription—is still employed by many regimes. In the US, the imprisonment of peaceful American citizens of Japanese descent was perfectly lawful under the US regime during World War II. Today, employers can face ruinous sanctions for hiring a worker who lacks the proper immigration paperwork.  Worldwide, people can be jailed in many jurisdictions for years for the “crime” of possessing an illegal plant.

During covid, the reality of arbitrary law came very much to the fore when unelected health bureaucrats and lone elected executives began ruling by decree. They closed businesses, shut people up in their homes, and imposed vaccine and mask mandates. Those who refuse to comply—and businesses who refuse to enforce these edicts—are condemned as lawbreakers and subject to punishment.

The Moral Limits of “Law and Order”

All of these legal provisions, acts, and sanctions represent mockeries of basic natural rights rather than protections of them. The notion that laws can be perversions of true justice has long been obvious to many. In fact, the disconnect between morality and legality is a fundamental aspect of Western civilization. The basic notion is very old, but the idea’s endurance in the West was reinforced by the fact that Christianity began as an illegal religion and early Christians were often considered to be criminals deserving of the death penalty. It should be no surprise, then, that Saint Augustine declared an unjust law to be no law at all and compared kings to pirates: the decrees of pirates, of course, are not worthy of obedience or reverence. And if kings are like pirates, kingly decrees are of equal respectability. This same tradition fueled Saint Thomas Aquinas’s support for regicide (in certain cases). Needless to say, regicide has been always and everywhere declared illegal by the would-be targets.

Yet, unfortunately, declaring something to be “illegal” remains an effective slur. There is no shortage of people who proudly consider themselves to be blind supporters of “law and order” and who insist “lawbreakers” are axiomatically in the wrong. Their simple-minded refrain is “if you don’t like the law, change it” and many of these people naïvely believe that acts of legislators and regulators somehow reflect “the will of the people” or some sort of moral law. The opposite is often the reality.

Thankfully, in the United States, the value of lawbreaking is so “baked in” to the historical narrative that it’s difficult to ignore, even today. The American Revolution was fundamentally a series of illegal acts. The Declaration of Independence was little more than a declaration of a thoroughly illegal rebellion. In response, the king sent men to the colonies to enforce law and order. The American response to this attempt to enforce the law was to kill the government’s enforcers. Less violent acts committed by American rebels were equally criminal, ranging from the Boston Tea Party to a multitude of assaults on tax collectors committed by Samuel Adams’s Sons of Liberty.

Modern shills for the regime have unsurprisingly tried to redefine this conflict as one of a tussle over democracy. “Those American revolutionaries fought for democracy,” the claim goes. Thus, by their definition, no one is ever allowed to rebel in a jurisdiction that has occasional elections. (The reality is that the American rebellion was about the protection of human rights. Elections had little to do with it.)

Fortunately, it will take more than cheap slogans about democracy to undo the fact that the national origin story is about having contempt for the laws of one’s political leaders.

In much of the world, however, rebellion against unjust laws is not regarded with equal amounts of reverence. In Canada, for instance, the national origin story is largely about following the rules and politely asking one’s overlords for autonomy. This is bound to affect how one sees the roles of law and disobedience.

It Is Often Prudent to Follow Unjust Laws

This isn’t to say that open rebellion is necessarily wise. Avoiding illegal acts is often—if not usually—the prudent thing to do. We often follow the law simply to stay out of jail and avoid attracting the attention of regulators and government enforcers. For those who prefer spending time with their families to spending time in prison, this only makes sense. Moreover, disobeying unjust laws can often bring even more unjust laws as a result.

It is one thing to follow the law for prudential reasons. It is another thing entirely to assume the law brings with it some sort of moral imperative. Few laws do. Yes, there are laws against murder, but murder is just one case where the letter of the law happens to often match up with what is fundamentally moral and right. Countless laws lack such solid standing.

When we hear government officials or media pundits refer to something as “illegal” or unlawful, all this should really do is cause us to ask if the defense of these laws is actually prudent, moral, or necessary. Some laws are well founded in basic protections of property rights and other human rights. But many laws are nothing more than the fruits of political schemes to help the regime maintain power or to reward its friends at the expense of others.

We can always expect the regime and its supporters to try to outlaw things they don’t like. And once such things are illegal, we’ll hear all about the evils of the “lawbreakers” any time those lawbreakers threaten the prestige or power of the regime. (Lawbreaking in favor of the regime, of course, is always tolerated.) It’s a highly successful trick they’ve been using for thousands of years.

*

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

Ryan McMaken is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wireand Power and Market, but read article guidelines first.

Featured image is from Mises Wire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In the Age of COVID, We’re Reminded an Unjust Law Is No Law at All
  • Tags:

Moscow’s Coercive Diplomacy Is Working

February 20th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The upshot of the Russian response, transmitted to Washington on Thursday, regarding security guarantees may look as if the stalemate is heading toward a war. Moscow has rejected the US’ call for ‘de-escalation’ by pointing out that the Russian troops are deployed on Russian territories; it also rejects the threat of sanctions, which it says is a contrived attempt to “exert pressure and devalue Russia’s proposals on security guarantees.” 

Second, Russia is concerned over “the growing military activity of the United States and NATO directly near Russian borders, while our ‘red lines’ and core security interests, as well as Russia’s sovereign right to protect them, are still being ignored”. 

Third, Russia believes that in order to de-escalate the situation around Ukraine,“it is fundamentally important” to implement an array of steps, including the halt of arms supplies to Ukraine, the recall of all Western advisers and instructors from that country as well as cessation of NATO countries’ joint exercises with the Ukrainian armed forces. 

Finally, Russia reiterated that its demands for legally bound guarantees (stopping NATO’s expansion, refusing to use strike weapons systems near Russian borders, and returning the bloc’s military infrastructure in Europe to its status in 1997) are being ignored. 

However, the latest word from Moscow is that negotiations will continue on European security issues although Moscow’s core demands have not been met. A meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is being scheduled for next week at a European venue. 

This is a pragmatic decision. For Moscow, the secondary issues relating to issues of military security, arms control and strategic stability look generally solvable and could even be put together as an agreement. After all, these issues were originally Russian proposals, which Washington had previously ignored and is now willing to discuss. 

For the US too, this is a realistic approach, since, after all, the development of hypersonic missiles by Russia has changed the strategic balance in the latter’s favour and there is no point deploying intermediate nuclear forces in Europe in the changed circumstances! 

On the other hand, both superpowers sense the importance of good optics which can only create some gravitas for the political track in the near term that may help address the core issues.

Does it mean that the crisis has peaked? The point to be noted here is that the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine was never really there. However, below that threshold, a Russian intervention in Donbass region is a one hundred percent certainty  if the Ukrainian forces launch an attack against the separatist forces. 

The catch is, if Russian intervention takes place, all bets are off, because an entirely different dynamics might appear. Conceivably, Moscow will act with a scenario in mind to ensure that pending a durable settlement in Ukraine, the security of the millions of ethnic Russians (many holding Russian passports) will never again be in jeopardy, or held hostage by the right-wing neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalist forces mentored by the Western intelligence who dominate Kiev.

Therefore, a Russian offensive westward upto the Dnepr River may become necessary to create a buffer zone.  In fact, an evacuation of the elderly, women and children from Donbass to the Rostov region in southern Russia began today. The Kremlin has been ringing alarm bells in the past 48 hours that the possibility of an attack on Donbass is “quite real.” 

It is from such a perspective that the Duma’s recommendation to President Putin to recognise the two breakaway “people’s republics” in Donbass needs to be viewed. Putin has said he doesn’t intend to act on it now. In reality, it gives underpinning for a Plan B in case conflict erupts in Donbass, or if the US gameplan is to bog down Russia in protracted negotiations, or if Washington remains obdurate vis-a-vis Moscow’s demands for security guarantee.

Washington has conceded some ground, though. Apart from showing readiness to discuss the issues of European security, the US has withdrawn its military advisors and trainers from Ukraine, Biden has committed that US will not militarily intervene in Ukraine even if it is attacked or faces defeat and surrender, and that US will not deploy missiles. 

Russia’s coercive diplomacy seems to be working! Time is on its side because this is about national security and national defence, no matter what efforts that entails or how long they must continue. Contrary to western propaganda, Russian public trusts Putin’s judgment and leadership. There’s no dent in his public rating.

On the other side of the Atlantic, however, setting aside the usual bluster in the American propaganda, the political reality is that according to the latest CBS poll, 53% of Americans think US shouldn’t take sides in a conflict and 33% think Ukraine is simply not America’s business. And even American analysts concede that Russian economy has the capacity and resilience to withstand US sanctions. 

Therefore, we may expect, as the noted Russian security analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told Kommersant paper today, “the next phase of the game of nerves may be a diplomatic one… On the whole, another phase of manageable tensions is to be expected.” But even here, the advantage lies with Russia. 

For a start, China has given robust support to Russia and on Wednesday, called on Washington to “accommodate Russia’s legitimate and reasonable concerns over security and play a constructive role for all parties to seek a political settlement to  Ukraine issue on the basis of Minsk-2 agreement, rather than hype up and sensationalise and escalate tensions.” 

On the contrary, despite Washington’s tall claims that the US and European allies are moving in “lockstep” (to borrow Biden’s expression) and the 24×7 efforts by US officials to take the allies along, the picture that emerges is that the fault lines that have been there in the recent years in the western alliance system are surging and cracks are appearing due to the immense strategic burden of a confrontation with Russia, the spectre of a war in Europe and a massive refugee flow that will ensue, and all the attendant uncertainties for Europe’s post-pandemic economic recovery. 

The stance of France and Germany, the two most important European players, must be causing anxiety in Washington. Both President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Moscow and held lengthy talks with Putin. Macron also showed his discontent over the US’ overlordship by telephoning Chinese President Xi Jinping on February 16. 

Macron showered fulsome praise for the “splendid and successful opening ceremony” of the Olympic Winter Games and conveyed France’s full support for China’s “effort to make a success of the Olympic”! 

Xi in turn complimented Macron that “since assuming the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU) this year, France has done a lot to enhance EU solidarity and strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy.” 

Macron went on to pledge that “France will make all-out efforts to advance the positive agenda between the EU and China, and work together with China to ensure the success of the EU-China Leaders’ Meeting and push forward the development of EU-China relations.” The two leaders reached consensus over a six-point agenda for bilateral cooperation for the next stage. 

Macron also took the initiative to schedule an EU-China summit meeting on April 1 against the backdrop of China’s deepening ties with Russia and amidst the war hysteria in the US over a Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Reports have appeared that due to opposition from some European countries, Washington has had to drop from the sanctions package the s-called “nuclear option” — Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT payment mechanism, effectively cutting it off from the international banking system. 

All these undercurrents in play put pressure on the Biden administration. While in Moscow, Scholz who had met Biden in Washington before that, affirmed publicly in the presence of Putin that so long as they remained in power in Berlin and Moscow, for all practical purposes, there is no question of the NATO admitting Ukraine as a member.

Put differently, so long as Russia regards Ukraine’s NATO membership as a casus belli, the alliance will not move in that direction. That is to say, unless Moscow changes it mind, there’s no NATO membership for Ukraine (or Georgia.) We could be hearing the crunchy sound of ice cracking on the frozen lake.

*

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine prove the vaccine caused their deaths. Pathological findings suggest there may be a way to distinguish SARS-COV-2 infection-induced myo/pericarditis from vaccine-induced cardiac injury. Vaccine-induced heart injury can be sub-clinical, but how often?

Pathologists who examined the autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine concluded the vaccine caused the teens’ deaths.

The three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners, published their findings Feb. 14 in an early online release article, “Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose,” in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.

The authors’ findings were conclusive. Two teenage boys were pronounced dead in their homes three and four days after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose.

There was no evidence of active or previous COVID-19 infection. The teens had negative toxicology screens (i.e. no drugs or poisons were present in their bodies).

These boys died from the vaccine.

Histopathological examination of their cardiac tissue revealed an important new finding: Neither heart demonstrated evidence of typical myocarditis.

Instead, the authors found evidence of microscopic changes consistent with a different form of heart injury called toxic cardiomyopathy. They wrote:

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy.”

The authors further explained what they observed under the microscope:

“Their histopathology does not demonstrate a typical myocarditis … In these two post-vaccination instances, there are areas of contraction bands and hypereosinophilic myocytes distinct from the inflammation.

“This injury pattern is instead similar to what is seen in the myocardium of patients who are clinically diagnosed with Takotsubo, toxic or ‘stress’ cardiomyopathy, which is a temporary myocardial injury that can develop in patients with extreme physical, chemical, or sometimes emotional stressors.

“Stress cardiomyopathy is a catecholamine-mediated ischemic process seen in high catecholamine states in the absence of coronary artery disease or spasm. It has also been called ‘neurogenic myocardial injury’ and ‘broken heart syndrome.’”

The pathologists determined there was a different mechanism of heart injury at play in these two boys, distinct from a purely infectious process that would result directly from a viral infection like COVID-19.

This is an important finding. There may be a way to distinguish cardiac injury resulting from a SARS-COV-2 infection from cardiac injury where the vaccine predisposes the patient to stress cardiomyopathy before contracting COVID-19.

However, the authors are careful not to assume that cardiac injuries from COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines can always be sorted out under the microscope.

They explain that stress cardiomyopathy, or “broken heart syndrome,” may also occur in a rare hyperinflammatory state that is known to occur in COVID-19 infection as well:

“This post-vaccine reaction may represent an overly exuberant immune response and the myocardial injury is mediated by similar immune mechanisms as described with SARS-COV-2 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) cytokine storms.”

The authors admit this pathological finding may also occur as a result of MIS-C, a known complication of SARS-COV2 infection.

Learning more about this condition requires a biopsy of heart tissue, or in this case an autopsy. We know very little about the nature of myocarditis in people who are clinically stable because heart biopsies are not conducted on them and autopsies are rarely done on patients who die from COVID-19.

There still is no practical way of screening for cardiac injury beyond assessing symptoms.

Unfortunately, the two boys did not have symptoms of myocarditis (fever, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea) prior to their cardiac arrest and death. One complained of a headache and gastric upset which resolved. The other had no complaints.

This is extremely concerning. These boys had smoldering, catastrophic heart injuries with no symptoms.

How many others have insidious cardiac involvement from vaccination that won’t manifest until they get a serious case of COVID-19 or the flu? Or perhaps when they subject themselves to the physical stress of competitive sports?

These findings suggest a significant subset of COVID-19 deaths in the vaccinated could be due to the vaccines themselves.

Furthermore, it raises this question: How often does this condition exist in a latent form in vaccinated individuals?

The CDC believes the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis not significant

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents who get the COVID-19 vaccine is “extremely rare” and “most cases are mild.”

But those assurances conflict with the agency’s own data.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presented this disquieting information (see chart below) during its June 23, 2021 meeting convened specifically to address the risks of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine:

Myocarditis slide

This slide is important for two reasons.

First, the incidence of this potentially lethal condition is significantly higher in the vaccinated (“Observed” column) compared to the background rate (“Expected” column), especially in males in the 18- to 24-year-old age range.

In the 12- to 17-year-old male cohort, the risk of myo/pericarditis is at least 11 times higher than the background rate.

With more than 2 million doses administered at the time when these cases of myo/pericarditis were identified, we can be confident these data represent an undeniable safety signal.

The second reason this slide is important is this: The CDC is drawing directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a system specifically designed to monitor for safety signals when vaccines are administered to the public.

As of Feb. 15, the CDC continues to assure the public that “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.”

In essence, the CDC is acknowledging that reports of deaths and other adverse events following vaccination exist in VAERS but do not comprise any risk because causality has not been verified.

Then why did the ACIP choose to accept VAERS as a legitimate source of information on myo/pericarditis in their calculations?

The CDC released its conclusions immediately following the ACIP meeting:

“The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination. Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment.”

But how do they know this?

One month after this comforting statement from the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted in this letter to Pfizer that the agency was not able to adequately assess the risk of myocarditis from Pfizer’s product:

“We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.

“Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.”

Commenting on the FDA’s letter, Dr. Meryl Nass said,

“The FDA is saying that neither an analysis of the data in VAERS or of any of the other taxpayer-funded databases will provide sufficient assessment of the risk of this product.”

“This is a joke,” said Nass, adding:

“All this data, plus software, plus a team of analysts, and the FDA says it can’t assess the risk of myocarditis, despite identifying thousands of cases?

“Furthermore, unsaid, but implied by the FDA, is that if the FDA is incapable of assessing the risk of myocarditis despite thousands of reported cases, it cannot or will not be capable of assessing the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.”

If the FDA is not able to perform adequate surveillance of safety signals around vaccine-induced myocarditis, who will?

The FDA assigns this unenviable but essential task to Pfizer itself (again, from the FDA’S letter to Pfizer):

“Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies…”

Is myocarditis ‘extremely rare’ after COVID-19 vaccination? 

As of Feb. 4, VAERS reported 495 cases of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds. VAERS data show that as of Feb. 10, there were 2,239 reported cases of myocarditis in people under the age of 30.

However, a widely cited CDC-sponsored study (Lazarus et al) concluded the incidence of adverse events is 10 to 100 times higher than are reported to VAERS.

More recent calculations estimate that adverse events are underreported by a factor of approximately 41.

From these estimates, we can conclude there may have been approximately 20,000 cases of myocarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds since Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization and was rolled out to this age group..

The VAERS data from June 11, 2021 from the table above show 132 cases of myo/pericarditis were observed in 2,039,000 doses given to 12- to 17-year-old males. This is approximately 6.5 cases in 100,000 doses.

This study from Hong Kong found the incidence of myo/pericarditis after two doses with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was 37 in 100,000. This incidence matches nearly exactly with findings from this study that used the Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD) system (37.7 12-17 year olds per 100,000 suffered myo/pericarditis after their second dose). This is more evidence that significant underreporting is in play in the VAERS system.

Will most of these teens “recover on their own”? How many other vaccinated people have varying degrees of “broken heart” syndrome that remain asymptomatic, undiagnosed and unreported?

These new findings indicate that no one can answer these questions right now — especially not the CDC and the FDA.

If the FDA has admitted it cannot assess the risk of myocarditis using the surveillance systems in place, how then is the CDC able to assure us that the risk is low enough to continue to proceed with a vaccination campaign that now includes 5- to 11-year-old children?

The FDA has abdicated its responsibility for monitoring the safety of these vaccines to the vaccine manufacturers.

The CDC is using VAERS data in its own analyses while urging the public to discount all adverse events, including deaths, that appear in the very same database.

There isn’t any regulation happening here. Our regulatory agencies have become mouthpieces for the very industry they are tasked to oversee.

*

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

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Regardless of the war propaganda – the dreams of young Ukrainians do not differ from the hopes and expectations of their peers from other peripheral parts of the world.  Maybe just a little more prematurely grown bitterness and distrust in them.  Perhaps they are also more divided than the neighbouring youth – not only by social and class barriers, but also by a different historical or linguistic experience.  This is confirmed by the research carried out last year by the Research Centre PULS from Odessa.

Internal break

Everyday frightening the world with war in Ukraine distracts from the country’s everyday problems.  And yet people, especially those aged 14-18, do not live there “between one Putin’s invasion and another”.  Although, of course, living in the information society, additionally strongly politicised – they are forced to receive information and stimuli of a political and ideological nature at least passively.

And so, for example 72% of respondents consider human rights issues important.  However, are they respected in their own country?  Well, 42% think so, but another 39% teenagers are convinced that not at all.  Moreover, the closer to adulthood – the more doubters.  The inhabitants of the south of the country clearly have more reasons to doubt, especially Russian-speaking and students.  Is it the heritage of ethnic tensions that have continued since 2014 – or is it also the result of these areas’ recent turbulent pasts?

As few people in the West know, on 2nd May 2014 in Odessa, during the attack of extreme Ukrainian nationalists on participants of a demonstration in defence of the right to use the Russian language – 46 Russian-speaking people were intentionally burned in the Trade Union House, and over 200 were injured.

Meanwhile, about 35 percent. young Ukrainians have never heard of these events from less than 8 years ago!  Obviously, this proportion is decreasing among those living in the South and East of the country.  52% surveyed describes the incident as a “tragedy”.  In turn, in Western Ukraine 24% young Ukrainians agree that the death of their countrymen was just “a victory over pro-Russian separatists”.

There is no place for “aliens”?

A study aimed at detecting the level of xenophobia sheds additional light on this far-reaching polarization.  It must not be forgotten that an important and controversial element of Ukrainian historical policy is the official cult of anti-Soviet armed organizations that actively collaborated with Hitler during the Second World War and participated in the Holocaust organisation.

The official role model for Ukrainian schoolchildren is Stepan Bandera, in the 1940s the leader of the Nazi Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, personally responsible for the mass murder of Ukrainian Jews and other minorities, as well as people suspected of Communism and leftist views.

After the war, Bandera avoided punishment, cooperating with American and British intelligence before being murdered in 1959 by a Soviet agent.

Does Ukrainian youth really follow the thought of the one demanding from his supporters “You will not hesitate to commit even the greatest crime, if the good of the Cause demands it” and “With hatred and deceit you will receive the enemies of Your Nation”?

Unfortunately, at least partially yes – 35% teenagers do not see a place in Ukraine for Russians, 26 percent. for Arabs, 25 percent would not like Jews to be the inhabitants or even tourists in the Ukrainian state.

In this specific popularity ranking, almost exclusively Americans (25%) are more widely accepted as “close friends”, while 75%of respondents can only imagine other Ukrainians as close family members.  Several years of intense nationalist and jingoist propaganda have done a lot of evil…

Run as far as possible!

But after all young Ukrainians are no different from their peers, knowing well that their future in own country, still subjected to the oligarchs’ rule – is at least questionable.  55% of teenagers plan emigration, of which 28% are ambitiously dreaming of the United States, 16% would realistically be satisfied with work or studies in neighbouring Poland, and 11% in the Czech Republic.  Why do they want to emigrate?  Has the situation in Ukraine not improved after 2014 and the victory of pro-Western forces?  39% did not see any positive changes, 17% believe that it is even worse, and only 21 percent. believes there has been an improvement.

And would they themselves support that coup (“revolution”)?  36% can’t answer, 33% would certainly not go to that Maidan and 31% perhaps would follow parents demonstrating then in Kiev against the Government and for European integration.

How many Ukraines?

Research confirms that, unlike in the Western media, there is no single Ukraine, and the differences between the inhabitants of individual regions are significant and potentially antagonising.  72% of teenagers, when asked about the level of trust, replied that in any relations with others they will maintain a high degree of distrust and scepticism. 55% see no possibility, sense or need of any political and social activity.  46% agree that “not everyone in Ukraine today can freely express their views”.  But in same time between 91 and 98% of the respondents declare themselves unequivocally Ukrainian – although 42% think that this can be both a source of pride and shame.  And to complete the picture, it is worth adding that in the South, East and the Centre of the country between 40 and 61% declare themselves bilingual, both Ukrainian and Russian, while this indicator in Western Ukraine drops to only 5%compared to a 94% advantage solely of Ukrainian.

No future – no hope?

Modern Ukrainians are not only subjected to geopolitical pressure from Russia, but still have a number of historical and cultural ties with her.  At the same time, there is intensively implemented economic and civilizational transformational dictate of Western Liberal Capitalism.  The internal situation is the aftermath of several decades of oligarchy, and earlier of the Soviet state quasi-capitalism.  

Subjective lack of prospects is therefore accompanied by a natural increase in frustration, channelled through stimulating xenophobia and emigration pressure, again primarily in the interests of Western labour markets.  Ukrainian youth are discouraged, do not see any sense in their own activity, and see own future primarily outside the country.  Neither of these problems can be solved by war propaganda, nor by sending these young people to the front to kill and die at the hands of the similar peers from Russia or the Donbass.  Meanwhile, the only response to embittered and disillusioned young Ukrainians from the US and the UK – remain guns, the vision of marvelous capitalism and the promise of a minimum wage job in the West…

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

The research was conducted by the independent Research Centre PULS, Odessa, Ukraine in cooperation with the International Expert Club, on April 4-21, 2021, on a sample of 1,200 respondents aged 14-18, representative of the main sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, type of settlement, macro region. Response Rate: RR3 = 61. The statistical error of the sample (with a probability of 0.95) does not exceed: 2.9% for indicators close to 50%, 2.5% for indicators close to 25%, 1.7% for indicators close to 10%, 1.3% for indicators close to 5. The actual sampling error for controlled quota and uncontrolled (non-quota) characteristics does not exceed 2.3%.

Featured image is from Donbass Insider

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Young Ukrainians – Everyday Fears, Military Propaganda and Chauvinism
  • Tags:

“Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations”.

February 19th, 2022 by Joel S. Hirschhorn

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The title of this January 2022 most important article is “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs.”  It is written by very credentialed medical researchers.  It presents an extremely detailed analysis that proves COVID vaccines are very unsafe. 

Here, I focus on the findings showing a relationship between the vaccines and cancers.  Everything below is directly from the paper.  It is difficult reading, but the messages are very important.

Screenshot from Authorea

Abstract

The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the widely perceived public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease had no precedent, but desperate times seemed to call for desperate measures. The mRNA vaccines utilize genetically modified mRNA encoding spike proteins. These alterations hide the mRNA from cellular defenses, promote a longer biological half-life for the proteins, and provoke higher overall spike protein production.

However, both experimental and observational evidence reveals a very different immune response to the vaccines compared to the response to infection with SARS-CoV-2. As we will show, the genetic modifications introduced by the vaccine are likely the source of these differential responses. In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike natural infection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shown to have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage. We show evidence from adverse event reports in the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines excludes them as positive contributors to public health, even in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. [emphasis added]

VAERS Signal for Cancer

Cancer is a disease generally understood to take months or, more commonly, years to progress from an initial malignant transformation in a cell to development of a clinically recognized condition. Since VAERS reports of adverse events are happening primarily within the first month or even the first few days after vaccination [209], it seems likely that the acceleration of cancer progression following vaccines would be a difficult signal to recognize. Furthermore, most people do not expect cancer to be an adverse event that could be caused by a vaccine.

However, as we have outlined in our paper, if the mRNA vaccinations are leading to widespread dysregulation of oncogene controls, cell cycle regulation, and apoptosis, then VAERS reports should reflect an increase in reports of cancer, relative to the other vaccines.

This is in fact what VAERS reports reflect, and dramatically so. Table 1 illustrates events involving the most common cancers reported to VAERS in the US, cancers either newly identified or stable disease newly progressing. It compares reports related to COVID-19 vaccination to reports related to all other vaccinations over the 31-year history of VAERS information collection. To obtain this table, we searched the online resource, for search terms indicating cancer, such as “cancer,” “carcinoma,” “mass,” “neoplasm,” etc., and summed over all hits related to a particular organ, such as “lung.” These data were collected on December 12, 2021.

Notably, there were three times as many reports of breast cancer following a COVID-19 vaccine, and more than six times the number of reports of B-cell lymphoma. All but one of the cases of follicular lymphoma were associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Pancreatic carcinoma was more than three times as high.

This cannot be explained by reference to a disproportionately large number of people receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year compared to all other vaccinations. The total number of people receiving a non-COVID-19 vaccination is unknown, but over the 31 years history of reports VAERS contains it is unquestionably many orders of magnitude larger than the number receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year. Overall, in the above table, twice as many cancer reports to VAERS are related to a COVID-19 vaccination compared to those related to all other vaccines. That, in our opinion, constitutes a signal in urgent need of investigation.

Table 1:  Number of events in the VAERS database from 1990 to December 12, 2021, where several terms indicating cancer occurred in association with COVID-19 vaccines or with all other vaccines, along with the ratio between the two counts. Counts were restricted to data from the United States. Note that counts for all the other vaccines are totals for 31 years, whereas the COVID-19 counts are for a single class of vaccines over less than one year.

[I cannot reproduce Table 1 here, but here is the bottom line finding: Total of 735 cancer cases in the CDC VAERS database compared to a total of 368 cancer cases from all other vaccines. This produces a ratio of 2.00 of COVID to all other vaccines. I urge readers to access the article and examine the considerable data in Table 1. The data give a compelling case for being concerned about the COVID vaccines.]

Discussion

There has been an unwavering message about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 from the public health apparatus in the US and around the globe. The efficacy is increasingly in doubt, as shown in a recent letter to the Lancet Regional Health by Günter Kampf.  Kampf provided data showing that the vaccinated are now as likely as the unvaccinated to spread disease. He concluded: “It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.”

In this paper we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety profile of these vaccinations. First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections. Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations. Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike mRNA to produce high levels of spike-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious inflammatory consequences. Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.

Given the current rapidly expanding awareness of the multiple roles of G4s in regulation of mRNA translation and clearance through stress granules, the increase in pG4s due to enrichment of GC content as a consequence of codon optimization has unknown but likely far-reaching consequences. Specific analytical evaluation of the safety of these constructs in vaccines is urgently needed, including mass spectrometry for identification of cryptic expression and immunoprecipitation studies to evaluate the potential for disturbance of or interference with the essential activities of RNA and DNA binding proteins.

Conclusions

It is imperative that worldwide administration of the mRNA vaccinations be stopped immediately until further studies are conducted to determine the extent of the potential pathological consequences outlined in this paper. [emphasis added] It is not possible for these vaccinations to be considered part of a public health campaign without a detailed analysis of the human impact of the potential collateral damage. It is also imperative that VAERS and other monitoring system be optimized to detect signals related to the health consequences of mRNA vaccination we have outlined. We believe the upgraded VAERS monitoring system described in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. study, but unfortunately not supported by the CDC, would be a valuable start in this regard.

In the end, we are not exaggerating to say that billions of lives are at stake. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly. Until our public health institutions do what is right in this regard, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions. [emphasis added]

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

Canada Data Showing Vaccinated Mostly Infected

February 19th, 2022 by Joel S. Hirschhorn

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Just more data that dispel the propaganda that COVID vaccines work:

*

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Douglas Murray, author and associate editor of Spectator, was interviewed by GBNews on Justin Trudeau’s response to the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa.

According to Murray,

“It’s perfectly clear that Justin Trudeau has no empathy to the truckers and the others in his country who are disagreeing with his policies. He is trying to freeze them out of Ottawa, he is ordering police to steal the gasoline. He ordered GoFundMe to seize the funds that was sent to the truckers. He ordered the banks in Canada to freeze the accounts of people supporting the truckers.”

Watch the video below.

*

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

I want to address the prime minister: No matter what you do, we will hold the line. There are no threats which will frighten us. We will hold the line. — Tamara Lich, convoy organizer, 14 February 2022

Justin Trudeau had cornered himself by grotesquely smearing the trucker convoy and its supporters as racist, misogynist, fringe, anti-science, vandals, and otherwise holding unacceptable views. He is unable to negotiate a peaceful outcome because he has refused to speak to the pro-freedom/anti-mandate protest movement.

Many of the truckers have insisted they aren’t leaving the capital of Ottawa. This is despite Trudeau trying his darndest to get them to leave. In addition to his invective against the truckers, he tried to have their funding cut off, he had jerry cans bringing fuel to the truckers seized, and he beefed up the police presence to cower them. All to no avail.

Meanwhile, Trudeau’s popularity has been tanking among Canadians.

Desperate, he resorted to a nuclear option from his father Pierre Trudeau’s days. In Pierre’s case, he invoked the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970 to fight the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec), terrorists seeking Quebec’s separation from Canada. The FLQ had kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and Quebec labor minister Pierre Laporte, the latter being killed by the FLQ.

The situation in Pierre’s day was decidedly different from the situation now for Justin’s invocation of, what is now called, the Emergencies Act. Justin has undertaken an extraordinary action to grab extra powers to handle the pro-freedom protests across the country. Perversely, Justin’s power grab would further diminish freedoms. One can only imagine how the truckers, who have vowed not to leave Ottawa until the mandates are removed, will react to the increased diminution of freedoms.

One side will be crushed in this final showdown.

“It is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcement’s ability to effectively enforce the law,” said Trudeau.

Effectively enforcing constitutional law is what former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford is seeking, citing Justin’s mandates as abrogating Canada’s Charter of Rights. These charter rights were enacted by Pierre Trudeau’s government along with nine provinces, one of which was Peckford’s.

Justin Trudeau calls the emergency measures “reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.”

Is the convoy a threat? Up to now, the demonstration has been peaceful. However, the convoy poses a threat to the political viability of Justin Trudeau. And as for threats, Trudeau’s tweet sounds eerily close to a threat, even toward the kids of truckers:

Make no mistake: The border cannot, and will not, remain closed. Every option is on the table. So, if you’re participating in these illegal blockades that are taking our neighbourhoods and our economy hostage, it’s time to go home – especially if you have your kids with you.

The Emergencies Act also allows the government to direct banks to freeze money for the protestors.

Cryptocurrency exchanges surely welcome such an action.

To invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate that a state of emergency exists, and it must be approved by the parliament within seven days.

Errol Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa, opined, “If you look at what’s happened not just in Ottawa but at the Ambassador Bridge and Coutts, Alberta and in BC, essentially we have a national emergency.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) demurs:

The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met.

Mendes argues that asking poses a national security threat: “You have this small group basically asking the government to do whatever they want. That’s the national security problem.”

It is true that relative to the Canadian population the truckers are a small group. However, that argument applies more so to the federal government. The members of parliament are a small group demanding, not asking, Canadians comply with mandates.

For whatever likes on a tweet are worth, the CCLA tweet (14 February 5:36 PM) has received 52.3 K likes while Trudeau’s tweet (14 February 8:36 PM) making clear the government’s position has received 5470 likes.

Granted, it is a ballsy move by Trudeau, but even more ballsy has been the “righteous dissidence” of the convoy of truckers in taking on the government and its gendarmes by behaving peacefully, being friendly, and keeping the streets clean. Crime has dropped during the protest.

The lines have been drawn. One of two likely outcomes will likely prevail: either Canadians will sacrifice their freedoms and comply with the mandates or the mandates will be repealed and Trudeau will have to step down.

*

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

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Video: Ottawa. Freedom Convoy. Livestream, February 19

February 19th, 2022 by Global Research News

The Trudeau government is carrying out a major and ongoing police operation directed against the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.

The protest movement is peaceful. There is evidence of Police Violence and Brute Force. See Global Research’s Report.

Below is a livestream of events in Ottawa, February 19, 2022.

The decision to take action against the Freedom Convoy was implemented by the Trudeau government prior to the vote on the National Emergency which is scheduled for Monday.

The leaders of the movement Tamara Lich and Chris Barber were arrested and are in police custody.  

***

Video 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Ottawa. Freedom Convoy. Livestream, February 19

The Blatancy of American Presidents’ Lies

February 19th, 2022 by Eric Zuesse

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Joe Biden told the American people, on 15 February 2022, “The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. …  To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy.”

He expected Americans and Russians to believe that America’s anti-Russian military alliance (NATO) wasn’t hostile to Russia, wasn’t against it, didn’t consider it to be even an enemy (much less U.S/NATO’s main enemy, which is the case in their own actual policies).

How stupid are the public (both Americans and Russians) — that stupid?

Or was he (the U.S. President), instead, so stupid, himself, as to believe what he said?

If he wasn’t that stupid, then was he a liar? Could he have been both (stupid and a liar)? Could he have been actually a stupid liar? Is that the reality?

Russia might not be an enemy of America, but America is certainly very much an enemy of Russia, and makes this clear in everything that it does regarding Russia — not ONLY the many U.S. economic sanctions against Russia, but ALSO the many weapons (some being nuclear) that it places near to Russia’s borders, actually endangering Russians as much as the Soviet leader Khrushchev had been only intending to endanger Americans in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis by arming a country near to America.

If America ultimately succeeds in getting Ukraine into NATO, then U.S. nuclear weapons would almost certainly become positioned even less than a 7-minute striking time away from Moscow and therefore achieve the U.S. Government’s objective of becoming able to launch against Russia a surprise nuclear attack that hits so fast it could eliminate Russia’s ability to launch its own (retaliatory) nukes — this objective, on the part of the U.S. Government (since around 2006), being called by American theorists “Nuclear Primacy”: the ability for the U.S. Government (supposedly) to ‘win’ a nuclear war against Russia: the ability to conquer Russia. None of this plan is official, but it has been U.S. Government policy unofficially, ever since approximately 2006.

So: it’s quite reasonable for Putin now to be demanding that this 1962 Cuban-Missile-Crisis-in-reverse not be allowed, and he wants the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance to remove from near Russia’s border ALL military hardware they’ve positioned there, and to promise in writing that they will NEVER again place such weapons and forces there.

Previously, however, the U.S. Government proved that it lies blatantly, and so even a written U.S./NATO promise of that wouldn’t actually be reliable. Therefore Biden’s saying that  “The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. …  To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy.” is fully in accord with the record of all recent American Presidents, which is a record of blatant lying. For example:

U.S. President George W. Bush seems to have been informed, in advance, about a New York Times article (which was the lead-story in the newspaper on Sunday, 8 September 2002), titled “U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS”, in which the sources were anonymous “Administration officials.” The story concerned “aluminum tubes” that were “intended as casing for rotors in centrifuges, which are one means of producing highly enriched uranium …  to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.”

So, on Saturday, September 7th, of 2002, U.S. President Bush said, while standing beside British Prime Minister Tony Blair

We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need [in order for Congress to authorize an invasion of Iraq].

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right.

Then, as soon as the weekend was over, on Monday 9 September 2002, was issued by the IAEA the following:

Related Coverage: Director General’s statement on Iraq to the IAEA Board of Governors on 9 September 2002 [this being a republication of their notice three days earlier, on 6 Sep.].

Vienna, 06 September, 2002 – With reference to an article published today in the New York Times [which, as usual, stenographically reported the Administration’s false allegations, which the IAEA was trying to correct in a way that would minimally offend the NYT and the U.S. President], the International Atomic Energy Agency would like to state that it has no new information on Iraq’s nuclear programme since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq [and verified that no WMD remained there at that time]. Only through a resumption of inspections in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant resolutions can the Agency draw any conclusion with regard to Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under the above resolutions relating to its nuclear activities.

Contact: Mark Gwozdecky, Tel: (+43 1) 2600-21270, e-mail: [email protected].

It even linked to the following statement from the IAEA Director General amplifying it:

Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq, we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq’s nuclear activities. I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the Agency can draw any conclusion or provide any assurance regarding Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under these resolutions.

So, this was proof of the falsehood of Bush’s and Blair’s reference, on September 7th, to the IAEA, in which Bush-Blair were saying that, upon the authority of the IAEA itself, there was “the new report … a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”

Because of the news-media’s ignoring the IAEA’s denial of the President’s statement, the author of the IAEA’s denial, Mark Gwozdecky, spoke again nearly three weeks later, by phone, with the only journalist who was interested, Joseph Curl of the Washington Times, who headlined on 27 September 2002, “Agency Disavows Report on Iraq Arms” — perhaps that should instead have been “President Lied About ‘Saddam’s WMD’” — and Curl quoted Gwozdecky: “There’s never been a report like that [which Bush alleged] issued from this agency. … When we left in December ’98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program.

We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment.” Other news-media failed to pick up Curl’s article. And, even in that article, there was no clear statement that the President had, in fact, lied — cooked up an IAEA ‘report’ that never actually existed. Actually, the IAEA hadn’t even so much as been mentioned in that New York Times article.

Bush had simply lied, and Blair seconded it, and the ‘news’-media stenographically accepted it, and broadcasted their lies to the public, and continued to do so, despite the IAEA’s having denied, as early as September 6th, that they had issued any such “new report” at all. (The IAEA had, apparently, somehow known in advance that someone would soon be saying that the IAEA had issued a report alleging that Iraq was resuming its nuclear program.) Virtually all of the alleged news-media (and not only the NYT) entirely ignored the IAEA’s denial (though it was not merely one bullet, but rapidly fired on four separate occasions, into the wilderness of America’s ‘news’-media) that it had issued any such “report.” All of them were actually only propaganda-media: they hid the fact that George W. Bush was simply lying. Both the U.S. Government and its media were frauds.

The day after that 7 September 2002 unquestioned lie by Bush, saying Iraq was only six months from having a nuclear weapon, and citing the IAEA as his source for that, the New York Times ran their article. It included such hair-raisers as “‘The jewel in the crown is nuclear,’ a senior administration official said. ‘The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card.’” The fake ‘news’ — stenography from the lying Government and its chosen lying sources (in this case anonymous Administration-officials) — came in an incessant stream, from the U.S. Government and its ‘news’ media (such as happened also later, regarding Honduras 2009, Libya 2011, Yemen 2011-, Syria 2011-, Ukraine 2014, and Yemen 2015-). Do the American people never learn — ever — that their Presidents and ‘news’-media) now lie routinely?

Also on Sunday, September 8th, of 2002, the Bush Administration’s big guns were firing off against Iraq from the Sunday ‘news’ shows; and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice delivered her famous “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” statement, which was clearly building upon the lying Bush allegation of the day before, that the International Atomic Energy Agency had just come up with this ominous “Atomic” “new report.”

Then, President Bush himself, on 12 September 2002, addressed the U.N. General Assembly, seeking authorization to invade:

We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable — the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

Bush (and Blair) failed to win any authorization to invade, but did it anyway. They should be hung for it. They were atop a bi-national and entirely bipartisan (in each of the two countries) public-deception operation, like had occurred in Germany during Hitler’s time. (Hitler was a boon for the nation’s armaments-makers then, just as America’s Presidents now are for America’s armaments-firms.)

And both of America’s political Parties are controlled by their billionaires, who fund the political careers of the politicians whom those mega-donors want to become s‘elected’ by the public to win public offices. For example, whereas George W. Bush lied America into invading and destroying Iraq, Barack Obama and Joe Biden lied America into believing that their coup overthrowing and replacing Ukraine’s democratically elected Government in February 2014 was instead a ‘democratic revolution’ there. It’s so bad that even the progressive Democratic Party site, David Sirota’s “The Daily Poster,” has NEVER exposed anything about that Obama coup and about those Obama-Clinton-Biden lies about Ukraine, and about the U.S.

Government’s planned conquest of both Russia and China — the things that might actually produce WW III (in other words: are even more important than what they do report about).

In fact, Sirota had the nerve, on 15 February 2022, to post to Vimeo an anti-Republican-Party propaganda video, “The Pundits Who Lied America Into A War”, against the Republican Party’s liars who deceived the American people into invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 — though almost all leading Democrats, including Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, had voted in the U.S. Senate for (not against) that lie-based invasion, and though all Democratic-Party ‘news’-media (and not ONLY the Republican-Party ones) unquestioningly transmitted the Bush-Administration’s lies to the American people, against Iraq, in order to fool Americans into supporting the then-upcoming U.S. invasion.

That Sirota video entirely ignores the Democratic-Party “Pundits” — such as the Party’s think tank, the Brookings Institution, whose Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, propagandized on TV and elsewhere to invade Iraq (such as in Pollack’s Council on Foreign Relations article, “Invasion the Only Realistic Option to Head Off the Threat from Iraq, Argues Kenneth Pollack in The Threatening Storm” did). Whereas Democrats blame Republicans, and Republicans blame Democrats, it’s the billionaires of BOTH Parties who actually fund all of these lies and liars — and who continue to fund those liars’ careers, and to present them on their ’news’-media as ‘experts’, to fool the public to okay the trillions of dollars that the U.S. Government pays to those billionaires’ corporations such as Lockheed Martin, to profit from those wars. It’s hypocrisy on top of lying, so as to convey an impression that neoconservatism — U.S. imperialism — is a ‘Republican’ (or else a ‘Democratic’) evil, when it’s ACTUALLY an evil by the billionaires who fund BOTH Parties AND who fund the ’news’-media, both liberal and conservative, and who profit from those invasions. It’s not just the lies of America’s Presidents; it is the lies that are funded by America’s billionaires, who placed such people as that into Congress and the White House.

This regime is an aristocracy, and imperialism is second nature to aristocrats. But an aristocracy is a dictatorship by the very rich — NOT any sort of democracy. This is the type of dictatorship that America now has — NOT a Republican dictatorship, or a Democratic dictatorship, but a dictatorship by the aristocracy, of BOTH Parties. They have made a mockery of their ‘democracy’. Practically everything they do is fake, except the vast harms that they produce.

*

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

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image is from Trending Politics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Blatancy of American Presidents’ Lies

The botched narrative of a February 16 Russian invasion of Ukraine reveals the desperation of the Anglo-American allies in provoking a third world war. As the warmongers of the West continue building up their war propaganda while their military equipment and personnel are on standby, Russia calmly resorts to diplomacy as means of addressing the crisis.

Will Ukraine become the next war theatre? Is gunboat diplomacy an option? What is the Minsk Agreement and how will it impact on the resolution of the crisis?

Read our selection below and spread the word.

***

Oversaturation of Ukrainian Forces Escalates Security Crisis

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 17, 2022

The current security crisis in Ukraine fueled by Kiev and its western allies is on the verge of triggering a new wave of violence in the Donbass region. Recent statements by Russian officials have warned about the possibility of a resurgence of large-scale clashes, which would be a consequence of the extreme militarization promoted in the conflict zone by Ukrainian forces.

British Officials Spread Russia Coup Plot Disinformation for United States

By Kit Klarenberg, February 17, 2022

Months of frenzied speculation about an imminent Russian invasion of Kiev by Western journalists, think tanks, and politicians culminated on February 15 with Moscow reducing its military footprint near Ukraine’s border.

Biden Insists Russian Invasion “Distinctly Possible” Despite Troop Demobilization

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 16, 2022

The Russian troops that took part in defense exercises in Belarus and Crimea are now returning to their barracks, contradicting widely circulated reports that Russia is about to invade Ukraine. Although Moscow repeatedly stressed that troop mobilizations were for defense exercises, a weak and unverified intelligence leak disseminated across Western media claimed that Russia would invade Ukraine on February 16.

In the Donbass, the Fuse Is Lit

By Manlio Dinucci, February 16, 2022

Every day, signs of an imminent war intensify. The State Department is evacuating the Embassy in Kyiv leaving behind only a few diplomats and a team of Marines, and is warning US citizens to leave Ukraine because “it would not be able to protect them from the Russian attack.”

Why Are We Evacuating Diplomats from Ukraine?

By Prof. Anatol Lieven, February 16, 2022

How they must be laughing in the Kremlin. Western policy towards Ukraine is evolving from the ridiculous to the positively surreal. Thus the latest demonstration of the West’s unbreakable commitment to Ukraine and to future Ukrainian NATO membership is — to evacuate Western diplomats from Kiev, before a single shot has been fired, and while Russia continues to deny that it has any intention of invading.

By All Measures, the US Has the World’s Most Incompetent Government and the Worst Media

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, February 16, 2022

US President Biden claims Russian troops continue “encircling Ukraine” even as Moscow says they are withdrawing. The Russian soldiers were never there for the purpose of invading Ukraine. They were in Belarus as part of a training exercise akin to the ones NATO continually conducts on Russia’s borders. 

Today’s Crisis Over Ukraine. Former US Ambassador to USSR Jack F. Matlock, Jr

By Jack Matlock, February 15, 2022

We are being told each day that war may be imminent in Ukraine. Russian troops, we are told, are massing at Ukraine’s borders and could attack at any time. American citizens are being advised to leave Ukraine and dependents of the American Embassy staff are being evacuated.

Making Sense of the Ukraine Standoff

By Eric Zuesse, February 15, 2022

Putin intends to assure that if Ukraine invades Donbass, the residents in Donbass will win. He has armed and trained them how to use the weapons, but if Russian soldiers would need to enter Donbass and fight there against Ukraine, he also will need to defeat the Ukrainian soldiers there. He is waiting for Ukraine to invade Donbass.

West Exaggerates Russian Invasion Claim as Zelensky Loses Control of Narrative

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 15, 2022

The Minsk agreements, written in 2014 by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, consisting of the Kiev government, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with mediation from France and Germany in the so-called Normandy Format, seeks to end war in the mostly Russian-speaking Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.

77 Years Ago, U.S. and Russia Signed Historic Agreement at Yalta

By Jeremy Kuzmarov and Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, February 14, 2022

Under the terms of the Yalta agreements, Stalin agreed to enter the war in the Pacific in exchange for the return of Russian territory that had been lost during the Russo-Japanese war. Stalin further agreed to the division of Germany and to stay out of Greece’s civil war. In return, the U.S. and Great Britain agreed to a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe to avoid the prospect of Germany ever invading Russia again.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Global Research Weekender: Whose Fault Is the Ukrainian Crisis? Provoking a Third 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The UK coldly abandoned Poland to Nazi Germany, after which approximately 6 million of its citizens were literally genocided within less than six years. Moreover, Ukraine does indeed have the right to choose its alliances, just not at anyone else’s expense like Russia’s.

Poland, Ukraine, and the UK issued a joint statement on Thursday confirming the creation of a new trilateral partnership. As the author earlier explained, it’s unlikely to have any meaningful impact on shaping regional dynamics but is mostly meant to enhance the profits of their military-industrial complexes and generate more attention for their complementary information warfare campaigns against Russia. There’s no need to rehash the points made in his previous piece, which is why the present one will explain how their joint statement practically trolls itself twice.

The first point that they made reads as follows: “The United Kingdom, Poland and Ukraine enjoy deep historical ties, built on shared values, a shared commitment to peace and security and a shared history of standing together against aggressors who threaten freedom in Europe.” That’s factually misleading though since the UK abandoned Poland after Nazi Germany invaded it on 1 September 1939. Although the UK subsequently hosted Polish forces and officials, it nevertheless also agreed to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s redrawing of the Second Polish Republic’s eastern borders after World War II ended.

Both of these are popularly regarded in the Polish consciousness as “Western betrayals”. Poles expected the Brits to honor their alliance against Nazi Germany, which London refused to do right after the invasion began. That resulted in the tremendous destruction of the country, including the genocide of at least 17% of its population (some estimates go even higher to around 25% or so). This tragedy might have been prevented had the UK swiftly responded to Nazi. It’s thus misleading to say that they have “a shared history of standing together against aggressors who threaten freedom in Europe.”

The second point of their statement reads that “We reiterate that each European State is free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, and no State can consider any part of Europe as its sphere of influence.” This is also misleading since Russia just reminded the US-led West in its response to their reply to Moscow’s security guarantee requests that Washington always omits the second part of this agreed-upon international principle related to ensuring that enhancing one’s security doesn’t occur at anyone else’s expense.

That’s precisely the problem too since the US has been hiding behind the first-mentioned part of this principle to violate the second with respect to Russia’s nuclear second-strike capabilities, ergo the very reason for the undeclared USprovoked missile crisis in Europe in the first place. Nevertheless, the Polish-Ukrainian-UK Troika does indeed have a point in reiterating “each European State is free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, and no State can consider any part of Europe as its sphere of influence”, it’s just not the point that they intended.

Ukraine’s constitutionally enshrined goal to eventually enter NATO poses a serious threat to Russia’s national security red lines. Kiev can, however, reconsider the wisdom of doing so as a meaningful de-escalation measure if it wants, in which case its decision must be respected by the US-led West and in particular by Poland and the UK per their latest joint statement. As for “spheres of influence”, it’s hypocritical that the Anglo-American Axis considers Ukraine to tacitly fall within their own unstated one, though these double standards are obviously lost on those three and Poland.

It’s due to these observations that one can describe the Polish-Ukrainian-UK joint statement as practically trolling itself twice. The UK coldly abandoned Poland to Nazi Germany, after which approximately 6 million of its citizens were literally genocided within less than six years. Moreover, Ukraine does indeed have the right to choose its alliances, just not at anyone else’s expense like Russia’s. It could even theoretically reverse its goal of joining NATO too since its formal incorporation into the US’ sphere of military interests could literally lead to World War III like President Putin warned.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“I would just encourage that all your listeners do participate in the fund raising drive. Do give money to CKUW or the Global Research News Hour because these are really important sources of information that break through the kind of monopoly of disinformation that we face.” 

 – Glenn Michalchuk (from today’s interview)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Thanks to technological innovation, the world is more capable than ever of knowing itself. [1]

And yet, we are now seeing signs that the range of our news reporting is becoming narrowed much as we were witnessing the world through the entrance of a tunnel as we have entered deeper and deeper into it.

The corporate forces is hooked into independent reporting and are finding ways to outflank the desperate voices of stories they don’t want being told. Witness the frequency of the thought-stopper “conspiracy theory” to shelve in the stockpile of stories bound for oblivion stories about COVID, or 9/11, or Russiagate. Witness the narrow focus around broadcast recording around Russia’s involvement in the east of Ukraine revealing no other possibility other than the unstated intention of militarily invading the country. Or the ways that climate change is a left wing vehicle that is actually providing secure transportation to whatever the world’s financial elites have cooked up.

Increasingly, thanks to technological sophistication, online instruments are thwarting online ventures through, for example, Google redirecting internet searches. We are already seeing, shockingly, how those folks on the Freedom Convoy with access to information outside the major outlets are not only being stopped cold under Prime Minister Trudeau’s use of the Emergency Act, but seeing their funds electronically shut down! This potentially includes people who sent a donation but otherwise had nothing to do with what they believed to  be a peaceful demonstration!

For generations, it has been crystal clear that mainstream media simply has not always provided all the essential facts, especially if a war, lucrative from the standpoint of media invested in the military industrial complex is being contemplated.

Global Research has since its conception worked hard to try to bring those facts forward. And the Global Research News Hour, its audio outlet operates in the realm of community radio. Both have suffered challenges in the past year.

But CKUW, the Winnipeg-based station out of which this enterprising show is broadcast recognizes the importance of making radio available to everyone. It knows that democracy is furthered when we have a wider range of perspectives and not merely an echo-chamber out of which the Bill Gateses, the Rockefellers, the Elon Musks, and one war-happy president after another can have their communicative notes penetrate the skulls of the vulnerable.

That is why the campus-based community radio station has to turn to listeners to keep the project afloat. It gets zero money from the government and zero from paid advertisers. Coca-Cola, Monsanto, Texaco, Lockheed Martin and Pfizer have no call here! So to help our station stay active and energized in a world where the ruling class makes the profits, and the working class sheds blood in imperialist wars, ordinary listeners should probe news better attenuated to their needs. That’s why it is they who must lend a hand in this special annual fund-raiser called CKUW FUNDRIVE.

On this week’s show we will hear from three activists across the country, Ken Stone of the Coalition to Stop the War, Glenn Michalchuk from Peace Alliance Winnipeg, and Ed Lehman from the Regina Peace Council to talk about their range of activities at the present time, and of what a tour de force CKUW can be in their respective battles. We will also feature a lot of pitching for contributions and even a couple of songs!

Readers and listeners can contribute to this fund-raiser RIGHT NOW and on until the 25th of February by going to FUNDRIVE.CKUW.CA and making a donation. Tax relief available only for Canadians. The many incentives we offer would have the cost of shipping and handling applied.

As an alternative, direct your funds to the Global Research donation site, highlighting funding for the Global Research News Hour.

CLICK TO DONATE:

PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE A NOTE MENTIONING “GLOBAL RESEARCH NEWS HOUR” OR “GRNH” WITH YOUR TRANSACTION

Thanks again to our regular listeners who have given their all to keep this program going. It is most appreciated!

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. 

Ed Lehman is editor for the Saskatchewan Peace News, head of the Saskatchewan Peace Council, and a member of Peace Quest Regina, and is also involved with the Making Peace Vigil.

Glenn Michalchuk is Chair of Peace Alliance Winnipeg and Treasurer for the Canadian Peace Alliance

(Global Research News Hour Episode 344) 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. http://www.topjournalismschools.org/15-interesting-ways-technology-has-changed-journalism/
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cracking through the Barricade of Corporate Control with the Spirit of Radio

Since the COVID vaccines were authorized, MANY women have posted reports of disrupted and unusual menstrual cycles, heavy bleeding, and miscarriages.

What’s more, some of these women state they haven’t received the COVID vaccine, but they’ve been in close contact with others who have been vaccinated—leading to the question:

Can the COVID RNA vaccine (which is actually an experimental genetic treatment) “shed” something harmful that can be passed from person to person?

Perhaps that sounds impossible, but…

What does Pfizer say about the dangers to pregnant women?

Let’s consider a key Pfizer document, describing procedures to be followed in its clinical trial of the COVID vaccine. The document is titled:

“A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS.”

On page 67, we find a warning about potential adverse effects of the vaccine. The abstruse term “study intervention” pops up. It surely means “vaccination.” “Environmental exposure” means contact with elements of the vaccine other than by injection.

Warning of adverse effect:

“A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:”

“A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.”

“A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

These warnings, from the vaccine manufacturer, Pfizer, are shocking. They imply that pregnant women can be harmed by breathing in, or contacting by skin, the vaccine as it moves from person to person. Which would be “shedding.”

And what is being transferred from person to person? What is in the vaccine? Genetic material. RNA. RNA encapsulated in toxic lipid nanoparticles.

The Pfizer document states that, if any of these “adverse events” involving pregnant women occur during the clinical trial of the vaccine, they must be reported.

Chilling.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.

Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine shedding spreads disaster to unvaccinated pregnant women?

“COVID-19 The Great Reset” – “Delete” Humanity

February 19th, 2022 by Peter Koenig

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

First published on February  4, 2021

The Big Picture of the plan is clear. It plays out in front of our eyes. And we do not want to see it. Or we are blinded by the relentless lie- and deceit-propaganda stream flooding us with false news and outright lies about covid – and what’s to come.

When we understand that since more than 70 years the overall concept of the Rockefeller cum Gates plan – and certainly others, like Soros – and the rest of the Bilderberger and the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) members, and yet others – whose affiliates overlap different semi-obscure organizations – is to drastically reduce the world population – and that this moment has come now – then we understand much better what is happening today; then we get a better overview of the Big Picture.

The time has come in the form of an invisible virus called SARS-CoV-2 – later renamed by WHO to “Covid-19 Disease”; with massive and non-stop fear propaganda throughout the west; and with the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Covid-19 – The Great Reset”, authored by Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO of the WEF (1971) and his associate, Thierry Malleret.

The Great Reset is a Globalist Agenda that is managed by a small ultra-rich neoliberal group of oligarchs – names shall not be mentioned at this point – who want to implement a world destructive plan, leading to “deleting” humanity to a minimum, so that those who are left, may serve as serfs to these plutocrats, sort of the “Epsilon” people, when you compare the plan to the Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

When we understand this, it should come like an awakening what is currently happening with the different purposefully uncoordinated lockdowns around the globe. Especially since covid – the falsely declared pandemic, actually a Plandemic – has engulfed all 193 UN member countries at once. It is physically and scientifically impossible that a virus hits the entire world at the same time. Unless it has been artificially (human-made) spread to every corner of the world at the same time.

Therefore, the current killer-measures – lockdowns, obligatory mask wearing, defacing of our dignity;

  • humiliating of humanity; “social distancing”;
  • quarantines; homeoffice work;
  • separation from colleagues; school from home via Zoom or Skype

The monstruous fear campaign – the repressive police and military measures to implement these society, family and friendship breaking rules – are all the puzzles of a much larger picture.

They are only the beginning of an unraveling Big Picture.

But you remember the end-goal – “deletion” of humanity, and you will not be surprised at what’s planned – and indeed coming – if we do not stop it. We must stop it.

Because, if we, the People – do not stop this horrendous crime on humanity by disobedience and spiritual connection – we will soon look back on 2020 as a year of paradise.

What is in the making – the implementation of the real UN Agenda 21-30 – a disaster and crime on humanity of an epic dimension.

Do not get fooled by the UN Agenda’s 17 noble Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which are designed to make people believe the UN is interested in alleviating poverty in the world, to bring the Global South and the Global North on an even keel. That’s at best an illusion and in reality, a false pretense, to deviate your attention from reality. From the outset it is clear – has been clear since their design – that these goals will not be met.

To even getting closer to meet the 17 SDGs, would require an enormous amount of capital and implementation capacity. Where should capacity and capital come from? – The funding, naturally, from the IMF and the World Bank and the associated regional development banks and bilateral development agencies. Absorptive capacity is secondary. Debt and enslavement are priority.

Such capital “injections” in the form of loans, in some cases grants – would come with terrifying strings attached. For example, developing country governments will have to follow the strict rules of the global covid narrative; they also have to grant concessions for exploitation of their natural resources to foreign corporations – and they have to “structurally reform” their internal economy, meaning massively reducing public employees, making them redundant, unemployed. And of course, the usual – they have to adopt severe austerity programs. Just the contrary of what would allow destroyed economies to breathe and recover.

Back to the big picture of massive population reduction and total digital control of the remaining population under a One World Order (OWO) – as proclaimed by the WEF’s Great Reset. The Great Restructuring, as the IMF calls it, has various phases – the end-phase being – “you own nothing but you are happy”. The Great Reset and the end of the UN Agenda 21-30, is to be achieved in a decade. This will require a fair amount of mind manipulations of the “Epsilon” people (the lowest cast in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”).

The current heads of governments (sic-sic) probably have been promised important roles, Alpha or Beta types, in the New OWO government – a compensation for obeying the Global Cabal’s orders, betraying their people, destroying their economy – and driving millions, literally tens of millions into misery and outright death. For this service to the Global Cabal, they deserve a decent compensation, of course.

One of the key priorities in this “satanic” plan is getting everybody injected, what they call officially “vaccinated”. Though what the west so far has to offer are not vaccines, but mRNA, “gene-therapy” injections, that are supposed to modify the human genome, so as to produce antibodies for the corona virus… that’s what they pretend. In fact, they contain many toxic substances that have already now, as immediate reactions – horrendous side effects, with many people dying.

See this.

RT reports on 1 February 2021 that 7 die at a Spanish care home after getting Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. ALL 78 residents test positive for the virus after the jab. The second doses are still to come.

On 22 January CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists the latest numbers of 329 deaths, of which 285 were from the US and 44 from other countries. The average age of those who died was 76.5, which shows that “vaccinating” the elderly as part of the most vulnerable – is like a death sentence for them. Its purposefully “deleting” those who cost society the most – medical expenses, housing and food. These figures represent vast under-reporting. Perhaps only one percent of all vaccine-related adverse effects are reported.

*

Dr. Lee Merrit, from American Frontline Doctors AFLDS.com, says in an interview with Alex Newman, The New American (TNA) – 16 January 2021, that the covid statistical survival rate is 99.991%; that conventional drugs, like ivermectin, hydrochloroquine and other anti-viral drugs are efficient treatments for covid infections, even with strong symptoms, but they are forbidden, against the code of medicine – under fines and possible job-loss for medical personnel who disobey these orders.

Because, with effective medication, “they cannot terrorize us with more viruses and new vaccines, because anti-viral drugs will be sufficient to treat them.” And second, the vaccine industry, a US$ 69 billion-dollar business – goes to zero if conventional drugs are used.

For prevention there are also a number of highly efficient food supplements, like Zinc, Selenium, vitamin C, D – and almost all vitamins enhance your immune system. According to an Indonesian study, the vitamin D-level is of key importance; “If above 30, your chance of having to be admitted to a hospital, is less than 4%”.

On the vaccines (Modern, Pfizer, AstraZeneca), she says they are not really vaccines, but by the pharma-companies’ own admission, they are experimental injections, inserting messenger RNA (mRNA) into your body, hoping they will “produce a spike-protein in every cell of your body, creating the actual pathogen in your body to enhance your immune system. But we have so far, no experience.

We don’t know how and whether they work. In the few animal trials that were carried out, all animals died. We have no long-term human experience with these injections, and short-term experiences with side effects and sudden deaths, look far from satisfactory.”  She adds, “We are not getting informed consent for these experimental injections.”

Dr. Meritt’s final words of wisdom: “If you wanna get out of the pandemic, it’s really easy: Turn off your TV, take off your mask, you reopen your business, and you relive your life; you hug your relatives and friends, you go see your elderly relatives and you have neighborhood parties. Let me tell you, we cannot live in a basement. Even if you think masks work, don’t do this to our children. How many decades are you gonna do this? Every winter with masks on? – Masks don’t work.”

See her full-length interview (30 min) below.

*

The mRNA injections are also known to have a sterilization / infertility effect, helping reducing the population. And who knows what “side effects” (maybe principal effects) will occur over time, when, say in one, two, three years, it may be difficult to trace a strange rise in mortality back to the vaccine. It will then be sheer speculation. This may be the reason for Bill Gates smirkingly saying – in the latter part of January 2021 – after Covid there will be another, much stronger pandemic.
Will see.

Maybe its fear-mongering. He is good at it. Maybe it’s true. Such Plandemics are planned with long hands – especially now, when the US with Globalist Joe Biden is back in WHO, with, of all people, Anthony Fauci having been chosen as the US representative on WHO’s Governing Board. Gates, Fauci and Dr. Tedros, WHO’s Director General, are good buddies and share the same (conflicts of) interests – launching viruses so that their patented vaccines may come to multi-billion-dollar fruitions.

The infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report which predicted the “Lockstep Scenario” that we are living today, had several viral attacks on humanity in store for us.

*

Scientists with integrity are exiting the Globalist Matrix by the thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands – telling the people the truth – but the truth is slow in penetrating and piercing the corporate propaganda wall.

To the contrary. Despite all the evidence opposing the official narrative, the lies continue being propagated in all the official media. They are rolling with bulldozers over facts and studies and foremost over the truth.

The government-compradores do not shy from slandering these doctors, virologists and other scientists, making them lose their jobs and even medical licenses, in some cases putting them into psychiatric wards – yet they prevail. And little by little their message is coming through to the common people, and when a critical mass has been awakened – we may see the light.

For example, this past weekend 30 / 31 January 2021, massive anti-lockdown demonstrations took place in Vienna, Austria – and the police took off their helmets and walked with the people. Is this the beginning of a turn-around? – See this.

Will others follow their Austrian brothers? Of course, this is not covered by the mainstream – but this type of act of solidarity has a high frequency of vibration – and is transmitted spiritually to other police officers around the globe, who start questioning themselves their role in defending an elite. They start realizing, once they have successfully helped the elite to reach their goal, they will be dismissed, or just be put in the pot of “Epsilons”.

*

Once everybody has received their jab – not necessarily vaccines – according to Bill Gates 7 billion-plus people, the bulk of the work with people manipulation has been done.

This may take a while. Russia and China have real vaccines; the traditional type, where a weakened virus is injected to trigger an immune reaction in the body. It looks like these true vaccines become increasingly popular in many parts of the world, especially in Latin America and Asia. Will the west accept vaccination certification, or “vaccination passports”, from people who have received the Russian or Chinese jabs?

These people, who received Russian and Chinese – and possibly other traditional vaccines that may be in the making, may, over time be a real stumbling block for the implantation of Agenda ID2020 (see this, and therefore, the implementation of the Great Reset, for the Globalist Cabal. Many of Reset’s achievements depend on the human body being transformed into an electromagnetic field (EMF), so as to be digitally receptive for signals to influence their brain waves, to read their brain functions and to transform them into semi-robotic “transhumans”.

This is for “full spectrum” control over your person, including your bank account – which of course, contains by then only digital money that can no longer be withdrawn from an ATM. No, this is not conspiracy theory. This is their conspiracy upon humanity – it is their diabolical plan. These monsters are dangerous psychopaths, mass murderers, to be brought to justice, once light prevails over darkness.

On 28 January 2021, Natural News reports on the Joe Biden Globalist Agenda to Delete Humanity. The article refers to the Brain Computer Interface (BCI), Neurolink – developed by Elon Musk.

The BCI consists of electronic waves linking up with the human brain which previously had been converted into an EMF, so that it can receive digital commandos that will influence our behavior. The EMF would be achieved by mRNA injections (erroneously called “vaccines”) that contain a nano-EMF substance, eventually spreading throughout the cells within the human body, thanks to the mRNA programmed spike-protein production.

In other words, at the end of the decade, when the eugenists (Gates / Rockefellers et al) have fulfilled their dream to drastically “delete” large segments of the world population, the survivors will become mere serfs of a ruthless ultra-rich ruling class, the Globalist Cabal, also called Deep State – or the Powers That Be (PTB).

The diabolical plan that underwrites these massive changes in socioeconomic structures, coincides with UN Agenda 21-30 which is the base for the Great Reset. Neurolink founder and CEO, Elon Musk, is now in close collaboration with Bill Gates and the WEF, the executioners of the Great Reset — that’s another reason why Covid may be just the precursor for much worse to come.

It will not happen. We will not let it happen.

It is most likely that 2021 (the beginning of the UN Agenda 20-30) and subsequent years, may be much worse than 2020. Twenty-twenty was the “precursor year” – the year in which the “virus” had to be implanted – if not physically, then at least as an agent of fear – because fearful people are manipulable – they have a psychologically-proven behavior like a herd of sheep.
 

Is the Agenda to “delete” a significant share of humanity?  It’s hard to believe, and We, Humanity, will not allow this to happen.

We increase the level of our spiritual vibration, and the cadence of peaceful anti-covid-measures protests throughout the western cities and count on police and even military to take off their helmets and riot gear – and march with us, The People – into a bright sunrise, where people will reshape a new world of sovereign nation states, interconnected, aiming at a common future for mankind.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Video: Freedom Convoy 2022. Mass Arrests Underway in Ottawa

February 18th, 2022 by Maverick Multimedia

All Global Research articles 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.

 

 

 

***

Police making mass arrests in Ottawa where the Freedom Convoy

Live coverage from Parliament Hill with Rick Walker, Brendan Kennedy and Carla Olson. freedomreporters.com\

Maverick Multimedia

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Freedom Convoy 2022. Mass Arrests Underway in Ottawa

All Global Research articles 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.

 

***

 

Video Viva Frei

Independent Media

Police move in on protesters in Ottawa

Click image to access CBC live coverage. Bear in mind this is the government’s official  news source.
CBC
  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video Live Reports: Trudeau’s Police Operation in Ottawa against Canada’s Freedom Convoy

Trudeau Orders Major Police Operation against the Liberty Convoy

February 18th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

At the time of writing, the Trudeau government is in the process of carrying out a major police operation directed against the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in the midst of a snow storm.

The House of Commons Parliamentary Protective Service’s (PPS) announced the closure of parliamentary activities on Friday morning.

The decision to take action against the Freedom Convoy was implemented prior to the vote on the National Emergency which was scheduled for Monday.

The leaders of the movement Tamara Lich and Chris Barber have been arrested and are, according to reports, in police custody. 

Who are the Criminals 

All the Covid Mandates adopted since March 2020 are illegal, imposed Worldwide, based on political lies and fake science.

Extensive crimes against humanity have been committed.

Moreover, contrary to the US, EU and UK, Health Canada does not inform Canadians pertaining to the Covid-19 vaccine related deaths and adverse events.

Canadians from coast to coast and people Worldwide support the Freedom Convoy.

Trudeau does not have the support of the provincial governments. 

The latest developments suggest that the COVID-19 narrative is crumbling in numerous countries. 

The Trudeau government does not have a leg to stand on.

“Indefinite Quarantine for Justin Trudeau”. It’s a big lie.

All COVID mandates must be immediately suspended.  

The evidence is overwhelming.  

From the very outset in January 2020, people were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic. That’s a LIE. 

Very Summarized

1. The RT-PCR test is meaningless (now confirmed by the WHO and the CDC).

The entire data base of so-called “COVID confirmed cases” is  totally invalid.

These are the estimates which have been used to justify ALL the COVID-19 mandates since March 2020. The figures on COVID-19 related mortality are also invalid .

These are the fake “estimates” used to justify the violation of fundamental human rights.

2. SARS-CoV-2 is “similar to seasonal influenza” according to the CDC and the WHO. It is not a killer virus

3. The economic and social impacts of the lockdowns are devastating: bankruptcies, unemployment, poverty and despair. The COVID-19 mandates are destroying people’s lives. 

4. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have resulted in a worldwide upward trend in mortality and morbidity which is amply documented.

A confidential report by Pfizer made public under Freedom of Information (FOI) confirms that the COVID-19 jab is a “killer vaccine”. 

5. Recorded and registered for EU/UK/USA – 61,654 COVID-19 injection-related deaths and 9,755,085 injuries reported as at 28 January 2022 (only a small percentage of deaths and injuries are reported and recorded).

6. Pfizer has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice. 

For details see my E-Book (13 chapters)

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

Spread the word. In solidarity with the Freedom Convoy.

Michel Chossudovsky,

Global Research, February 18, 2022

 

Negotiations Have Got Russia Nowhere

February 18th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

One wonders if Putin and Lavrov will ever understand that there is no possibility whatsoever of having a successful negotiation of Russia’s security concerns with Washington.  There are powerful reasons for this impossibility and the reasons are powerfully obvious.

One reason is that Washington greatly prefers Russia as an enemy than as a partner.  Why?  Because the US military/security complex is a powerful, entrenched collection of institutions that has an annual budget of 1,000 billion dollars.  Such a vast sum requires an enemy for its justification.  

Russia is the enemy of choice because of its vast size and because the long decades of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union has Americans accustomed to Russia as an enemy.  Better the old enemy we know than to have to be taught a new one.

Another reason is that US foreign policy is under the influence of the Zionist neoconservatives.  The neoconservatives hate Russia for historical reasons.  Their hatred was brought to a fevered pitch when Putin restored Russia to sufficient strength to assert her sovereignty.  At the 2007 Munich Security Conference Putin announced the end of the US “unipolar world.”  The neoconservatives enjoying their Middle East conquests were caught off guard by Russia’s Resurrection.

This was a massive affront to the neoconservatives’ claim of US hegemony over the world.  In the 1990s US Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz declared the “Wolfowitz doctrine” as the basis for US unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress in advance any potential threats to US hegemony that might arise in the future.  The doctrine states:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

The statement was considered to be too revealing and too arrogant. The statement defines a country as hostile if it is strong enough to constrain US hegemony.  Wolfowitz’s statement was rewritten, made wordy and dressed up in nicer sounding words, but the meaning remained.

At the Munich Security Conference Putin challenged the doctrine of US hegemony.  He did it again when he blocked President Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and when the Russian Air Force helped the Syrian military defeat the jihadists pretending to be “Syria’s democratic elements.” Putin has also prevented Washington from serving as Israel’s proxy in an attack on Iran.

The neoconservatives find these restraints on Washington’s hegemony intolerable.

Searching for a way to gain the initiative over Russia, the neoconservatives, observing the Kremlin’s focus on the Sochi Olympics, seized the opportunity to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine and to install a neo-Nazi regime answerable to Washington. Washington’s attempt to seize via this coup the Russian Black Sea naval base in Crimea failed when the people there voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia.  The Donbass Russians did the same. Putin accepted the former but not the latter.  This left the Donbass area, formerly a part of Russia, as a trouble spot that Washington could agitate and for eight years has done so.

The Minsk Protocol or Minsk Agreement that was fashioned to protect the Donbass Russians while keeping them as part of the Ukraine was a dead letter agreement by January 2015.  Yet Putin seems to think that this abandoned agreement is still the solution.  It is unclear why Putin thinks that if the same parties sign it again it will mean any more than before.

Washington has no intention of letting go of this hotspot.  The longer it lasts, the more it works against Russia.  Not even the withdrawal of Russian soldiers from the area can calm the situation. Washington continues to predict a Russian invasion, and the US Secretary of State is again in the UN as I write making more false charges against Russia.  Russia’s insistence that her own security concerns receive attention from the West is portrayed by Secretary of State Blinken as Russian aggression.  

It would be to Ukraine’s advantage to agree to the Minsk Agreement, because it officially puts the Donbass region back into Ukraine, which would allow the Ukraine government to gradually erode the semi-autonomy granted the region and resume its persecution of the Russian population.  

But Washington doesn’t want Donbass restored to Ukraine. Washington wants a flash point to keep agitating. The constant shelling of the Donbass Russians erodes Putin’s status with patriotic Russians.  The low level warfare keeps alive the prospect of a Russian invasion with which to frighten Europe and keep Europe on Washington’s reservation.  In short, Washington has no interest whatsoever in resolving the situation.  It doesn’t hurt Washington.  It only hurts Russia.

Perhaps Putin hopes that sooner or later Western peoples will tire of the situation and demand an end to it.  But the people only have the information that the presstitutes give them, and that is that Russia is to blame. 

Putin might hope that sooner or later Ukrainians, long part of Russia, will tire of the situation and demand that their government stop acting in Washington’s interest and act instead in Ukraine’s interest.  This cannot happen because of the strength of the neo-Nazi element.  

All the world, not just Putin, should listen carefully to Blinken’s address to the UN.  It is only a few minutes.  This address was given today, Thursday, Feb 17 following worldwide reports of  withdrawn Russian forces, forces that were never there to invade Ukraine.  There is something more cynical, more evil, in Blinken’s address than in Secretary of State Powell’s “weapons of mass destruction” lie in February 2003 setting up the US invasion of Iraq.  It makes no sense for Blinken to make a total fool of himself and US intelligence by predicting that a Russian false flag event is about to happen unless it happens. I can only wonder if what Blinken is doing is describing a planned US false flag attack and blaming it in advance on Russia.

We know for a certain fact that the Western media will not give Russia a fair shake.  Whatever happens and whoever is responsible, it will be blamed on Russia.  Russian denials will have no more effect than their repeated denials that they intend to invade Ukraine.  

Western media and Western governments are so corrupt that Blinken could declare that Russia has invaded Ukraine when Russia has not, and the media would convince the world that an invasion has occurred.  The function of the Western media is to turn fiction into truth.

And the Kremlin thinks Russia can negotiate a security agreement with the West, a West that most definitely does not want Russia to be secure.

I am convinced that the only way a dangerous war can be avoided is if:

  • Putin accepts the vote of the Donbass Russians for their homelands to return to Russia
  • Putin makes it clear that Ukraine will be destroyed if the country becomes a NATO member
  • Putin makes it clear that any US or NATO missile base put in Ukraine will be destroyed
  • Putin makes it clear that US missile bases on its borders will be destroyed if not  removed
  • Putin provides Iran with the conventional missiles to defend its air space 
  • Russia ignores the West and globalism and creates a Russian-Chinese trade bloc

Washington constantly warns Europe of a dangerous Russia, but once Europe sees decisive Russian action, Europe will cease to cooperate in baiting the Bear.  Russia’s attitude should be that Europe can purchase Russian energy priced in rubles or gold if they want it, but otherwise the West can go to hell.

It is past time for Russia to get the West out of its system.  For years Russia has suffered insults, false accusations, provocations, missile bases on its borders, and installation of US puppet states in what were former constituent parts of Russia.  What good have Russia’s protests and negotiations done?  None whatsoever.  Why does the Kremlin think this will change? What will change it is for Russia to declare and enforce its red lines and spend its energies in those parts of the world where they are appreciated.  It makes no sense for the Kremlin to sacrifice Russia to the New World Order.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin (ID1974/Shutterstock) and President Joe Biden (Stratos Brilakis/shutterstock)

What Is Going to Happen in Ukraine?

February 18th, 2022 by Medea Benjamin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Every day brings new noise and fury in the crisis over Ukraine, mostly from Washington. But what is really likely to happen?

There are three possible scenarios: 

The first is that Russia will suddenly launch an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The second is that the Ukrainian government in Kyiv will launch an escalation of its civil war against the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR), provoking various possible reactions from other countries.

The third is that neither of these will happen, and the crisis will pass without a major escalation of the war in the short term.

So who will do what, and how will other countries respond in each case?

Unprovoked Russian invasion

This seems to be the least likely outcome. 

An actual Russian invasion would unleash unpredictable and cascading consequences that could escalate quickly, leading to mass civilian casualties, a new refugee crisis in Europe, war between Russia and NATO, or even nuclear war.   

If Russia wanted to annex the DPR and LPR, it could have done so amid the crisis that followed the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Russia already faced a furious Western response over its annexation of Crimea, so the international cost of annexing the DPR and LPR, which were also asking to rejoin Russia, would have been less then than it would be now.

Russia instead adopted a carefully calculated position in which it gave the Republics only covert military and political support. If Russia was really ready to risk so much more now than in 2014, that would be a dreadful reflection of just how far U.S.-Russian relations have sunk.

If Russia does launch an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine or annex the DPR and LPR, Biden has already said that the United States and NATO would not directly fight a war with Russia over Ukraine, although that promise could be severely tested by the hawks in Congress and a media hellbent on stirring up anti-Russia hysteria.

However, the United States and its allies would definitely impose heavy new sanctions on Russia, cementing the Cold War economic and political division of the world between the United States and its allies on one hand, and Russia, China and their allies on the other. Biden would achieve the full-blown Cold War that successive U.S. administrations have been cooking up for a decade, and which seems to be the unstated purpose of this manufactured crisis.

In terms of Europe, the U.S. geopolitical goal is clearly to engineer a complete breakdown in relations between Russia and the European Union (EU), to bind Europe to the United States. Forcing Germany to cancel its $11 billion Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia will certainly make Germany more energy dependent on the U.S. and its allies. The overall result would be exactly as Lord Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, described when he said that the purpose of the alliance was to keep “the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.” 

Brexit (the U.K. departure from the EU) detached the U.K. from the EU and cemented its “special relationship” and military alliance with the United States. In the current crisis, this joined-at-the-hip U.S.-U.K. alliance is reprising the unified role it played to diplomatically engineer and wage wars on Iraq in 1991 and 2003. 

Today, China and the European Union (led by France and Germany) are the two leading trade partners of most countries in the world, a position formerly occupied by the United States. If the U.S. strategy in this crisis succeeds, it will erect a new Iron Curtain between Russia and the rest of Europe to inextricably tie the EU to the United States and prevent it from becoming a truly independent pole in a new multipolar world. If Biden pulls this off, he will have reduced America’s celebrated “victory” in the Cold War to simply dismantling the Iron Curtain and rebuilding it a few hundred miles to the east 30 years later.

But Biden may be trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. The EU is already an independent economic power. It is politically diverse and sometimes divided, but its political divisions seem manageable when compared with the political chaos, corruption and endemic poverty in the United States. Most Europeans think their political systems are healthier and more democratic than America’s, and they seem to be correct. 

Like China, the EU and its members are proving to be more reliable partners for international trade and peaceful development than the self-absorbed, capricious and militaristic United States, where positive steps by one administration are regularly undone by the next, and whose military aid and arms sales destabilize countries (as in Africa right now), and strengthen dictatorships and extreme right-wing governments around the world.

But an unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly fulfill Biden’s goal of isolating Russia from Europe, at least in the short term. If Russia was ready to pay that price, it would be because it now sees the renewed Cold War division of Europe by the United States and NATO as unavoidable and irrevocable, and has concluded that it must consolidate and strengthen its defenses. That would also imply that Russia has China’s full support for doing so, heralding a darker and more dangerous future for the whole world. 

Ukrainian escalation of civil war   

The second scenario, an escalation of the civil war by Ukrainian forces, seems more likely.  

Whether it is a full-scale invasion of the Donbas or something less, its main purpose from the U.S. point of view would be to provoke Russia into intervening more directly in Ukraine, to fulfill Biden’s prediction of a “Russian invasion” and unleash the maximum pressure sanctions he has threatened. 

While Western leaders have been warning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian, DPR and LPR officials have been warning for months that Ukrainian government forces were escalating the civil war and have 150,000 troops and new weapons poised to attack the DPR and LPR. 

In that scenario, the massive U.S. and Western arms shipments arriving in Ukraine on the pretext of deterring a Russian invasion would in fact be intended for use in an already planned Ukrainian government offensive.

On one hand, if Ukrainian President Zelensky and his government are planning an offensive in the East, why are they so publicly playing down fears of a Russian invasion? Surely they would be joining the chorus from Washington, London and Brussels, setting the stage to point their fingers at Russia as soon as they launch their own escalation. 

And why are the Russians not more vocal in alerting the world to the danger of escalation by Ukrainian government forces surrounding the DPR and LPR? Surely the Russians have extensive intelligence sources inside Ukraine and would know if Ukraine was indeed planning a new offensive. But the Russians seem much more concerned by the breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations than in what the Ukrainian military may be up to.

On the other hand, the U.S., U.K. and NATO propaganda strategy has been organized in plain sight, with a new “intelligence” revelation or high-level pronouncement for every day of the month. So what might they have up their sleeves? Are they really confident that they can wrong-foot the Russians and leave them carrying the can for a deception operation that could rival the Tonkin Gulf incident or the WMD lies about Iraq?

The plan could be very simple. Ukrainian government forces attack. Russia comes to the defense of the DPR and LPR. Biden and Boris Johnson scream “Invasion,” and “We told you so!” Macron and Scholz mutely echo “Invasion,” and “We stand together.” The United States and its allies impose “maximum pressure” sanctions on Russia, and NATO’s plans for a new Iron Curtain across Europe are a fait accompli.

An added wrinkle could be the kind of “false flag” narrative that U.S. and U.K. officials have hinted at several times. A Ukrainian government attack on the DPR or LPR could be passed off in the West as a “false flag” provocation by Russia, to muddy the distinction between a Ukrainian government escalation of the civil war and a “Russian invasion.”    

It’s unclear whether such plans would work, or whether they would simply divide NATO and Europe, with different countries taking different positions. Tragically, the answer might depend more on how craftily the trap was sprung than on the rights or wrongs of the conflict.  

But the critical question will be whether EU nations are ready to sacrifice their own independence and economic prosperity, which depends partly on natural gas supplies from Russia, for the uncertain benefits and debilitating costs of continued subservience to the U.S. empire. Europe would face a stark choice between a full return to its Cold War role on the front line of a possible nuclear war and the peaceful, cooperative future the EU has gradually but steadily built since 1990. 

Many Europeans are disillusioned with the neoliberal economic and political order that the EU has embraced, but it was subservience to the United States that led them down that garden path in the first place. Solidifying and deepening that subservience now would consolidate the plutocracy and extreme inequality of U.S.-led neoliberalism, not lead to a way out of it.        

Biden may get away with blaming the Russians for everything when he’s kowtowing to war-hawks and preening for the TV cameras in Washington. But European governments have their own intelligence agencies and military advisors, who are not all under the thumb of the CIA and NATO. The German and French intelligence agencies have often warned their bosses not to follow the U.S. pied piper, notably into Iraq in 2003. We must hope they have not all lost their objectivity, analytical skills or loyalty to their own countries since then.

If this backfires on Biden, and Europe ultimately rejects his call to arms against Russia, this could be the moment when Europe bravely steps up to take its place as a strong, independent power in the emerging multipolar world. 

Nothing happens

This would be the best outcome of all: an anti-climax to celebrate. 

At some point, absent an invasion by Russia or an escalation by Ukraine, Biden would sooner or later have to stop crying “Wolf” every day. 

All sides could climb back down from their military build-ups, panicked rhetoric and threatened sanctions. 

The Minsk Protocol could be revived, revised and reinvigorated to provide a satisfactory degree of autonomy to the people of the DPR and LPR within Ukraine, or facilitate a peaceful separation. 

The United States, Russia and China could begin more serious diplomacy to reduce the threat of nuclear war and resolve their many differences, so that the world could move forward to peace and prosperity instead of backwards to Cold War and nuclear brinkmanship.

Conclusion 

However it ends, this crisis should be a wake-up call for Americans of all classes and political persuasions to reevaluate our country’s position in the world. We have squandered trillions of dollars, and millions of other people’s lives, with our militarism and imperialism. The U.S. military budget keeps rising with no end in sight–and now the conflict with Russia has become another justification for prioritizing weapons spending over the needs of our people.

Our corrupt leaders have tried but failed to strangle the emerging multipolar world at birth through militarism and coercion. As we can see after 20 years of war in Afghanistan, we cannot fight and bomb our way to peace or stability, and coercive economic sanctions can be almost as brutal and destructive. We must also re-evaluate the role of NATO and wind down this military alliance that has become such an aggressive and destructive force in the world. 

Instead, we must start thinking about how a post-imperial America can play a cooperative and constructive role in this new multipolar world, working with all our neighbors to solve the very serious problems facing humanity in the 21st Century.

*

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

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from commons.com.ua/

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Tyrants living in their ivory tower echo chambers are panicking as they have no idea how to interact with actual human beings organizing themselves around such non-mathematical principles as “freedom”, “justice” and “rights”.

No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power!
When the oppressed man finds no justice,
When the burden grows unbearable, he appeals
With fearless heart to Heaven,
And thence brings down his everlasting rights,
Which there abide, inalienably his,
And indestructible as stars themselves.

-Friedrich Schiller, Wilhelm Tell’s Rutli Oath

Who would have thought that Canada would ever be a spark plug for a freedom movement against tyranny?

As the editor of a Canadian geopolitical magazine for over 10 years and author of four books on Canadian History, I am a bit embarrassed to say that I certainly didn’t think that Canadians had this in them.

The “monarchy of the north” certainly isn’t something that exudes revolutionary sentiment- having been founded on such non-revolutionary principles as “Peace, Order and Good Governance” which have stood in stark contrast to the significantly more inspiring “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” enshrined in the founding documents of our southern cousins. Even our founding 1867 document (drafted over a champagne fueled month of hedonism in 1864) explicitly calls out the purpose of confederation not as a means of “supporting the general welfare” as was the case of the USA’s constitution in 1787, but rather “to promote the interests of the British Empire”.

But here it is.

Countless thousands of patriots have driven across the country to bunker down in Ottawa in peace and high festive spirits which I had to see with my own eyes to believe demanding something so simple and un-tainted by ideology: freedom to work, provide for families and a respect for basic rights as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a 1982 upgrade to the embarrassingly oligarchical British North America Act of 1867).

Mainstream media and political hacks have been working overtime to paint the Freedom convoy that converged on Ottawa on January 29 as an “insurrectionist movement” full of “white supremacists”, “Russian stooges”, and “Nazis” out to “overthrow the government”. Even the Bank of England’s former governor (and World Economic Forum Trustee) Mark Carney chimed in on February 7 stating that “this is sedition” and that “those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law”. Carney, the perennial financial darling of Goldman Sachs and the City of London (and Prime Ministerial hopeful) called for a targeting of all those who donated money to this domestic terror operation.

Faced with an organic civil rights movement of blue-collar truckers, farmers and tens of thousands of supporters who have convened on Canada’s capital to demand a restoration of their basic freedoms, the current Liberal government has failed to show even an ounce of humanity or capacity to negotiate. This shouldn’t be a surprise for those who have seen the hypocrisy of neo-liberal “rules-based” order ideologues in action over the past few years who are quick to celebrate the “liberty” of citizens of Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang when the outcome benefits the geopolitical aims of detached technocrats hungry for global hegemony. The moment genuine self-organized labor movements arise demanding basic rights be recognized, then the masks comes off and the rage of tyrants show their true faces.

So instead of negotiation and discussion around principled constitutional issues as the protestors have requested, we have instead seen only threats, slander and more threats ranging from cutting off $10 million of funding raised on GoFundMe on February 4, and then another $8 million raised on GiveSendGo on February 10. We have seen the government impose a state of emergency first in the city of Ottawa followed by a full province wide state of emergency on February 11 justifying cutting off vital supplies of fuel to those truckers and their families who have been camped out in -22 degree Celsius temperatures. Edicts making it illegal to provide supplies to the protestors under threat of fines ranging up to $100 thousand dollars and one year in prison have been drafted and the patriotic citizens who have organized for their right to not live under a dictatorship have been stigmatized by the media relentlessly as “insurgents”.

Emergency Measures Act invoked

Then on February 14, Justin Trudeau, followed by Deputy Prime Minister and WEF-Trustee Chrystia Freeland took turns announcing the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act which itself had formerly been known as “The War Measures Act” last invoked nearly 50 years earlier by Justin’s father Pierre Elliot Trudeau as a “solution” to the RCMP-directed terror cells deployed across Quebec and culminating in the month-long ‘October Crisis’ of 1970. The name was changed in 1988 although it is in function entirely identical.

Under the Emergency Measures Act, the Deep State of Canada managing Trudeau has adopted the Mark Carney program outlined on February 7 of targeting bank accounts of all Canadians either involved with the convoy directly or having supported the convoy via online donations or cryptocurrencies. What might those individuals suffer for the crime of having offered support or participation in the protests? Those ‘deplorable insurgents’ are facing the threat of seeing their bank accounts indefinitely frozen, and if they own businesses, having their insurance policies cancelled. The ‘big 5’ banks of Canada have thus been “deputized” and given full legal protections from being sued by those whose lives will be damaged by the shutdown of bank accounts.

One thing has become apparent thus far: the threats are not working with truckers and other protestors renewing their commitments to remain in place and even four Provincial Premiers (from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba) denouncing the emergency measures.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also loudly denounced the Act saying

“the federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the emergencies act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: The act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes… Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation ‘seriously threatens the ability of the government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada’ and when the situation ‘cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”.

Fissures Across the Establishment

Due to the inflexible Borg-like inability to negotiate with an organic civil rights movement suffered by all technocratic Davos-creatures, major fissures have begun to break throughout the political establishment of Canada.

Already two members of the Liberal Party have gone renegade breaking with Canada’s holy system of whips and loyalty to party above conscience demanding that Trudeau repeal the immensely unpopular and useless covid measures. On February 8, Liberal MP Joel Lightbound commented that Trudeau’s vile generalizations of the protestors have only served to “wedge divide and stigmatize” Canadians making the point that he has only seen a wide diversity of races attend the freedom convoy in Ottawa and across the provinces. One day later, a second Liberal MP Yves Robillard broke party ranks re-emphasizing his support for Lightbound’s statements and warned that many others within the party share these dissenting views and will soon speak out if changes are not effected soon.

In the Conservative Party, a coup of sorts took place on February 3 when opposition leader Erin O’Toole was ousted by his own caucus for sounding too much like a World Economic Forum ghoul and for the first time in over two years, an actual counter voice of opposition can be heard in the halls of parliament with demands by every single Conservative member of parliament to end the lockdown mandates and support the nation-wide protest movement.

On provincial levels, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and PEI have announced a repeal of their covid mandates including vaccination passports, while Quebec has stepped back from the anti-vaccination tax which was threatened by Premier Legault until only a week ago.

Even NDP head Jagmeet Singh who had labelled all protestors white supremacists just a few days ago reversed his tune- perhaps due to the overwhelming presence of Sikhs in the federal and provincial convoys.

Freedom Convoy Nightmares for Technocrats in USA and Europe

Meanwhile the Biden Administration has given its full support to Justin Trudeau to use the full force of federal power to shut down the protests (conflagrating the blockade of US-Canada trade in Windsor and Manitoba as being tied directly to the Ottawa protests… which it isn’t).

Perhaps Biden is concerned that the example of the convoy has spread not only across nations of the Trans Atlantic Community and Five Eyes cage, but also to the USA itself where a parallel American freedom convoy will leave Southern California for Washington D.C. on March 5 involving tens of thousands of American truckers.

Former Obama Asst. Sec. of Homeland Security and frequent CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem delivered her disturbing comments to this festering problem which must be stopped at all costs saying:

“Trust me, I will not run out of ways to make this hurt: cancel their insurance; suspend their drivers licenses’ prohibit any future regulatory certification for truckers etc. Have we learned nothing? These things faster when there are no consequences”

How this process will unfold in the coming days and weeks is impossible to determine. The illusion of liberal democracy which fueled self-aggrandizing virtue signaling technocrats lecturing “bad” authoritarian states of Eurasia how freedom should work has collapsed.

One thing is certain.

Those tyrants living in their ivory tower echo chambers demanding the world to conform to their ideal post-nation state utopias are panicking as they have no idea how to interact with actual human beings organizing themselves around such non-mathematical principles as “freedom”, “justice” and “rights” which are inalienable to all citizens- even if they live under a monarchy.

*

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

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The other day I asked, “What is Washington up to?”  It is already time to ask that question again. 

While writing my article suggesting that only a judicious use of Russian force would sober up the West, Washington doubled down on its anti-Russian position, predicting in two news venues–the Secretary of State’s UN speech and the State Department spokesman’s press briefing–that Russia was about to launch a false flag attack that Russia would use as the excuse to invade Ukraine. 

The State Department claims are pure fantasy.  Why after just rejecting the Russian’s proposal for a mutual security agreement does the Biden regime keep fanning the flames of war?

It makes no sense for the State Department to predict something that is not going to happen. As there is no aerial or satellite evidence or evidence of any kind except assertions that “US intelligence has concluded” of a constellation of attack forces on Ukraine’s border, the only way the State Department could know of a false flag event would be if it is a US false flag attack for which Russia is being set up for blame.

We have heard excessively about 150,000 invasion troops allegedly assembled on Ukraine’s border with Russia. We have not heard about 150,000 British and US trained Ukrainian troops on the border of the Donbass republics.  We have not heard about the massive arms that the West has sent to Ukraine or about the CIA trained neo-Nazi militias. If we hear anything, we hear that these Ukrainian forces are there to protect against a Russian invasion, a statement that is nonsensical.  Why would the Ukrainian forces be concentrated on the Donbass border? The Russians would simply come in behind them, and the Ukrainians would be trapped between the Russians and the Donbass forces.  How is it possible that US and UK military advisers would make such a mistake?

The Saker reports that the latest information from Donbass is that the Ukrainians are using UR-77 mine clearing vehicles to clear mines from the Donbass border.  This is the operation that is conducted just prior to a ground attack.  

It would seem that if any invasion is planned, it is a Ukrainian invasion of Donbass calculated to bring the Russians in.  The report of an invasion of Donbass would be labeled a Russian false flag attack, and the Russian intervention would become the predicted invasion.  If anything happens, I think I have described it.

Washington has prepared the narrative with Blinken’s UN address today and with the State Department spokesman’s press briefing.  NATO and the Western media know the narrative and would repeat it endlessly.  No actual facts would enter the story. Those who challenge the new narrative would be accused of being Russian agents.  Sanctions would be imposed. The military/security complex’s budget would be increased. Europe would be pressured off Russian natural gas. US/NATO military presence on Russia’s border would be beefed up.

The growing burden of deceit and frustration will one day make Russia dangerous.  To forestall an explosion of fury, Russia needs to enforce its red lines now.  Washington needs to be taught a lesson before Washington goes too far.

Update:  The scenario I sketched appears to be unfolding. In an “intelligence update” the British defense minister stated that reports from Donbass of “alleged abnormal military activity by Ukraine in Donbas are a blatant attempt by the Russian government to fabricate pretexts for invasion.”  The incompetent British Defence Ministry has prepared a map with arrows drawn of the lines of advance of the Russian forces.  As the Ukrainian army is concentrated on the Donbass border, there are no forces for the Russians to encounter in their advance along 9 lines of invasion imagined by the British. See this.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Letter from a Coerced Mother: Dr. Robert Malone

February 18th, 2022 by Dr. Robert Malone

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

To my readers,

I get a lot of letters. I get letters in my email accounts, in my social media accounts and in my mail box. They all get read. Today, I am going to do something different. I have picked a letter that touched my heart and am sharing it with you. People in the USA and all over the world are hurting in the worst way. They don’t know where to turn. It pains me. So, here goes:

Dear Dr. Malone:

Subject: Vermont now recommending that schools can drop mask requirement if they have >80% students vaxxed

I’m a busy working mom with small children living in Vermont, where my family has been living and farming for 8 generations. I do a little hobby farming myself, and I understand you are a man of the land and animals, too.

I was originally quite compliant with the pandemic response: we wore masks, I kept my healthy kids home from school, I worked from home even though it all felt nearly impossible and was a severe strain on our family. We cancelled vacations, stopped asking Grandma and Grandpa to help with the kids. My husband and I lined up to get vaccines when they came out.

After about the third time that I had to take a week off work to stay home with 3 healthy children who were in quarantine, this was in summer 2021, I started to get curious about whether all of this was really necessary, because it felt impossible and unfair that I would be denied access to my livelihood and my children would be denied school and childcare, simply because one of us made the mistake of breathing somewhere within the vicinity of a classmate who eventually tested positive for COVID-19.

I do have a, thankfully mild, (and unreported) vaccine injury in the form of menstrual disruptions: I now get a guaranteed migraine once a month. I was very sorry to hear about your vaccine injury and I am delighted that you survived it. This experience opened my mind to the fact these vaccines are not without risk and why wasn’t anybody talking about risk and choice?

That was when I became aware of the work you and so many others are doing to bring a different perspective to the situation, and I’ve been a fan ever since. It has been difficult, being of a different mindset about the pandemic compared to most of my peers, my inner circle, our local government. And I’ve been grateful lately that it seems as though the end is in sight.

And now, I’m up at 2 in the morning writing to you over what feels like it could be the last straw for me: our state, which has been recommending mandatory masking in schools this whole time, is planning to end masking requirements BUT ONLY IF more than 80% of a school’s students are vaccinated against Covid-19. So, in plain terms, we can drop not-very-effective mitigation measure if we increase uptake on not-very-effective mitigation measure which involves injecting our children with an experimental gene therapy for a disease that (a) my kids have already had and (b) doesn’t, statistically-speaking, cause any real harm for children.

Vermont is interesting because we were among the first states in the country to reach the 80% vaccination rate in adults that was expected to confer herd immunity, and here we are in 2022 coming off the worst case surge we’ve experienced yet. But apparently we somehow still think that vaccination is going to keep schools safer?

You better believe that there will be peer pressure at school and my daughters will come home once again asking to be vaccinated, because “everybody’s doing it.”

This feels like coercion of minors of the worst sort. It’s illogical, wrongheaded and I am so upset I can barely type straight. And I find myself thinking, “What would Robert Malone do?” I was wondering if you have an answer to that.

Very respectfully, Jennifer

*

Hi Jennifer, your situation touched me deeply. So, you asked me “What would Robert Malone do?” The first thing I would do is make sure I have very good lines of communication with my daughters. As they are old enough to be aware of peer pressure, I would start there.

  1. Discuss the issues of “peer pressure” – why it is important to learn to resist such pressure, how it can affect a person emotionally. That peer pressure can cause depression, hurt, feelings of betrayal , etc. That finding true friends who won’t pressure is important.
  2. Explain that there are risks and benefits to the vaccines. I think it is important to have a conversation with your children’s teachers. Explain that your children are feeling peer pressure and suffering the effects of that. If it is clear that the teacher(s) are unsupportive, it may be time to look for alternative schooling.
  3. Your children may find this video that Jill and I produced with Children’s Health Defense Hawai’i helpful.

I know Vermont has a policy to allow home schooling and there is a robust community for such. There are many solutions that are in between full on homeschooling and public schools. “Pods” (where a group of parents hire a teacher), co-opts – where parents take turns teaching or pay one parent to administer and teach, and private schools are all options. The most important element in this is making sure that your daughters feel like they have a community. Seeking community for your daughters outside of “school,” may be as important as the actual work at school.

This all becomes difficult for students who are in high school and taking advanced coursework. But remember, such students are almost adults and should be able to resist peer pressure more effectively. Encourage your children to find like-minded individuals, who will support them.

Vermont is stating an 80% vaccine compliance. At this point, I would be front and center saying “NO. Not my children. Not now, not ever for the mRNA vaccines.” The reason to be front and center with the school, the teachers and your children is that if you make it non-negotiable, most likely -they will be less inclined to argue and try to persuade. If you shirk being straight forward, people will see you as someone to be coerced. Don’t let yourself be that person.

As this comes down to mask use – it is time to protest locally and at the state level. This is blackmail of our children to take a vaccine which is not fully licensed- for your children, these vaccines have emergency use authorization only. Which is to say that they remain “experimental” from the standpoint of regulatory law. There is no license (marketing authorization).

If the federal state of emergency is dropped (as both I and the Truckers advocate be done), then they can no longer be distributed. But there is no emergency, as you indirectly point out in your letter. Not for your children, not with Omicron. Go to your state representatives, write letters, go to local school board meetings, etc. You can find a school board meeting information package here. Get on social media to find other people willing to stand up and spread the message that masks are not a good solution. Phone like minded parents. Share this podcast, which covers the risks and harms being caused to our children from these vaccine and mask policies. Visit the school Principal. Let him or her know your displeasure with both mandatory mask use and the efforts to coerce your children to take the vaccine. Contact the teacher’s union. Print out the studies that show that the masks worn are in-effective and get the word out. Basically, now is the time for all of us to get involved politically.

My prediction is the the CDC is going to back off on this requirement. However, the fact that teacher union’s are so dug in on mask use – makes it a little harder to predict what influences they have on government.

So, you asked me what I would do. The honest truth is that there is no good answer except to continue to resist and to do so in a manner that is 1) peaceful, 2) effective and 3) benefits your children. You are setting an example for them that they will remember for the rest of their lives. So step up and help them as well as their and your community get through this.

Finally, if you can hang on until summer, I believe that come the next school year – the rules will have to be re-written. I can’t see what is on the other side, but now is the time to speak out- for your children, and for all children.

Sincerely,

Robert

*

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

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

War in Europe and the Rise of Raw Propaganda

February 18th, 2022 by John Pilger

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Russia’s security proposals ought to be welcomed in the West, writes John Pilger. But who understands their significance when all the people are told is that Putin is a pariah?

Marshall McLuhan’s prophecy that “the successor to politics will be propaganda” has happened.  Raw propaganda is now the rule in Western democracies, especially the U.S. and Britain.

On matters of war and peace, ministerial deceit is reported as news. Inconvenient facts are censored, demons are nurtured. The model is corporate spin, the currency of the age. In 1964, McLuhan famously declared, “The medium is the message.” The lie is the message now.

But is this new? It is more than a century since Edward Bernays, the father of spin, invented “public relations” as a cover for war propaganda. What is new is the virtual elimination of dissent in the mainstream.

The great editor David Bowman, author of The Captive Press, called this “a defenestration of all who refuse to follow a line and to swallow the unpalatable and are brave.” He was referring to independent journalists and whistle blowers, the honest mavericks to whom media organizations once gave space, often with pride. The space has been abolished.

The war hysteria that has rolled in like a tidal wave in recent weeks and months is the most striking example. Known by its jargon, “shaping the narrative,” much if not most of it is pure propaganda.

The No-Evidence Rule

The Russians are coming. Russia is worse than bad. Putin is evil, “a Nazi like Hitler,” salivated the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia – tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the U.S. State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because “it comes from the U.S. Government.”

The no-evidence rule also applies in London. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who spent £500,000 of public money flying to Australia in a private plane to warn the Canberra government that both Russia and China were about to pounce, offered no evidence. Antipodean heads nodded; the “narrative” is unchallenged there. One rare exception, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, called Truss’s warmongering “demented.”

Truss has blithely confused the countries of the Baltic and Black Sea. In Moscow, she told the Russian foreign minister that Britain would never accept Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh – until it was pointed out to her that these places were not part of Ukraine but in Russia. Read the Russian press about the buffoonery of this pretender to 10 Downing Street and cringe.

Dangerous Farce 

This entire farce, recently starring U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Moscow playing a clownish version of his hero, Winston Churchill, might be enjoyed as satire were it not for its wilful abuse of facts and historical understanding and the real danger of war.

Vladimir Putin refers to the “genocide” in the eastern Donbass region of Ukraine. Following the coup in Ukraine in 2014 – orchestrated by former U.S. President Barack Obama’s “point person” in Kyiev, Victoria Nuland – the coup regime, infested with neo-Nazis, launched a campaign of terror against Russian-speaking Donbass, which accounts for a third of Ukraine’s population.

Overseen by CIA Director John Brennan in Kyiev, “special security units” coordinated savage attacks on the people of Donbass, who opposed the coup. Video and eyewitness reports show bussed fascist thugs burning the trade union headquarters in the city of Odessa, killing 41 people trapped inside. The police are standing by. Obama congratulated the “duly elected” coup regime for its “remarkable restraint.”

In the U.S. media the Odessa atrocity was played down as “murky” and a “tragedy” in which “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) attacked “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal damned the victims —”Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says.”

March 4, 2015: OSCE monitoring the movement of heavy weaponry in eastern Ukraine. (OSCE, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Professor Stephen Cohen, acclaimed as America’s leading authority on Russia, wrote,

“The pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during World War II. [Today] storm-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other ‘impure’ citizens are widespread throughout Kyiv-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s …

“The police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kyiv has officially encouraged them by systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German extermination pogroms, renaming streets in their honor, building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more.”

Today, neo-Nazi Ukraine is seldom mentioned. That the British are training the Ukrainian National Guard, which includes neo-Nazis, is not news. (See Matt Kennard’s Declassified report in Consortium News, Feb. 15). The return  of violent, endorsed fascism to 21st-century Europe, to quote Harold Pinter, “never happened … even while it was happening.”

On Dec. 16, the United Nations tabled a resolution that called for “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism.” The only nations to vote against it were the United States and Ukraine.

Almost every Russian knows that it was across the plains of Ukraine’s “borderland” that Hitler’s divisions swept from the west in 1941, bolstered by Ukraine’s Nazi cultists and collaborators. The result was more than 20 million Russian dead.

Russian Proposals

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, left, and President Vladimir Putin, center, in 2017. (The Russian Presidential Press and Information Office, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Setting aside the manoeuvres and cynicism of geopolitics, whomever the players, this historical memory is the driving force behind Russia’s respect-seeking, self-protective security proposals, which were published in Moscow in the week the U.N. voted 130-2 to outlaw Nazism. They are:

  • NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missiles in nations bordering Russia. (They are already in place from Slovenia to Romania, with Poland to follow)
  • NATO to stop military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.
  • Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.
  • the West and Russia to sign a binding East-West security pact.
  • the landmark treaty between the U.S. and Russia covering intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be restored. (The U.S. abandoned it in 2019.)

These amount to a comprehensive draft of a peace plan for all of post-war Europe and ought to be welcomed in the West. But who understands their significance in Britain? What they are told is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a pariah and a threat to Christendom.

Russian-speaking Ukrainians, under economic blockade by Kiev for seven years, are fighting for their survival. The “massing” army we seldom hear about are the 13 Ukrainian army brigades laying siege to Donbass: an estimated 150,000 troops. If they attack, the provocation to Russia will almost certainly mean war.

In 2015, brokered by the Germans and French, the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France met in Minsk and signed an interim peace deal. Ukraine agreed to offer autonomy to Donbass, now the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The Minsk agreement has never been given a chance. In Britain, the line, amplified by Boris Johnson, is that Ukraine is being “dictated to” by world leaders. For its part, Britain is arming Ukraine and training its army.

Since the first Cold War, NATO has effectively marched right up to Russia’s most sensitive border having demonstrated its bloody aggression in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and broken solemn promises to pull back.  Having dragged European “allies” into American wars that do not concern them, the great unspoken is that NATO itself is the real threat to European security.

In Britain, a state and media xenophobia is triggered at the very mention of “Russia.” Mark the knee-jerk hostility with which the BBC reports Russia. Why? Is it because the restoration of imperial mythology demands, above all, a permanent enemy? Certainly, we deserve better.

*

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

John Pilger’s 2003 film, Breaking the Silence, about the “war on terror” is available to view here.

Featured image: Oct. 8, 2014: U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at a Ukrainian State Border Guard Service Base in Kiev. (U.S. Embassy Kyiv, Flickr)

Yemen: Using Famine As a Weapon Is Indefensible

February 18th, 2022 by Daniel Larison

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Gerald Feierstein makes a very weak case for designating the Houthis as terrorists. First, he acknowledges that he previously opposed the designation when the Trump administration did it, but now claims that it is worth doing:

The letter, which was ultimately signed by nearly 100 former U.S. diplomats and military officers, argued that a designation would do little harm to the Houthis but would endanger the well-being of millions of innocent Yemeni civilians. Unfortunately, things have changed. The past year has demonstrated that the Houthis will not return to the negotiating table until they accept that there is no alternative to a political resolution.

There may have been some changes in the military situation over the last year, but nothing has changed as far as the effects of the designation are concerned. It is still true that a designation would do little harm to the Houthis but would endanger millions of innocent Yemeni lives, so how can a designation be any more justified now than it was then? Put bluntly, why is it somehow acceptable to cause a massive famine in the name of “leverage” now when it was not in 2021?

There is something particularly perverse about the debate over designating the Houthis. For almost seven years, the U.S. has aided and abetted the Saudi coalition as it bombs and starves the people of Yemen, and during that time none of the coalition’s members has faced any penalties for their myriad war crimes. The Saudi coalition has plunged Yemen into the abyss of mass starvation, and they have done this with U.S. backing and protection. The U.S. refuses to use the influence it has with the Saudi coalition to rein in their many abuses, but for the sake of creating supposed “leverage” with the Houthis there is serious consideration of a policy that would cause even more starvation and deprivation than the coalition’s intervention has already caused. Everyone knows in advance that terrorism sanctions won’t alter the Houthis’ behavior or compel them to negotiate. The whole of Yemen—and not just the parts that the Houthis control—will suffer terribly if the designation goes through.

Feierstein says that it is “imperative” that the U.S. and U.N. “do more to end the suffering,” but he is calling for a terrorism designation that will drastically increase the suffering for tens of millions of people. We are already seeing the economic collapse in Afghanistan that comes when a country is effectively cut off from the outside world. The same will happen to Yemen if the U.S. does this, and it will be our policy that kills huge numbers of people.

It seems that Feierstein has taken this position for lack of “viable” alternatives, and he says “it would be foolhardy not to consider the possible use of a terrorist designation as a tool in America’s kit.” When we know very well that the “tool” is nothing more than a weapon for killing innocent people, it is madness to consider using it. The pro-designation side of the debate pretends that there is some pressure that can be brought to bear on the Houthis that will force them to negotiate, but experience teaches us that sanctions do not force the target to make deep concessions when its security and survival are at stake. Even if the designation applied some pressure on the Houthis, it would be insufficient, but it would come at a staggering cost in lives needlessly lost. There is no possible justification for using famine as a weapon.

Feierstein imagines that terrorism sanctions can be “crafted in a way to minimize unintended consequences,” but there will be no getting around the intended consequences of cutting Yemen off from the rest of the world. Financial institutions and importers will not want to take the risks associated with doing business in Yemen. Overcompliance is always a problem with broad sanctions, and that is certain to happen in a case where the de facto government of a large part of the country has been labeled a terrorist organization. The devaluation of the currency and inflation that have already been wreaking havoc on Yemen’s economy will only get worse. You cannot starve an import-dependent country of trade and aid and expect anything less than mass starvation. There is no amount of clever “crafting” that will stave off disaster.

What good will this designation do? The best that Feierstein can come up with is that “it would nevertheless send a powerful, symbolic message that delegitimizes the Houthi movement.” You could not ask for a better example of destructive “do-somethingism.” Even its own advocates don’t think it will achieve anything real. It will at best have symbolic value, and that symbolism will quickly vanish when U.S. sanctions are responsible for causing a famine. Meanwhile, the millions dying from hunger and disease will be all too real. Since this is all obvious to anyone who has given it much thought, how is this even being debated?

The U.S. has been deeply implicated in the wrecking and starvation of Yemen. If the Biden administration does what supporters of a Houthi designation want, it will be responsible for one of the biggest man-made famines on record. It is bad enough that U.S. policy has helped bring Yemen to its current state. To worsen conditions in Yemen further in the vain pursuit of “leverage” would simply be evil.

*

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

Featured image is from The Progressive

Why Are Professional Athletes Collapsing on the Field?

February 18th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

U.K. football legend and sports commentator, Matt Le Tissier, has been speaking out about the large number of athletes who have collapsed or died on the field, and has lost his job as a result

Le Tissier says he has never seen anything like it in the 17 years he played football; he is calling for an investigation into the events and says ignoring it is a “massive dereliction of duty” by the officials

Fact-checkers and government officials are trying to negate or discredit information that supports the theory that mRNA injections are behind the sudden onslaught of injury and death, and they are studiously ignoring investigating the allegations

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reflects injuries to athletes in the general population, but it’s possible that the reports are nowhere near current

*

With every passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the COVID mRNA shots grows longer. Data1 show 23,149 people have died after a COVID jab as of January 28, 2022. There also are 13,575 reports of people with Bell’s palsy, 41,163 who are permanently disabled, 31,185 with myocarditis, 11,765 who have had heart attacks and 3,903 women who have lost their babies after getting the shots.

Many of these people and their stories have remained hidden from public view. YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and other social media platforms have censored the personal stories and videos of individuals documenting their injuries and permanent disabilities, so those who only read mainstream media are unaware of the overwhelming damage being done in the name of science.

However, there is a population of people whose injuries and death have been made public. In the past six months, a slew of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed and died on the field. Yet, mainstream media appear to take this in stride, acting as if what is happening is completely normal.

But, as described by Matt Le Tissier in the first seconds of the video above, this is far from normal. Le Tissier was a soccer legend2 (a sport called football in the U.K.). His prowess on the field earned him the nickname “Le God”3 before leaving the sport to become a sports commentator, most recently with Sky Sports.

As he describes in the interview, he lost that job for speaking out and bringing attention to the large number of unexplained sudden cardiac deaths happening to professional and amateur athletes around the world.

Athletes Are Dying on the Field in Large Numbers

Red Voice Media asks in a headline, “400 Athletes Collapsing & Dying Just in the Last 6 Months?”4then mentions “small stories coming out about perfectly healthy athletes mysteriously dying.” During the interview, Le Tissier is asked about his thoughts on the surge of cardiac events in the sporting world, to which he responds:5

“I’ve never seen anything like it. I played for 17 years. I don’t think I saw one person in 17 years have to come off the football pitch with breathing difficulties, clutching their heart, heart problems …

The last year, it’s just been unbelievable how many people, not just footballers but sports people in general, tennis players, cricketers, basketball players, just how many are just keeling over. And at some point, surely you have to say this isn’t right, this needs to be investigated.”

Le Tissier acknowledges there may be other factors that have caused this massive rise in cardiac events in athletes. He mentions that the athletes may have had COVID, and this could be a consequence of the illness, or it could be the vaccine. But the point he makes is that it should be investigated and it’s not.

This may cause you to wonder why health experts are not placing blame on the infection, but are in fact ignoring the issue completely. It begs the question: Do they already know the answer?

Le Tissier goes on to talk about player safety and how the sport protects the players from playing too long or too many games, yet they are watching players collapse on the field and apparently are content acting as if this is normal. He calls it a “massive dereliction of duty” that no one in a position of power is calling for an investigation.6

“It’s absolutely disgusting that they can sit there and do nothing about the increase in the amount of sports people who are collapsing on the field of play. And it’s not just what I’ve noticed this season as well. Again, in my career, I don’t remember a single game being halted because of an emergency in the crowd, a medical emergency in the crowd …

I would like somebody to look into that and go well, hang on a minute, can we go back for the last 15 or 20 years and … have a look and see how many times it happened 10 years ago and then how many times it happened in the last year. I’ve been watching a lot of sports and a lot of reports on football, and I’ve never seen anything like it, the amount of games that have been interrupted because of emergencies in the crowd.”

The interviewer pointed out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, to which Le Tissier agreed, but stressed that an investigation is required to find out if it does. “To my naked eye, this is happening a lot more than it has in the past. I can’t be the only one who is seeing this.”7

Who Are These Athletes?

Click here to watch the video.

While an overwhelming number of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed on the field, they are not just numbers. They all have a high probability of having one thing in common — they took the COVID shot. This four-minute video features a compilation of athletes who “suddenly” collapsed within a six-month period.

Kyle Warner is one of those athletes.8 He’s 29 years old and at the peak of his career as a professional mountain bike racer. After getting a second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA jab in June 2021, he suffered a reaction so severe that by October he was still spending many of his days in bed.

In an effort to get the word out that COVID-19 shots are not always as safe as you have been led to believe, Warner shared his experience with retired nurse educator John Campbell in November 2021. Warner, in his 20s and in peak physical condition, was still severely harmed by the shot.

“I believe where there is risk, there needs to be choice,” he says.9 But right now, people are being misled. “People are being coerced into making a decision based on lack of information versus being convinced of a decision based on total information transparency.”10

Warner’s story is not unlike many others’: As Campbell learned in this interview, many doctors are unwilling to acknowledge that the COVID-19 shots might be related to patients’ injury complaints. While health officials have begun to acknowledge that myocarditis may be related to the injections, they continue to ignore other adverse events.

Vaccine Injured Unlikely to Get Help

Fact-checkers are quick to negate the possibility that an overwhelming number of deaths and injuries in professional and amateur athletes is not related to the COVID shots,11 but embalmers are telling12 a different story.

Funeral director Richard Hirschman has been a professional, board-certified embalmer since 2004 and currently travels to several funeral homes to embalm bodies. He appeared on the “Dr. Jane Ruby” show to share some shocking findings he’s been seeing in his work the past few months.13

In mid-2021, he began noticing some individuals who died of heart attacks and strokes had strange clots in their veins and arteries. He showed images of fibrous-looking clots he’d pulled out of the patients’ bodies, some of which are the length of a person’s leg, and explained that normal clots usually fall apart when handled. These fibrous clots — which he said he’s seeing more and more of — maintain their integrity and can be manipulated without disintegrating.

Unfortunately, whether they die or not, when it comes to getting help for someone who believes they’re injured by the COVID shots, it’s unlikely that they get it without intensive efforts. One reason is because, while people are increasingly calling for support for the vaccine-injured, the only way to get recompense is through the obscure Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).14

To give a little background, injury claims for regular vaccines go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

Initially set up as a “no-fault” system to resolve injury claims, this U.S. law ultimately protects drug companies with a complete liability shield, and if you win through this vaccine “court,” payouts come from a special fund set up just for that purpose, sparing vaccine makers, their insurance companies and vaccine providers from costly payouts for vaccine injuries and deaths.15

However, if you believe you’ve been injured by a COVID shot, and you want compensation for it, you have to go through a different vaccine “court” run by what Fortune describes as an “obscure office within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.” And, this system not only protects manufacturers and health care providers from liability, but has hoops to jump through and limits to it that make compensation much more difficult than going through the NVICP.

The bottom line is, even if you can prove you were injured by a COVID shot, you can’t sue the drug company and the compensation you receive from the program is capped at $50,000 for lost wages and $370,376 for wrongful death.16

Officials Try to Discredit VAERS

The law that protects Big Pharma from regular vaccine injury claims is the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.17 The CICP claim process for COVID shots is conducted under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in 2005,18 which authorizes the government to take countermeasures against a public health emergency. The latest declaration under this Act was issued March 17, 2020, that provided:19

“… liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act.”

In other words, unless willful misconduct can be proven, any person covered by the act also has indemnity against claims from citizens. This is not limited to manufacturers and Big Pharma, but can also include government officials. The thing is, both claims systems are actually at the tail end of the process and don’t reflect all the possible injuries that might be occurring.

So how can you tell how many actual injuries may be occurring with a certain vaccine? That’s where another system kicks in: the National Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).20 As I’ll explain later, anyone can make a report to VAERS, and it’s this key component that critics use to claim that VAERS can contain errors and even false claims.

While the system has a mechanism to help weed out false reports, top government officials, such as NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have attempted to discredit it. Most notably, this occurred during a Senate hearing when both individuals implied that if a person had been vaccinated and was then killed in a car accident, it’s possible it could be recorded in VAERS as a vaccine injury.21

It is important to note that the VAERS system is coadministered by the CDC and the FDA.22However, as David Martin, whose self-described work involves ethical engagement and stewardship of community and commons-based value interests,23 points out in an interview excerpt posted on Twitter:24,25

“The fact is, that as much as the CDC and the FDA try to hide behind what they reportedly say is an error in the VAERS database, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, what they don’t seem to realize is that by saying that there are errors they are violating the 1986 Act …

If you go back and read that [the ACT] what you’ll find is that manufacturers of vaccines are required to keep VAERS accurate. That’s actually a statutory requirement. So, if they are telling you that it is not accurate, they are admitting to violating the law.”

By law, VAERS26 is a mandatory reporting system for health care professionals. The system is not set up to analyze causation, but may be used as raw data for detecting unexpected adverse events that may indicate a safety signal.

In total, the system must be maintained by health care professionals and drug manufacturers as a statutory requirement for maintaining indemnity against vaccine injury. Martin points out:27

“And that’s the quid pro quo in getting the immunity. If VAERS is wrong, then the immunity is pierced because it’s the manufacturer’s legal responsibility to make sure VAERS is accurate.”

VAERS Is Overwhelmed With Reports

Anyone can make a report to VAERS — both patients and health professionals can use this system to report health concerns they suspect may be connected to any vaccine, including the COVID shots. But since the system is passive, whether the reports get filed depends entirely on each individual living up to that responsibility.

The reports must contain all hospital records and any other relevant medical information. Unfortunately, as Brittany Galvin, a young woman who says she was injured by a COVID shot, succinctly notes in a video,28 the system is not efficient, and the data may be woefully out of date. This has a significant impact on monitoring the effects of the COVID inoculation program since it’s possible what you see on any given day in the VAERS database isn’t anywhere near current.

Galvin has created several videos talking about the journey she’s been on trying to report her adverse events to VAERS. In a video posted in January 2022,29 she recorded her phone conversation with an investigator from VAERS to discuss why her report filed in late May 2021 had not yet been counted in the system.

In one conversation she learned that the process takes many steps through different departments. The first stop for the VAERS reports is in a department with only 50 employees.30 Once the package of information is completed by this department, it is sent to a team of nurses who read and review every page.

If the staff have any concerns or if they feel they need more information, the package will be sent back to the first department for further information gathering.31 Galvin expressed her concern that there were hundreds of thousands of people like her and just 50 VAERS employees trying to process these reports.32

“Meanwhile the whole government is trying to force everyone to get this thing. Lying to the people telling them that “no one has gotten GBS from it” but here I sit barely able to walk and my case isn’t going to be ‘technically’ reported because the CDC hasn’t investigated yet because the hospitals are dragging their feet … it’s like a revolving crazy door and all of us humans on this planet and in this country are being lied to, and it’s unfair.”

At the end of the conversation with the investigator, Galvin learned that while her report was filed in May 2021, it wasn’t assigned to someone at VAERS until September or November 2021.33 It could be many months before the CDC receives the report of her vaccine injuries that can be published.34

*

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

Notes

1 Open VAERS, COVID-19 Data

2 YouTube, July 17, 2019

3 The Desert Review, February 7, 2022

4 Red Voice Media, January 14, 2022

5 Rumble, February 1, 2022, Minute 23:30 – 24:35

6 Rumble, February 1, 2022, Minute 25:25 & 26:38

7 Rumble, February 1, 2022, Minute 27:25

8 YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021

9 YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021, 1:01

10 YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021, 41:51

11 Reuters, November 29, 2021

12 Rumble, January 26, 2022

13 Rumble, January 26, 2022, 00:48

14 Fortune, May 3, 2021

15 Health Resources & Services Administration January 2020

16 Congressional Research Service, October 20, 2021

17 Public Law 99-660

18 Health and Human Services, Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act

19 Federal Register, March 17, 2020

20 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

21 YouTube, January 11, 2022, Min 2:49:30

22, 26 VAERS, About

23 About David Martin

24 Twitter, January 5, 2022, Min 00:27

25 Public Law 99-660  Title XXI. Subtitle 1, Sec. 2102(a)(3)

27 Twitter, January 5, 2022, Min 1:40

28 BitChute, December 18, 2021

29 Odysee, January 20, 2022

30 Odysee, January 20, 2022, Min 6:40 & 7:50

31 Odysee, January 20, 2022, Min 12:50

32, 34 Odysee, January 20, 2022, Minute 19:30

33 Odysee, January 20, 2022, Minute 20:45

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

New Zealand scientists found that there is an undeclared nanotechnology in Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines that assemble into microchip circuit boards – which can be used to track people – when exposed to heat over time.

The SGT Report channel on Brighteon.com shared a video of Hope and Tivon from Fix the World Project Morocco discussing the technology in the Pfizer vaccines. The video showed small, basic shapes of rectangles, squares and circles that are floating within the company’s vaccine samples, which were found to form more complex structures when put in a car and exposed to heat.

Ricardo Delgado of La Quita Columna previously mentioned that there’s graphene oxide in Pfizer’s shots, which is necessary to convert the frequencies to form self-assembling microchips. These microchips can perform different functions, such as controlling and tracking humans.

There are also images that show how the vaccine reacts when mixed with human blood. The white blood cells get annihilated and the red blood cells become heavily damaged.

What happens next is that vaccinated humans are emitting Bluetooth codes. There is a phenomenon going on called the “Bluetooth challenge” videos. Normally, Bluetooth devices have names on them, but what’s happening now is that when someone goes into a crowded room full of vaccinated people, there are anonymous Bluetooth addresses that show up. They’re anonymous addresses from vaccinated individuals who are emitting a signal.

A French research team confirmed this when they stopped random volunteers in a park. The team separated the groups into vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals and tested their gadgets. The team found that the vaccinated registered an unnamed MAC address.

To be clear, the MAC address is a machine dress code, all electronic hardware that makes them identifiable wirelessly. It’s a unique address to the device, so it’s just a hexadecimal number that identifies particular hardware, and each vaccinated person is disseminating a separate and unique code. (Related: Wuhan co-conspirator Charles Lieber convicted of numerous crimes involving Wuhan, nanotechnology and the CCP.)

The video also covered the theory of the “Mark of the Beast.”

“It’s in this vaccine. It’s emitting codes that you can’t by yourself. We’re getting towards that time. So with it, they’re already doing it. We’re seeing evidence that it’s already being done in human beings,” Hope said.

Hope and Tivon also talked about gene editing and DNA collection, which could be the other reasons why governments are rolling out vaccine programs.

Immortal organisms found in vaccines

Moreover, a polyp called the Hydra vulgaris, was found in the vaccine. These organisms are small, freshwater invertebrates that look like fleshy palm trees with swaying fronds of tentacles. They have stem cells that exist in a continuous state of renewal and may hold within their genomic code the key to biological immortality as these organisms renew themselves every 20 days.

According to Celina Juliano of the University of California Davis Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, these organisms neither age nor die. “You can cut little pieces out of the animal and it will regrow and maybe the most amazing thing is that you can dissociate the animal into single cells, mix them all up, put them back in a ball and a new Hydra will just grow out of it.” (Related: Fast-tracked covid-19 vaccine alters human DNA, turns people into genetically modified property.)

In the vaccines, these organisms were genetically modified. Dormant eggs are also present in the vaccine, where they become active, grow and multiply when exposed to graphite tape or graphene. With heat, graphene oxide acts like Miracle-Gro. “But what these vaccine manufacturers are trying to do is make their own new species and change and edit our DNA,” Hope said.

*

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

Featured image is from Vaccines.news

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

A state appeals court judge has reversed a lower state court’s ruling that upheld Boston’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for city workers. The policy required municipal employees get vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk termination, and it eliminated an earlier provision that allowed unvaccinated workers to instead undergo weekly testing.

Mayor Michelle Wu announced the policy on Dec. 20, less than two weeks after striking an agreement with city worker unions Dec. 7 that continued the testing opt-out provision.

Three unions — the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society and the Boston Firefighters Union Local 718 — argued Wu had violated their Dec. 7 agreement and state collective bargaining law. They filed for a preliminary injunction to pause the policy and lost when the lower court ruled against them.

Justice Sabita Singh on Tuesday issued an 18-page ruling that sided with the unions and overturned that decision. Singh also put in place a preliminary injunction that prevents Boston from acting on this policy “until final resolution of this matter.”

In the decision, Singh said the lower court judge failed to properly weigh several factors that were relevant to a request for preliminary injunction.

The ruling came hours after Wu said at a press conference that the remainder of the vaccine mandate policy, which currently requires people aged 12 and up to present proof of vaccination to enter most indoor recreation venues, could be rescinded in a matter of days as Boston’s critical COVID-19 metrics trend downward.

The mayor’s administration said it is “disappointed” in the decision and is carefully reviewing the ruling.

“To protect communities and workplaces against COVID-19, courts across the country have repeatedly recognized the rights of state and local governments to require public employees to be vaccinated,” a spokesperson for the mayor said in a statement. “More than 95 percent of the City’s workforce is vaccinated because of the policy we enacted. Our workers and residents who rely on city services deserve to be protected.”

*

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

Saraya Wintersmith covers Boston City Hall for GBH News. Before that, she covered the Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan neighborhoods, focusing on how people live and the issues that shaped those communities. Prior to joining GBH News, Saraya worked as a statehouse reporter, producing radio and television stories for WCVE, now VPM, in Richmond, Va. Saraya lives in Dorchester and holds a journalism degree from Howard University.

Featured image: Wu campaigning for mayor in September 2021 (Licensed under CC BY 3.0)

Data About the Vaccines Is Disappearing

February 18th, 2022 by Alex Berenson

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Scotland is one of the most transparent countries about Covid vaccines.

Whoops!

I mean Scotland WAS one of the most transparent.

The country just said mRNA shots work so well that the raw data showing how well they work will no longer be released.

Because they work so well.

“Misrepresented” means screenshotted for everyone to see (though, sigh, I am not an anti-vaxxer anymore than someone who investigated thalidomide in 1965 is an “anti-mediciner.”)

Here’s the final chart we’ll ever have.

Rates of death remain lower in people who were not vaccinated than those who received two doses, as they have for months:

Now let’s look at the whole chart, including boosters – no misinformation here!

SOURCE

13 out of the 104 people who died of Covid in Scotland in the week ending Feb. 4 were unvaccinated. In the 4 weeks ending Feb. 4, 61 of the 478 people were unvaccinated. (That’s equivalent to about 30,000 deaths in the United States.)

In other words, almost 9 out of 10 of the people who die in Scotland are vaccinated, and the vast majority of those are boosted. And deaths remain stubbornly high, even though Omicron is far milder.

Scotland was among a handful of countries to publish data at this level of detail. I suspect the others will follow its lead.

The novel Covid vaccine experiment is over. It’s ending. It’s failed.

The authorities know the truth as well as anyone else.

They are taking their only possible course of action: end the mandates, hide the raw numbers, and hope there are no long-term problems and everyone forgets.

Oh yeah, and try to censor anyone who won’t.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

America’s Real Adversaries Are Its European and Other Allies

February 18th, 2022 by Prof Michael Hudson

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Iron Curtain of the 1940s and ‘50s was ostensibly designed to isolate Russia from Western Europe – to keep out Communist ideology and military penetration. Today’s sanctions regime is aimed inward, to prevent America’s NATO and other Western allies from opening up more trade and investment with Russia and China. The aim is not so much to isolate Russia and China as to hold these allies firmly within America’s own economic orbit. Allies are to forego the benefits of importing Russian gas and Chinese products, buying much higher-priced U.S. LNG and other exports, capped by more U.S. arms.

The sanctions that U.S. diplomats are insisting that their allies impose against trade with Russia and China are aimed ostensibly at deterring a military buildup. But that cannot really be the main Russian and Chinese concern. They have much more to gain by offering mutual economic benefits to the West. So the underlying question is whether Europe will find its advantage in replacing U.S. exports with Russian and Chinese supplies and the associated mutual economic linkages.

What worries American diplomats is that Germany, other NATO nations and countries along the Belt and Road route understand the gains that can be made by opening up peaceful trade and investment. If there is no Russian or Chinese plan to invade or bomb them , what is the need for NATO? What is the need for such heavy purchases of U.S. military hardware by America’s affluent allies? And if there is no inherently adversarial relationship, why do foreign countries need to sacrifice their own trade and financial interests by relying exclusively on U.S. exporters and investors?

These are the concerns that have prompted French Prime Minister Macron to call forth the ghost of Charles de Gaulle and urge Europe to turn away from what he calls NATO’s “brain-dead” Cold War and beak with the pro-U.S. trade arrangements that are imposing rising costs on Europe while denying it potential gains from trade with Eurasia. Even Germany is balking at demands that it freeze this coming winter by going without Russian gas.

Instead of a real military threat from Russia and China, the problem for American strategists is the absence of such a threat. All countries have come to realize that the world has reached a point at which no industrial economy has the manpower and political ability to mobilize a standing army of the size that would be needed to invade or even wage a major battle with a significant adversary. That is why Russia has carefully refrained from retaliating against NATO adventurism prodding at its western border trying to incite a military response.

America’s rising pressure on its allies threatens to drive them out of the U.S. orbit. For over 75 years they had little practical alternative to U.S. hegemony. But that is now changing. America no longer has the monetary power and seemingly chronic trade and balance-of-payments surplus that enabled it to draw up the world’s trade and investment rules in 1944-45. The threat to U.S. dominance is that China, Russia and Mackinder’s Eurasian World Island heartland are offering better trade and investment opportunities than are available from the United States with its increasingly desperate demand for sacrifices from its NATO and other allies.

The most glaring example is the U.S. drive to block Germany from authorizing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to obtain Russian gas for the coming cold winter. Angela Merkle agreed with Donald Trump to spend $1 billion building a new LNG port to become more dependent on highly priced U.S. LNG. (The plan was cancelled after the U.S. and German elections changed both leaders.) But Germany has no other way of heating many of its houses and office buildings (or supplying its fertilizer companies) than with Russian gas.

The only way left for U.S. diplomats to block European purchases is to goad Russia into a military response and then claim that avenging this response outweighs any purely national economic interest. As hawkish Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, explained in a State Department press briefing on January 27: “If Russia invades Ukraine one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” The problem is to create a suitably offensive incident and depict Russia as the aggressor.

Nuland expressed who was dictating the policies of NATO members succinctly in 2014: “Fuck the EU.” That was said as she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine that the State Department was backing the puppet Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Ukrainian prime minister (removed after two years in a corruption scandal), and U.S. political agencies backed the bloody Maidan massacre that ushered in what are now eight years of civil war. The result devastated Ukraine much as U.S. violence had done in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a policy of world peace or democracy that European voters endorse.

U.S. trade sanctions imposed on its NATO allies extends across the trade spectrum. Austerity-ridden Lithuania gave up its cheese and agricultural market in Russia, and is blocking its state-owned railroad from carrying Belarus potash to the Baltic port of Klaipeda. The port’s majority owner complained that “Lithuania will lose hundreds of millions of dollars from halting Belarus exports through Klaipeda,” and “could face legal claims of $15 billion over broken contracts.” Lithuania has even agreed to U.S. prompting to recognize Taiwan, resulting in China refusing to import German or other products that include Lithuanian-made components.
Europe is to impose sanctions at the cost of rising energy and agricultural prices by giving priority to imports from the United States and foregoing Russian, Belarusian and other linkages outside of the Dollar Area. As Sergey Lavrov put matters: “When the United States thinks that something suits its interests, it can betray those with whom it was friendly, with whom it cooperated and who catered to its positions around the world.”

America’s sanctions on its allies hurt their economies, not those of Russia and China

What seems ironic is that such sanctions against Russia and China have ended up helping rather than hurting them. But the primary aim was not to hurt nor to help the Russian and Chinese economies. After all, it is axiomatic that sanctions force the targeted countries to become more self-reliant. Deprived of Lithuanian cheese, Russian producers have produced their own, and no longer need to import it from the Baltic states. America’s underlying economic rivalry is aimed at keeping European and its allied Asian countries in its own increasingly protected economic orbit. Germany, Lithuania and other allies are told to impose sanctions directed against their own economic welfare by not trading with countries outside the U.S. dollar-area orbit.
Quite apart from the threat of actual war resulting from U.S. bellicosity, the cost to America’s allies of surrendering to U.S. trade and investment demands is becoming so high as to be politically unaffordable. For nearly a century there has been little alternative but to agree to trade and investment rules favoring the U.S. economy as the price of receiving U.S. financial and trade support and even military security. But an alternative is now threatening to emerge – one offering benefits from China’s Belt and Road initiative, and from Russia’s desire for foreign investment to help modernize its industrial organization, as seemed to be promised thirty years ago in 1991.

Ever since the closing years of World War II, U.S. diplomacy has aimed at locking Britain, France, and especially defeated Germany and Japan, into becoming U.S. economic and military dependencies. As I documented in Super Imperialism, American diplomats broke up the British Empire and absorbed its Sterling Area by the onerous terms imposed first by Lend-Lease and then the Anglo-American Loan Agreement of 1946. The latter’s terms obliged Britain to give up its Imperial Preference policy and unblock the sterling balances that India and other colonies had accumulated for their raw-materials exports during the war, thus opening the British Commonwealth to U.S. exports.

Britain committed itself not to recover its prewar markets by devaluing sterling. U.S. diplomats then created the IMF and World Bank on terms that promoted U.S. export markets and deterred competition from Britain and other former rivals. Debates in the House of Lords and the House of Commons showed that British politicians recognized that they were being consigned to a subservient economic position, but felt that they had no alternative. And once they gave up, U.S. diplomats had a free hand in confronting the rest of Europe.

Financial power has enabled America to continue dominating Western diplomacy despite being forced off gold in 1971 as a result of the balance-of-payments costs of its overseas military spending. For the past half-century, foreign countries have kept their international monetary reserves in U.S. dollars – mainly in U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. bank accounts and other financial investments in the U.S. economy. The Treasury-bill standard obliges foreign central banks to finance America’s military-based balance-of-payments deficit – and in the process, the domestic government budget deficit.

The United States does not need this recycling to create money. The government can simply print money, as MMT has demonstrated. But the United States does need this foreign central bank dollar recycling to balance its international payments and support the dollar’s exchange rate. If the dollar were to decline, foreign countries would find it much easier to pay international dollar-debts in their own currencies. U.S. import prices would rise, and it would be more costly for U.S. investors to buy foreign assets. And foreigners would lose money on U.S. stocks and bonds as denominated in their own currencies, and would drop them. Central banks in particular would take a loss on the Treasury’s dollar bonds that they hold in their monetary reserves – and would find their interest to lie in moving out of the dollar. So the U.S. balance of payments and exchange rate are both threatened by U.S. belligerency and military spending throughout the world – yet its diplomats are trying to stabilize matters by ramping up the military threat to crisis levels.

U.S. drives to keep its European and East Asian protectorates locked into its own sphere of influence is threatened by the emergence of China and Russia independently of the United States while the U.S. economy is de-industrializing as a result of its own deliberate policy choices. The industrial dynamic that made the United States so dominant from the late 19th century up to the 1970s has given way to an evangelistic neoliberal financialization. That is why U.S. diplomats need to arm-twist their allies to block their economic relations with post-Soviet Russia and socialist China, whose growth is outstripping that of the United States and whose trade arrangements offer more opportunities for mutual gain.

At issue is how long the United States can block its allies from taking advantage of China’s economic growth. Will Germany, France and other NATO countries seek prosperity for themselves instead of letting the U.S. dollar standard and trade preferences siphon off their economic surplus?

Oil diplomacy and America’s dream for post-Soviet Russia

The expectation of Gorbachev and other Russian officials in 1991 was that their economy would turn to the West for reorganization along the lines that had made the U.S., German and other economies so prosperous. The mutual expectation in Russia and Western Europe was for German, French and other investors to restructure the post-Soviet economy along more efficient lines.

That was not the U.S. plan. When Senator John McCain called Russia “a gas station with atom bombs,” that was America’s dream for what they wanted Russia to be – with Russia’s gas companies passing into control by U.S. stockholders, starting with the planned buyout of Yukos as arranged with Mikhail Khordokovsky. The last thing that U.S. strategists wanted to see was a thriving revived Russia. U.S. advisors sought to privatize Russia’s natural resources and other non-industrial assets, by turning them over to kleptocrats who could “cash out” on the value of what they had privatized only by selling to U.S. and other foreign investors for hard currency. The result was a neoliberal economic and demographic collapse throughout the post-Soviet states.

In some ways, America has been turning itself into its own version of a gas station with atom bombs (and arms exports). U.S. oil diplomacy aims to control the world’s oil trade so that its enormous profits will accrue to the major U.S. oil companies. It was to keep Iranian oil in the hands of British Petroleum that the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt worked with British Petroleum’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company to overthrow Iran’s elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1954 when he sought to nationalize the company after it refused decade after decade to perform its promised contributions to the economy. After installing the Shah whose democracy was based on a vicious police state, Iran threatened once again to act as the master of its own oil resources. So it was once again confronted with U.S.-sponsored sanctions, which remain in effect today. The aim of such sanctions is to keep the world oil trade firmly under U.S. control, because oil is energy and energy is the key to productivity and real GDP.

In cases where foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and neighboring Arab petrostates have taken control, the export earnings of their oil are to be deposited in U.S. financial markets to support the dollar’s exchange rate and U.S. financial domination. When they quadrupled their oil prices in 1973-74 (in response to the U.S. quadrupling of its grain-export prices), the U.S. State Department laid down the law and told Saudi Arabia that it could charge as much as it wanted for its oil (thereby raising the price umbrella for U.S. oil producers), but it had to recycle its oil-export earnings to the United States in dollar-denominated securities – mainly in U.S. Treasury securities and U.S. bank accounts, along with some minority holdings of U.S. stocks and bonds (but only as passive investors, not using this financial power to control corporate policy).

The second mode of recycling oil-export earnings was to buy U.S. arms exports, with Saudi Arabia becoming one of the military-industrial complex’s largest customers. U.S. arms production actually is not primarily military in character. As the world is now seeing in the kerfuffle over Ukraine, America does not have a fighting army. What it has is what used to be called an “eating army.” U.S. arms production employs labor and produces weaponry as a kind of prestige good for governments to show off, not for actual fighting. Like most luxury goods, the markup is very high. That is the essence of high fashion and style, after all. The MIC uses its profits to subsidize U.S. civilian production in a way that does not violate the letter of international trade laws against government subsidy.

Sometimes, of course, military force is indeed used. In Iraq, first George W. Bush and then Barack Obama used the military to seize the country’ oil reserves, along with those of Syria and Libya. Control of world oil has been the buttress of America’s balance of payments. Despite the global drive to slow the planet’s warming, U.S. officials continue to view oil as the key to America’s economic supremacy. That is why the U.S. military is still refusing to obey Iraq’s orders to leave their country, keeping its troops in control of Iraqi oil, and why it agreed with the French to destroy Libya. Closer to home, President Biden has approved offshore drilling and supports Canada’s expansion of its Athabasca tar sands, environmentally the dirtiest oil in the world.

Along with oil and food exports, arms exports support the Treasury-bill standard’s financing of America’s overseas military spending on its 750 bases abroad. But without a standing enemy constantly threatening at the gates, NATO’s existence falls apart. What would be the need for countries to buy submarines, aircraft carriers, airplanes, tanks, missiles and other arms?

As the United States has de-industrialized, its trade and balance-of-payments deficit is becoming more problematic. It needs arms export sales to help reduce its widening trade deficit and also to subsidize its commercial aircraft and related civilian sectors. The challenge is how to maintain its prosperity and world dominance as it de-industrializes while economic growth is surging ahead in China and now even Russia.
America has lost its industrial cost advantage by the sharp rise in its cost of living and doing business in its financialized post-industrial rentier economy, but additionally, as Seymour Melman explained in the 1970s, Pentagon capitalism is based on cost-plus contracts: The higher military hardware costs, the more profit its manufacturers receive. So U.S. arms are over-engineered – hence, the $500 toilet seats instead of a $50 model. The main attractiveness of luxury goods after all, including military hardware, is their high price.

This is the background for U.S. fury at its failure to seize Russia’s oil resources – and at seeing Russia also break free militarily to create its own arms exports. Today Russia is in the position of Iran in 1954 and again in 1979. Not only do its sales rival those of U.S. LNG, but Russia keeps its oil-export earnings at home to finance its re-industrialization, so as to rebuild the economy that was destroyed by the U.S.-sponsored shock “therapy” of the 1990s.

The line of least resistance for U.S. strategy seeking to maintain control of the world’s oil supply while maintaining its luxury-arms export market via NATO is to Cry Wolf and insist that Russia is on the verge of invading Ukraine – as if Russia had anything to gain by quagmire warfare over Europe’s poorest and least productive economy. The winter of 2021-22 has seen a long attempt at U.S. prodding of NATO and Russia to fight – without success.

U.S. dreams of a neoliberalized China as a U.S. corporate affiliate

America has de-industrialized as a deliberate policy of slashing production costs as its manufacturing companies have sought low-wage labor abroad, most notably in China. This shift was not a rivalry with China, but was viewed as mutual gain that would see American banks and investors secure control and profits o Chinese industry as it was marketized. The rivalry was between U.S. employers and U.S. labor, and the class-war weapon was offshoring and, in the process, cutting back government social spending.

Similar to the Russian pursuit of oil, arms and agricultural trade independent of U.S. control, China’s offense is keeping the profits of its industrialization at home, retaining state ownership of significant corporations and, most of all, keeping money creation and the Bank of China as a public utility to fund its own capital formation instead of letting U.S. banks and brokerage houses provide its financing and siphon off its surplus in the form of interest, dividends and management fees. The one saving grace to U.S. corporate planners has been China’s role in deterring U.S. wages from rising by providing a source of low-priced labor to enable American manufacturers to offshore and outsource their production.

The Democratic Party’s class war against unionized labor started in the Carter Administration and greatly accelerated when Bill Clinton opened the southern border with NAFTA. A string of maquiladoras were established along the border to supply low-priced handicraft labor. This became so successful a corporate profit center that Clinton pressed to admit China into the World Trade Organization in December 2001, in the closing month of his administration. The dream was for it to become a profit center for U.S. investors, producing for U.S. companies and financing its capital investment (and housing and government spending too, it was hoped) by borrowing U.S. dollars and organizing its industry in a stock market that, like that of Russia in 1994-96, would become a leading provider of finance-capital gains for U.S. nd other foreign investors.

Walmart, Apple and many other U.S. companies organized production facilities in China, which necessarily involved technology transfers and creation of an efficient infrastructure for export trade. Goldman Sachs led the financial incursion, and helped China’s stock market soar. All this was what America had been urging.
Where did America’s neoliberal Cold War dream go wrong? For starters, China did not follow the World Bank’s policy of steering governments to borrow in dollars to hire U.S. engineering firms to provide export infrastructure. It industrialized in much the same way that the United States and Germany did in the late 19th century: By heavy public investment in infrastructure to provide basic needs at subsidized prices or freely, from health care and education to transportation and communications, in order to minimize the cost of living that employers and exporters had to pay. Most important, China avoided foreign debt service by creating its own money and keeping production facilities in its own hands.

U.S. demands are driving its allies out of the dollar-NATO trade and monetary orbit

As in a classical Greek tragedy, U.S. foreign policy is bringing about precisely the outcome that it most fears. Overplaying their hand with their own NATO allies, U.S. diplomats are bringing about Kissinger’s nightmare scenario, driving Russia and China together. While America’s allies told to bear the costs of U.S. sanctions, Russia and China are benefiting by being obliged to diversify and make their own economies independent of reliance on U.S. suppliers of food and other basic needs. Above all, these two countries are creating their own de-dollarized credit and bank-clearing systems, and holding their international monetary reserves in the form of gold, euros and each other’s currencies to conduct their mutual trade and investment.

This de-dollarization provides an alternative to the unipolar U.S. ability to gain free foreign credit by the U.S. Treasury-bill standard for world monetary reserves. As foreign countries and their central banks de-dollarize, what will support the dollar? Without the free line of credit provided by central banks automatically recycling America’s foreign military spending back to the U.S. economy (with only a minimal return), how can the United States balance its international payments in the face of its de-industrialization?
The United States cannot simply reverse its dependence on Chinese and other Asian labor by bringing production back home. It has built too high a rentier overhead into its economy for its labor to be able to compete internationally, given the U.S. wage-earner’s budgetary demands to pay high and rising housing and education costs, debt service and health insurance, and for privatized infrastructure services.

The only way for the United States to sustain its international financial balance is by monopoly pricing of its arms, patented pharmaceutical and information-technology exports, and by buying control of the most lucrative production and potentially rent-extracting sectors abroad– in other words, by spreading neoliberal economic policy throughout the world in a way that obliges other countries to depend on U.S. loans and investment.

That is not a way for national economies to grow. The alternative to neoliberal doctrine is China’s growth policies that follow the same basic industrial logic by which the United States, Germany and France rose to industrial power during their own industrial takeoff with strong government support and social spending programs.

The United States has abandoned this traditional industrial policy since the 1980s. It is imposing on its own economy the neoliberal policies that de-industrialized Pinochetista Chile, Thatcherite Britain and the post-industrial former Soviet republics, the Baltics and Ukraine since 1991. Its highly polarized and debt-leveraged prosperity is based on inflating real estate and securities prices and privatizing infrastructure.

This neoliberalism has been a path to becoming a failed economy and indeed, a failed state, obliged to cope with its debt deflation, rising housing prices and rents as owner-occupancy rates decline, as well as its exorbitant medical and other costs resulting from privatizing what other countries provide freely or at subsidized prices as human rights – health care, education, medical insurance and pensions.

The success of China’s industrial policy with a mixed economy and state control of the monetary and credit system has led U.S. strategists to fear that Western European and Asian countries – even Taiwan, not just Japan and South Korea – may find their economic advantage to lie in integrating more closely with China and Russia. The U.S. response to such a global rapprochement with China and Russia seems to have no other leverage except economic sanctions and military belligerence. That New Cold War stance is expensive, and other countries are balking at bearing the cost of a conflict that has no benefit for themselves and indeed, threatens to destabilize their own economic growth and political independence.

Without subsidy from these countries, especially as other countries de-dollarize their economies, how can the United States maintain the balance-of-payments costs of its overseas military spending? Cutting back that spending, and indeed recovering industrial self-reliance and competitive economic power, would require a transformation of American politics. Such a change seems unlikely, but without it, how long can America’s post-industrial rentier economy manage to force other countries to provide it with the economic affluence (literally a flowing-in) that it is no longer producing at home?

*

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

Featured image is by Kaboompics.com from Pexels

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Real Adversaries Are Its European and Other Allies

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Sometimes the hypocrisy of the US government, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, it just too much to let pass.

The latest example of this is the Ukraine crisis, where the US pretty much stands all alone (unless you count Britain’s embattled and embarrassed Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who parrots US policy like a trained bird), accusing Russia not just of preparing for an “imminent invasion’ of Ukraine, but of violating international law and “rules-based international order,” as Secretary of State Antony Blinken likes to put it.

The Biden administration’s top diplomat has  repeatedly blasted both Russia for threatening Ukraine with an invasion by moving troops and equipment to its border and to the border between Ukraine and Belarus, Russia’s ally to the west, and China for its threats to Taiwan and for a rights crackdown in Hong Kong, a Chinese Special Administrative Region that had been promised 50 years of “no change” but was put under new vastly stricter national security laws following violent student protests and university occupations in 2019-20.

But how can the US make such accusations against the Russians and the Chinese governments when the US for nearly eight years, has been bombing, launching rocket and drone attacks, and sending troops, under both CIA and Pentagon control, against both ISIS and Syrian government troops and aircraft — even attacking and killing Russian mercenary troops at one point, who, unlike the US, were in Syria at the request of the Syrian government.

US military actions in Syria are completely outside of any “rules-based international order.”  They are the actions of a lawless rogue nation.

International rules, when it comes to warfare, are crystal clear, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which is an international treaty signed and ratified by the US government along with most other nations of the world and incorporating all the laws of war. The primary law, violation of which is described as the gravest war crime of all “because it contains with in it all other war crimes,” ia called a Crime Against Peace. That law states that no nation may attack another except if that nation faces an “imminent threat” of attack.

There are no codicils expanding on or getting around that proscription.

The US has committed that  Crime Against Peace countless times over the years since the establishment of the UN Charter. It did so in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Somalia, in Sudan, in Haiti, in the Dominican Republic, in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, in Cuba, in Niger, in the Congo, in Panama, in Grenada — indeed in so many places I can’t hope to name them  all. Suffice to say that my whole life (I was born in 1949), my country has been a violator of the UN Charter’s ban on launching illegal wars.

Rules-based order? What the F**k is Blinken talking about? The US makes its own rules. In fact, whenever the US launches some illegal invasion, Special Forces raid or air attack against a country, the biggest complaint we hear in the US is that the president has ordered up and launched a war “without Congressional approval.”

The implication is that if Congress approves an illegal war or act of war, that makes it legit.

It doesn’t. It doesn’t even make it Constitutional, because the Constitution by law, every treaty that the US agrees to becomes a part of the US legal code, and that includes the UN Charter, which was largely written by the US, and was ratified by the Senate.

What makes it worse when the US makes such accusations against Russia and China is that it is accusing two countries which, as objectionable as their actions or threats might be,  at least have a better argument for the legality of their actions than does the US.

Let’s start with China. The government in Beijing stands accused by Blinken and the US government under a series of presidents, with threatening Taiwan, an island that historically was a part of China, then, from 1985 to 1945 a colony of Japan, then briefly part of China following World War II, but which became functionally independent in 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party won its revolution on the mainland, founding the People’s Republic of China, and the remnants of the Nationalist Party and its army fled to Taiwan, murdering tens of thousands of local Taiwanese and Hakka Chinese people, and establishing a brutal dictatorship under Nationalist leader and major domo Chiang Kai-Shek. China has never acknowledged the independence of Taiwan, and Taiwan’s government, at least until the 70s, was claiming to be the “real” government of all of China.

The US initially recognized Taiwan, after the Chinese Communist revolutionary victory in 1949, as an independent country, but Richard Nixon, in a slick realpolitik maneuver masterminded by his National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in order to recognize China and drive a wedge between that country and the Soviet Union, agreed to cease recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, downgraded the US embassy from the island to the status of a consulate, with the Embassy in Beiing.  In other words, at that point, from the US point of view at least, Taiwan’s leal status became an internal affair of China’s, not an international affair subject to the protections of the UN Charter.

The same applies to the Chinese crackdown on rights in Hong Kong. Since July 1997, Hong Kong ceased to be a British colony, and reverted to being part of China. Now it’s true there were negotiations between the Beijing government and departing British government in the years preceeding that handover.  During those years of transition, Hong Kong’s appointed colonial Governor Chris Patten, former head of the British Conservative Party, carefully avoided allowing Hong Kongers to gain long-sought universal suffrage to elect all members of the territory’s legislative council, Legco, before the British departure (a move which would at least have left the Beijing facing a local government that actually represented all the people of Hong Kong, instead of Legco representatives representing various business sectors like banking, the legal profession, the retail industry, property owners, etc).

China agreed during those negotiations to gradually increase the number of Legco members elected from geographic constituencies, and to leave basic freedoms of speech, press, etc. untouched “for 50 years.” But when students rose up to protest the arrests of Hong Kong residents and their deportation to face trials in China, it set in motion a confrontation between democracy advocates in Hong Kong and authoritarians in Beijing, and ultimately to a new Beijing-imposed national security law for Hong Kong that has turned the city into essentially just another bit of China. But again, while it was certainly a draconian over-reaction to legitimate local protests, that action by China is not a violation of international law — just violation of an agreement between a departing (and loathed) colonial power, a legacy of the European Opium War against China, and a new vastly more powerful China. It’s a bit like the US’s brutal crackdown on immigrants at the Mexican border or on Native defenders of water rights in North Dakota. Disgusting, and perhaps criminal under US law, but hardly a violation of some kind of “rules-based international order.” Indeed, Native American nations that had treaties with the US and were promised soverign lands forever in those treaties actually have a better ground to challenge US abuses before the UN than people do people in Hong Kong or Taiwan, where the issues are clearly, from an international law perspective, would appear to be internal Chinese domestic ones.

As for Russia,  in the 204 plebiscite in Crimea following the coup in Kiev, some 97% of the population there voted that they wanted to leave Ukraine and return to being part of Russia, as the peninsula had been until 1954, when new Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, as a gift to the region he had grown up in, transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet to the Ukrainian Soviet. The US has criticized that plebiscite  as somehow fraudulent (Crimea is about 85% ethnic Russian). With 85% of eligible people voting, that plebiscite provided Russia with wht it considered to be the justification for reclaiming  jurisdiction over Crimea. Russia’s action, criticized by the US as “aggression,” was in fact less of a violation of democratic norms though than the massive disenfranchisement of blacks and other people of color in Republican-run “red” states of the US — a process that is now being accelerated to warp speed with the approach of the 2022 off-year Congressional elections. If the Biden administration really cared about justice and democracy it would be laser-focused on defending voter rights in the US, not on shipping deadly weapons to Ukraine.

If the US government cared about following a “rules-based international order,” the it would pull all US military forces out of Syria, pull the US Navy out of the Persian Gulf, stop using drones to kill people in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere, stop sending US Special Forces wherever the president wants to send them, and rejoin the World Court, agreeing to respect its adjudication of violations of international rules and laws.

Then we wouldn’t have to listen to all the hypocritical crap uttered by Biden, Blinken and their ilk.

Someday, I’m sure there will come a reckoning, when US leaders will finally be held to account for their long record of crimes against humanity. Until then, we will have to endure all this epic hypocrisy.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from an RT News 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

An unprecedented number of public statements from Western spies insisting that Russia may be about to launch an invasion of Ukraine are likely to be based more on what analysts thought Moscow was about to do, rather than evidence that it was about to do it, in an information campaign designed to counter the Kremlin’s own narratives, Britain’s former top spy has suggested.

In an interview with the NATO and weapons industry-funded lobby group The Atlantic Council on Wednesday, former British foreign intelligence service chief Sir John Sawers was asked whether he thought Western governments’ publication of declassified material was helpful for countering Russia, or if it might have been planted to diminish the credibility of the officials who ended up releasing it.

“I think, in general, what you point to is the fact that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s Russia has been rather skillful at shaping narratives, at using their arguments and at times their propaganda in order to shape opinion, partly in their own country, but even more so in the West,” Sawers replied.

“I think that what the US administration in particular has been quite adept at in this crisis has been, first of all, corralling the West, coordinating and orchestrating a common Western response,” he continued. “And second of all, not allowing Putin to have it all his own way on the airwaves.”

The former MI6 chief then went on to say that he thinks the Western intelligence briefings “are not gems from deeply sensitive agent reporting. What has been released, the idea that Putin might want to dislodge [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky and replace him with a puppet government, or that he’s going to contrive a pretext for Russian intervention in the east of Ukraine, these are based on a growing understanding, an analysis of Putin, rather than deep, secret intelligence reports.

“And I think wrapping them up as intelligence and adding a few juicy names to the reporting just gives some good stories for the media, and helps push back against the narrative,” he continued. “It’s a skillful use of information and analysis to turn the tables on Putin and his own ability to dominate the airwaves.”

Western leaders have been voicing fears of a possible Russian attack on Ukraine for months, and in recent days they have claimed that an invasion could take place at any moment, with some media outlets naming February 16 as the date. These reports have been fueled partly by selective American and British declassifications of intelligence alleging various Russian plans to stage coups in Ukraine or to stake “false flag” operations as a pretext for aggression.

However, Moscow has consistently denied that it ever planned to invade, and some have questioned both the accuracy of the Western reports and the wisdom of the strategy to periodically leak accusations with no evidence to prove them.

Earlier this month, when US State Department spokesperson Ned Price was asked for proof following an allegation that Russia had planned to stage a propaganda video as a pretext for invading Ukraine, he replied, “If you doubt the credibility of the US government, of the British government, of other governments, and want to find solace in the information the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.”

*

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

Featured image: Russian Navy Raptor anti-saboteur boats are seen during an amphibious assault exercise along the coast held by army corps and naval infantry units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at the Opuk training ground near Kerch, Crimea, Russia. © Sputnik / Konstantin Mihalchevskiy

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

February 18th, 2022 by Global Research News

World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders” Revealed

Jacob Nordangard, February 12, 2022

Johns Hopkins University Confirms: You Can be “Vaccinated” with a PCR Test, Even Without Knowing

Weaver, February 16, 2022

Video: Whistleblower Canadian Army Major Breaks Ranks and Spills the Truth on Covid-19 Mandates

Major Stephen Chledowski, February 11, 2022

The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It’s About Germany

Mike Whitney, February 15, 2022

Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself

Dr. Ariyana Love, February 16, 2022

Klaus Schwab’s WEF “School for Covid Dictators”, a Plan for the “Great Reset”

Michael Lord, February 13, 2022

Colossal Financial Pyramid: BlackRock and The WEF “Great Reset”

F. William Engdahl, February 13, 2022

Trudeau Threatens Canadians Who Uphold the Charter and the Basic Tenets of Democracy

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 13, 2022

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 13, 2022

UK Government Data Proves the COVID-19 Injections Cause Damage to the Innate Immune System that Worsens by the Week

The Daily Expose, February 14, 2022

“The Truth Of COVID-19: The India Statement.”

Walter Gelles, February 13, 2022

The COVID Mandates Are Leaving Europe. Is Freedom Winning?

Joanna Miller, February 16, 2022

The Vaccine Death Report: Evidence of Millions of Deaths and Serious Adverse Events Resulting from the Experimental COVID-19 Injections

David John Sorensen, February 6, 2022

A National Emergency AGAINST Trudeau’s “COVID Mandates” Which “Seriously Endanger the Lives, Health or Safety of Canadians”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 15, 2022

The COVID Narrative and “Conspiracy Theories”: A Physician’s Perspective

Michael C, February 12, 2022

Video: Grand Jury Day 1: Attorney at Law Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Germany, for the “PCR Plandemic Trial” Before a Grand Jury

Reiner Fuellmich, February 11, 2022

Worldwide Freedom Movement against Covid Mandates, QR Codes and Restrictions: The Global Elite’s Technological Coup d’État Against Humanity

Robert J. Burrowes, February 14, 2022

Video: Up to Seven Years in Prison for Four Year-old Facebook Posts?

Resistance GB, February 14, 2022

Video: World Awakening – Freedom Convoys

Marcel Irnie, February 15, 2022

Video: Breaking News: Justin Trudeau Accuses Jewish Member of Parliament for Supporting Nazis

By Jamie Schmale, February 18, 2022

Instead of answering questions, he resorted to accusing Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish Member of Parliament and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, of supporting those waving swastikas. There were many on the opposition side of the House who immediately came to her defence. However, the Liberal benches were silent on the Prime Minister’s demeaning comments.

Video: Dr. Charles Hoffe Speaks Out to the World

By Dr. Charles Hoffe, February 18, 2022

Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family physician in British Columbia. “I have been horrified to see what the COVID shots have done to my own patients. I have a small country practice with about 2,000 patients and amongst those people, I now have 12 in my own practice who are disabled since their COVID shots.”

Video: #FreedomConvoy2022 to Veterans and Civilians: “Please Come. Your Country Needs You.”

By Bridge City News, February 18, 2022

They addressed a narrative circulating around mainstream media regarding the removal of a fence around the National War Memorial. They also asked for other veterans and civilians to come support the Freedom Convoy, saying “Please come. Your country needs you.”

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

The latest developments suggest that the COVID-19 narrative is crumbling amidst major protests worldwide. A mass movement against the COVID mandate is unfolding coast to coast across Canada in solidarity with cross-border truck drivers. Tens of thousands of people have joined the truck drivers in Ottawa.

Justin Trudeau’s Swastikas. “Democracy with Neo-Nazi Characteristics”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

Justin Trudeau is unceasingly referring to swastikas intimating that the Freedom Convoy organizers are not only supportive of  Nazi symbols but are anti-Semitic. And on February 16, he directed these wild accusations against the Conservative Party of Canada.

NATO Insists on Russian Invasion Narrative to Justify New European Battlegroups

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 17, 2022

The predicted February 16 Russian invasion of Ukraine came and passed without incident. In fact, not only did Russian soldiers begin demobilization on February 15 with the end of defense exercises, but Russian officials even took the opportunity to mock the West for their bold announcement on when exactly the supposed invasion of Ukraine would begin.

Video: War with Ukraine Cancelled Due to Bad Weather

By South Front, February 17, 2022

Russian General Staff officers woke up on Wednesday morning and were surprised to find that their tanks were not yet in Kharkov, and the troops were not in Odessa. It turned out that the United States decided to cancel Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 16.

Video: Fired 20-year Global News, News Director Anita Krishna Speaks Out

By Anita Krishna, February 17, 2022

Anita Krishna tells everyone how things changed in 2020…when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals handed out 600M dollars to “news” organizations, calls out some specific bad actors, her former news rivals/colleagues and more.

Canada’s Emergency Act — We All Need to Contact Our MPs and Senators Now

By Shirley Guertin, February 17, 2022

It’s essential that every one of us telephones their MP (BOTH offices – local & Ottawa) and as many other MPs and senators (105, so suggest to begin with Independent — they listen and read) as possible now to protest the Emergencies Act.

Pfizer, BioNTech Seek COVID Biologic Emergency Use Authorization for Infants as Young as Six Months Old

By Natasha Hobley, February 17, 2022

A statement from Pfizer states that the “rolling submission” application was submitted on Feb. 1, 2022 at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “in response to the urgent public health need in this population.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Justin Trudeau Accuses Jewish Member of Parliament for Supporting Nazis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Truck driver James Doull discusses the fate of the Canadian trucker ‘Freedom Convoy’ as PM Justin Trudeau vows to freeze protesters’ bank accounts, arguing he doesn’t see the PM’s efforts ‘making any difference.’

*

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

During question period, the Conservative Party upheld their parliamentary obligation to hold the Prime Minister accountable for enacting the Emergencies Act.

Instead of answering questions, he resorted to accusing Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish Member of Parliament and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, of supporting those waving swastikas. There were many on the opposition side of the House who immediately came to her defence. However, the Liberal benches were silent on the Prime Minister’s demeaning comments.

Prime Minister Trudeau should immediately apologize and focus on unifying the nation rather than stoking divisions for political gain.

*

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Here are my impressions of Canada’s Freedom Convoy:

Despite the government-declared “emergency”, the Freedom Convoy remains very strong and is a potent force against the current Canadian dictatorship. The convoy is entirely peaceful, and everywhere I look I see widespread support. Awareness of what is really happening to us in Canada (and globally) is increasing exponentially, and we can thank the truckers and their supporters for this.

The Ottawa police commissioner resigned today, but in terms of policing, I would say the police have mostly handled the situation well. People I talked to seem to be of the same opinion. — M. Taliano, February 15, 2022

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from the author


Voices from Syria

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Former RCMP sniper, Daniel Bulford and veterans, Eddie Cornell and Vincent Gircys held a press conference in Ottawa Wednesday afternoon.

They addressed a narrative circulating around mainstream media regarding the removal of a fence around the National War Memorial. They also asked for other veterans and civilians to come support the Freedom Convoy, saying “Please come. Your country needs you.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Video: LIVE FROM OTTAWA IN REAL TIME, DAY 21, FEB 17, EVENING

February 18th, 2022 by Global Research News

Note: All Global Research articles are now accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.

If you want to become a member of Global Research, click here.

***

In this posting, Global Research is providing real time video reports from Ottawa on the Freedom Convoy Movement.

On February 17, the application of a National Emergency directed against The Freedom Convoy 2022 was debated at the House of Commons.

The House of Commons is divided. The NDP has signified that it will be siding with the Liberal minority government.

Meanwhile, a major police initiative against the Freedom Convoy involving a high tech “Nazi style” special forces operation is contemplated by the Prime Minister Trudeau.

We stand in Solidarity with the Freedom Convoy 2020

Global Research, February 17, 2022

 


 

 

This is the Bloomberg  Coverage focussing on an Impending Police Operation


From the Ottawa Citizen: 

  • Police are handing out notices to downtown demonstrators warning that if they continue to block streets, they are committing a criminal offence and face arrest
  • A convoy organizer threatens to call the police and RCMP on local counter-protesters who have been challenging the occupation in Ottawa’s streets
  • An injunction ordering “Freedom Convoy” truckers to stop blowing their air horns has been extended for 60 days
  • Residents still advised to avoid non-essential travel in the downtown core as traffic and transit disruptions, closures continue
  • Ottawa City Council meets to discuss the impact of the truck convoy demonstration on the city’s residents and businesses at 4 p.m.
  • Steve Bell, formerly a deputy chief, takes over as Ottawa’s interim police chief after the abrupt departure of Peter Sloly
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: LIVE FROM OTTAWA IN REAL TIME, DAY 21, FEB 17, EVENING

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The predicted February 16 Russian invasion of Ukraine came and passed without incident. In fact, not only did Russian soldiers begin demobilization on February 15 with the end of defense exercises, but Russian officials even took the opportunity to mock the West for their bold announcement on when exactly the supposed invasion of Ukraine would begin.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova requested on February 16 for Bloomberg, The New York Times and The Sun “to publish the schedule for our upcoming invasions for the year” so that, as she said, “plan my vacation.” A day earlier she said: “February 15, 2022 will go down in history as the day of the failure of western war propaganda. Humiliated and destroyed without firing a shot.”

Meanwhile, Lugansk defense militias accused pro-Kiev forces of firing in their area of control four times. Although it is not yet clear how serious these incidents are, there has been no reaction for now from Kiev or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is monitoring the situation in eastern Ukraine but has withdrawn in recent days some of its observers from the region.

Representatives of the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Lugansk said in a statement on February 17 that Ukrainian forces used mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns in four separate attacks. This shows that although the ridiculous invasion prediction obviously failed to materialize, with much humor, Kiev’s continued violations of the Minsk agreement is certainly no laughing matter.

In fact, this latest violation of the Minsk agreement is made all the more dangerous as the Anglo Alliance (US-UK-Australia, or AUKUS), refuses to backdown from its Russian invasion narrative. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on February 16 that there was “currently little evidence of Russia disengaging” from its military buildup near Ukraine.

Boris was backed up by British Lieutenant General Sir Jim Hockenhull, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, who said in a rare statement that they “have not seen evidence that Russia has withdrawn forces from Ukraine’s borders. Contrary to their claims, Russia continues to build up military capabilities near Ukraine.”

In unison with Britain, US State Department spokesman Ned Price said they had in fact seen “more Russian forces” and “not fewer” along the Ukraine border. When asked why Moscow would claim to be withdrawing troops when US intelligence, commercial satellite photos and social media videos showed no evidence of that, Price said: “This is the Russian playbook, to paint a picture publicly… while they do the opposite.”

Perhaps the Anglo officials, intelligence agencies and media missed videos freely available of Russian troops and heavy equipment withdrawing following the end of their defense exercises.

It was NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg who revealed on February 16 the likely reason why the Anglo Alliance is maintaining a Russia invasion narrative despite the major humiliation they experienced recently. After claiming that NATO is not a threat to Russia but that it must bolster its collective militaries because of the supposed Russian threat, he said the alliance was thinking about “establishing new NATO battlegroups in central and eastern, south-eastern Europe.”

In effect, rather than reciprocating Russia’s demobilization, NATO announced its consideration of new battlegroups geographically located with the obvious intention of surrounding and pressuring Russia.

With the Anglo Alliance failing to provoke Russia into war with Ukraine, it is now trying to find new justifications to increase troop numbers on Russia’s border. The only palatable way in the current climate for this to be achieved is to maintain a Russia invasion threat narrative, no matter how many times the Kremlin announces it has no intentions of this and no matter how many times the Anglo Alliance is humiliated with botched intelligence and failed predictions.

For this reason, Kiev will continue violating the Minsk agreement and attack Donbass defense forces knowing that there will be continued silence from the Anglo Alliance, NATO and the OSCE. Moscow is left in a difficult position as it attempts to navigate the manufactured Ukraine crisis with a diplomatic approach, but at the same time cannot tolerate and allow the Ukrainian military and its Far-Right militia allies to target and kill Russian passport holders in Donbass.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

A Report from Donetsk News Agency

February 17, 2022

Kiev forces shell nine Donbass settlement areas

Ukrainian armed formations delivered strikes at the areas of nine settlements in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics within two hours on Thursday morning, expending some 160 rounds of ammunition of calibre over 12.7mm, the DPR Office at the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC) said.

The strikes were delivered between 5:32 and 7:42 at the areas of of the following settlements: Kominternovo, Oktyabr, Novolaspa and Petrovskoye in the DPR and Veselenkoye, Donetsky, Zolotoye-5, Nizhneye Lozovoye and Sokolniki in the LPR. The enemy used 120mm and 82mm mortars (expending 67 rounds overall), grenade launchers (90 rounds) and high calibre small arms, the JCCC said.

The package of tighter ceasefire control measures has been formally in effect in Donbass since July 27, 2020. The document bans, among other things, the use of weapons, deployment of hardware next to settlements and engineer works at troops’ positions. Tensions in Donbass mounted after the New Year and Christmas holidays.

====

Donetsk News Agency
February 17, 2022

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donetsk reports Ukrainian artillery barrages, impending assault with U.S. landing craft

Video: #Freedomconvoy2022: Police Ready to Move In

February 17th, 2022 by Maverick Multimedia

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Freedom Convoy 2022: Live Coverage from Ottawa, where Ottawa Police appear ready to make their move and take action to disperse demonstrators.

Join hosts Rick Walker, Brendan Kennedy, and Carla Olson for LIVE VIDEO from Parliament Hill, analysis, interviews, and commentary.

Tonight’s special guest: Brian Everaert PPC Canadidate and political analyst.

*

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There was one key point that he made that deserves further attention and that’s his claim that “Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well.”

US President Joe Biden updated the American people on the ongoing Russian-NATO tensions following Moscow’s announcement on Tuesday that many of its troops will be returning to their barracks as scheduled due to the impending completion of military drills. That development led to the collapse of the US’ information-terrorism campaign fearmongering about a so-called “Russian invasion of Ukraine” and prompted American intelligence agencies to deploy their Russophobic back-up plan of once again ridiculously claiming that Russian spies secretly run English-language websites in a desperate attempt to distract their targeted audience from the aforesaid.

His speech on the undeclared USprovoked missile crisis in Europe was a bunch of malarkey (a word that he’s fond of using that literally means “nonsense”) that mostly aimed to paint Russia as a contemporary Nazi-like threat that thankfully blinked under unprecedented American-led Western pressure and thus seems to have pulled the world back from the brink of another global conflict. That bulk of his remarks was nothing but information warfare and should accordingly be ignored by all objective observers, but there was one key point that he made that deserves further attention and that’s his claim that “Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well.”

Biden’s obviously lying since Russian President Vladimir Putin very clearly articulated such concerns from his country’s intelligence agencies while speaking at an “Expanded Meeting of the Defense Board” on 21 December according to the official Kremlin website. Up until this point, however, the US – whether its officials, “experts”, or “perception managers” in the media – had refused to acknowledge its rival’s worries. Instead, the entire crisis was deliberately misportrayed as being over Donbass, a sliver of deindustrialized and war-torn territory along the Russian-Ukrainian border. The very fact that Biden finally felt compelled to at least deny these concerns is a major narrative development.

It might not lead to sea change in America’s discourse on this crisis but it could at the very least make it “acceptable” to publicly discuss Russian intelligence’s concerns, even if only to remind their target audience that Biden simply denied their credibility. Without realizing it, Biden – or whoever it was that wrote his speech – inadvertently undermined the US’ strategic communications campaign and thus afforded Russia a narrative victory in the sense of finally raising awareness of this hitherto “taboo” topic among the Western public. Another interpretation though is that this was deliberate and thus implies that some relevant agreement might eventually be reached between the US/NATO and Russia on this.

After all, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had said earlier that same day that “The swiftness with which NATO has changed its position suggests that not everything is lost in relations with this bloc; [It indicates] that they can admit the obvious when they really want it”, which was mentioned in reference to the US and NATO’s response to his country’s security guarantee requests from late December. While Russia still deems it insufficient, it nevertheless believes that it’s a pragmatic starting point for continuing diplomatic negotiations as evidenced by President Putin’s public commitment to diplomacy following his meetings with Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu Monday evening.

What that key tidbit from Biden’s speech seemingly reveals is that the US and the NATO bloc that it controls are finally coming around to realizing the seriousness of the missile crisis that they provoked with Russia after the American leader belatedly acknowledged his counterpart’s concerns even if only to insincerely dismiss them in public at this point in time. This signifies a step in the direction of revising the European security architecture that had gradually eroded against Russia’s interests following the US’ unilateral expansion of military infrastructure closer to that Eurasian Great Power’s borders driven by Washington’s unstated attempt to eventually undermine Moscow’s nuclear second-strike capabilities.

This observation doesn’t mean that the crisis has finally ended, just that diplomacy is once again a hot topic behind the scenes ahead of Russia passing along its planned 10-page response to the US and NATO’s own response to its initial security guarantee proposals that Lavrov seemed cautiously optimistic about on Tuesday. It’ll of course remain to be seen whether the US sincerely has the political will to seriously pursue whatever proposals Russia is expected to put forth in that document, but this development is nevertheless a positive one when all things are considered since it suggests that the crisis is somewhat de-escalating, at least for the time being barring any provocations in Donbass.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Video: War with Ukraine Cancelled Due to Bad Weather

February 17th, 2022 by South Front

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian General Staff officers woke up on Wednesday morning and were surprised to find that their tanks were not yet in Kharkov, and the troops were not in Odessa. It turned out that the United States decided to cancel Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 16. CNN complains that due to the warm weather and mud, the equipment of the Russian Armed Forces will not be able to offense. Previously, the soil was “still soft”, but now it is “already soft”. Probably, according to CNN’s soft brains, the Russians were going to attack not in tanks, but in Lada Kalina cars.

Probably, that’s why the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation issued a statement on February 15, claiming the beginning of a planned withdrawal to the places of permanent deployment of military personnel of the Western and Southern military districts bordering Ukraine after the annual exercises.

It is obvious to all progressive humanity that it was the weather conditions that turned out to be stronger than the “insurmountable aggressive ambitions” of Mr. Putin. The CBS channel went further. While the Russian units taking part in the exercises were already hundreds of kilometers from the Ukrainian border, returning to their home stations, and Russian Defense Minister Shoigu was in Syria, the CBS correspondents reported on the night of February 16 that Russian troops allegedly moved to attack position.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba immediately stated at a briefing that Ukraine “managed to restrain Russia from further aggravating the security situation,” … with the power of thought. At that time, the anthem of the USSR sounded on the central square of Kiev…

On February 15, the Russian Parliament decided by an overwhelming majority to send a request to Russian President Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the DPR and the LPR. The deputies believe that this would ensure security guarantees and protect the locals “from external threats”

Kiev responded that it would consider Moscow’s recognition of the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR as Russia’s withdrawal from the Minsk agreements. French President Macron urged Putin not to recognize the independence of the republics.

Two days before the “scheduled invasion”, President Zelensky declared February 16, 2022, the day of Ukrainian unity. The success of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, which “stopped the aggressor”, needs to be celebrated with a festival.

“We are told that February 16 will be the day of the attack. We will make it a Day of Unity. On this day we will hang out national flags, put on blue and yellow ribbons and show the whole world our unity,” Zelensky said.

Zelensky’s euphoria has very specific consequences. As there is still no invasion, Ukraine continued to build up its forces and materiel near the line of contact. In addition to the hundreds of pieces of equipment and heavy weapons already available on the front lines, the Kiev regime has begun advancing medium- and long-range air defense weapons to the borders of the unrecognized republics and Belarus.

Up to two battalions of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems were deployed in the areas controlled by Kiev.

The other day, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (UAF) received Stinger portable anti-aircraft missile systems from their Anglo-Saxon patrons. According to available data, more than a hundred of such systems were delivered to Kiev. Ukraine has also requested from NATO more than a hundred SUVs, as well as means of mine clearance and radiation, chemical and biological warfare reconnaissance. On February 14, the OSCE SMM patrol found 22 Ukrainian, not Russian, T-72 tanks near the Podlesnoe village. They were deployed in the immediate vicinity of the contact line and were aimed at striking Pervomaisk or Zolotoye which are under the LPR’s control.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Kiev had sent more than half of the UAF personnel to Donbass. Moscow expressed concern over the transfer of NATO military equipment to the Russian borders and the increase in the number of Western instructors in the Donbass. The United States, Great Britain and its European satellites continue the large-scale transfer of weapons to the Kiev regime for use against regions in the east of the country.

*

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Anita Krishna tells everyone how things changed in 2020…when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals handed out 600M dollars to “news” organizations, calls out some specific bad actors, her former news rivals/colleagues and more.

Watch the video below.

*

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

Time is of the essence on this call to action: Today and tomorrow. The House of Commons is on break by Friday so the debate will be rushed.

***

Hello Freedom Fighters,

Here’s some more information and encouragement to act now. Bless you all.

It’s essential that every one of us telephones their MP (BOTH offices – local & Ottawa) and as many other MPs and senators (105, so suggest to begin with Independent — they listen and read) as possible now to protest the Emergencies Act.

Letters/emails show our views, but phoning is far more powerful.

Follow-up call with an email please so it’s documented.

The EA was proposed on Monday, Feb. 14, but must be confirmed or withdrawn by a motion within seven days. Trudeau wants that motion made this week, before the House of Commons goes on a break for a week on Friday. We have only today or tomorrow to contact the members.

This is a crucial moment in the history of Canada. Speak up now. You can make a difference to the peace and freedom of this country.

Thanks for your phone calls and follow-up emails. May Canada be free and at peace.

*

Suggestions on what to say to MPs and Senators

The Emergencies Act is for a crisis which threatens the entire country of Canada. There is no threat to the country. The truckers are completely peaceful, both in Ottawa and at the border protests.

The Emergencies Act would give Justin Trudeau totalitarian power, obliterating human rights and allowing him to arrest and imprison anyone without trial. This is totally unjustified by anything that has happened in recent weeks.

Here is the section which defines “National Emergency”. The current situation does NOT qualify as a National Emergency.

“National emergency

3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada

and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”

Emergencies Act – description: click this link.

Emergencies Act – text: click this link.

*

Feds bringing emergency declaration to Parliament ‘imminently’

See this.

“As part of the parliamentary oversight requirements in invoking these powers, the government must table a motion in both the House and Senate within seven sitting days outlining why federal officials feel the powers are required and detailing what specific measures will be taken, to allow the two parliamentary bodies to confirm it.”

*

Here are a few suggested points to make when speaking with and follow-up email to your MP in both offices (local & Ottawa).

1. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act spells out the circumstances under which it may be invoked.

These are:

a. A national emergency that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

b. A national emergency that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of Canada.

Neither of these conditions are met.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A frequent flyer grounded because he medically can’t tolerate wearing a face mask filed for summary judgment today asking a U.S. district judge to strike down the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate ordered by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, advancing the case into final proceedings after a legal battle that began in early June. The motion was filed only hours after Texas became the first state to sue the federal government to halt the mask requirement.

Plaintiff Lucas Wall, 44, of Washington, D.C., argues CDC’s mask mandate is illegal and unconstitutional. He charges CDC and its parent agency, the Department of Health & Human Services, with eight counts of violating the Constitution and federal law by imposing a requirement that all passengers and employees throughout the nation’s entire public-transportation system obstruct their oxygen intake. Wall also charges the agencies with four constitutional and statutory violations for the International Traveler Testing Requirement, which mandates that all airline passengers flying to the United States – but not travelers entering the country by land or sea – submit a negative COVID-19 test within one day of departure.

“The Court should vacate the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate and International Traveler Testing Requirement as well as permanently enjoin CDC and HHS from issuing any future orders mandating transportation passengers and workers don face masks as well as that passengers flying to the United States present a negative COVID-19 test prior to check-in,” Wall asserts in the motion. “The Biden Administration has issued numerous mandates related to the COVID-19 pandemic attempting to coerce Americans to wear masks, get vaccinated, and/or endure regular virus testing. … Every significant Executive Branch pandemic mandate has been blocked in the courts except for three: The FTMM, ITTR, and HHS’ requirement that all healthcare workers at facilities accepting Medicare and Medicaid get inoculated.”

Wall lodged an amended complaint Dec. 26 after U.S. District Judge Paul Byron ruled Dec. 18 that his claims against CDC, HHS, the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority could proceed to a final determination, refusing to dismiss those charges. He has been stranded in Florida since Southwest Airlines and the Transportation Security Administration, enforcing CDC’s order, refused to let him board a flight maskless June 2, 2021, at Orlando International Airport. The federal mask mandate is currently in effect until at least March 18, 2022.

His motion contends CDC failed to take into account that the mask mandate discriminates against passengers with medical conditions who can’t tolerate having their breathing blocked, the voluminous scientific and medical research showing masks have proven to be totally ineffective in reducing COVID-19 spread and deaths, and that masks pose serious health risks to humans forced to wear them.

Wall, chairman of Americans Against Mask Mandates, asks Byron to declare both the FTMM and ITTR contrary to statute and unconstitutional, vacate the orders, and permanently enjoin their enforcement worldwide. He also demands an order that CDC and HHS “immediately ensure all federal agencies remove all signs informing passengers of the requirement to wear a mask from all airports, transportation hubs, and other locations worldwide as well as to remove from its website and in all of its publications any references to the” mask mandate and testing requirement.

His court filing came on the same day a federal judge in Boston instructed American Airlines and Southwest Airlines to stop discriminating against a 4-year-old boy with autism who can’t wear a face covering, a major win for Americans Against Mask Mandates members who have brought 11 lawsuits against CDC, HHS, TSA, and nine airlines. And Thursday the Health Freedom Defense Fund will also move for summary judgment against the FTMM in a case at the federal court in Tampa, Florida.

Read more and download Wall’s motion for summary judgment at www.lucas.travel.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

Spying on Americans: CIA Spies and Their Collaborators

February 17th, 2022 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In the past month, this column has twice addressed the unbridled propensity of federal intelligence agencies to spy on Americans without search warrants as required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

These agencies believe that the Fourth Amendment — which protects the individual right to privacy — only regulates law enforcement and does not apply to domestic spying.

There is no basis in the constitutional text, history or judicial interpretations for such a limiting and toothless view of this constitutional guarantee. The courts have held that the Fourth Amendment restrains government. Period. Last week, Congress got burned when the CIA released a heavily redacted summary of its current spying in the United States.

Here is the backstory.

When the CIA was created in 1947, members of Congress who feared the establishment here of the type of domestic surveillance apparatus that the Allies had just defeated in Germany insisted that the new CIA have no role in American law enforcement and no legal ability to spy within the U.S. The legislation creating the CIA contains those limitations.

Nevertheless, we know from statements of former governors of several states that CIA agents claim to be physically present in all 50 statehouses in the United States.

The agents who have infiltrated state governments didn’t arrive until after Dec. 4, 1981. That’s the date that President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which purports to give the CIA authority to spy in America — supposedly looking for narcotics from foreign countries — and keep from law enforcement whatever it finds.

Stated differently, while Reagan purported to authorize the CIA to defy the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution and by federal law, he insisted on a “wall” of separation between domestic spying and law enforcement.

So, if the CIA using unconstitutional spying discovered that a janitor in the Russian Embassy in Washington was really a KGB colonel who abused his wife in their suburban Maryland home, under E.O. 12333, it could continue to spy upon him in defiance of the Fourth Amendment and the CIA charter, but it could not reveal to Maryland prosecutors — who can only use evidence lawfully obtained — any evidence of his domestic violence.

All this changed 20 years later when President George W. Bush demolished Reagan’s “wall” between law enforcement and domestic spying and directed the CIA and other domestic spying agencies to share the fruits of their spying with the FBI.

Thus, thanks to Reagan and Bush authorizing it, and their successors looking the other way, CIA agents have been engaging in fishing expeditions on a grand scale inside the U.S. for the past 20 years. Congress knows about this because all intelligence agencies are required by statute to report the extent of their spying secretly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

This, of course, does not absolve the CIA of its presidentially authorized computer hacking crimes; rather, it gives Congress a false sense of security that it has a handle on what’s going on.

What’s going on is not CIA lawyers appearing before judges asking for surveillance warrants based upon probable cause of crime, as the Constitution requires. What’s going on is CIA agents going to Big Tech and paying for access to communications used by ordinary Americans. Some Big Tech firms told the CIA to take a hike. Others took the CIA’s cash and opened the spigots of their fiber optic data to the voracious federal appetite.

If the CIA went to a judge and demonstrated probable cause of crime — for example, that a janitor in the Russian Embassy was passing defense secrets to Moscow — surely the judge would have signed a surveillance warrant. But to the CIA, following the Constitution is too limiting.

Thus, by acquiring bulk data — fiber optic data on hundreds of millions of Americans acquired without search warrants — the CIA could avoid the time and trouble of demonstrating probable cause to a judge. But that time and trouble were intentionally required by the authors of the Fourth Amendment so as to keep the government off our backs.

Not to be outdone by its principal rival, the FBI soon began doing the same thing — gathering bulk data without search warrants.

When Congress learned of this, it enacted legislation that banned the warrantless acquisition of bulk data. Apparently, Congress is naive enough to believe that the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency, their cousin with 60,000 domestic spies, actually comply with federal law.

Last week, that naivete was manifested front and center when the CIA sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee documenting the extent of its domestic acquisition of bulk data on Americans.

Two senators who should have known better claimed they were “shocked” at what they read. They read an admission of continued CIA warrantless bulk acquisition of personal data on unsuspecting and unsuspected Americans, and they saw large portions of the letter redacted so that the senators do not know the nature of the data received.

So, notwithstanding the persistent efforts of members of Congress from both parties to limit and in some cases to prohibit the warrantless acquisition of bulk data by the CIA from Americans, the practice continues, the CIA defends it and presidents look the other way.

In 1947, Congress created a monster which today is so big and so powerful and so indifferent to the Constitution and the federal laws its agents have sworn to uphold that it can boast about its lawlessness, have no fear of defying Congress and always escape the consequences of all this largely unscathed.

I suspect the CIA and its cousins get away with this because they spy on Congress and possess damning personal data on members who regularly vote to increase their secret budgets. When will we have a government whose officials are courageous enough to uphold the Constitution?

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In October of 2021, I observed that “our governments are no longer legitimate.” I directed particular attention to the chaotic mess created in our country by Justin Trudeau once he decided in 2020 to transform the job of Canadian Prime Minister into that of National Vaccine Czar. See this.

Right now Trudeau is trying to take over Canada’s Parliament. In the words of US journalist Leo Hohmann, his goal is “essentially to declare himself supreme dictator over the nation on our northern border.” See this.

Many prominent voices are being raised to declare Trudeau’s invocation of the modern version of the War Measures Act to be both “unconstitutional and factually unsupported.” These voices are receiving mainstream coverage in the United States at, for instance, Newsweek and the New York Post. See this.

Other voices are pointing out that there is an emergency in Canada but at the core of the real emergency is the treason of the Trudeau government. The Trudeau Liberals are trying to criminalize the actions of protesters whose goal it is to defend Canadian democracy as well as the rule of law. One marker of Trudeau’s disregard for the rule of law in Canada is his contemptuous disregard for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See this.

I have pointed out the irony of the obsessive addictions of our governments in Canada and throughout the world in making declarations of emergency. This pattern kicked in with a vengeance after 9/11 and then became even more outrageous beginning with the massive publicity showered on the celebrity virus beginning in early 2020.

In the name of their false flag emergencies, governments have been granting to themselves many new powers, and then acting on their claims in ways that kill, maim, jail, and bankrupt people with a huge resulting destabilization of society as we have known it.

This massive and pervasive government overreach has been causing economic disasters, civil liberties disasters, astronomical suicides, medical disasters, education disasters and a plague of mental illness from the ruthless psychological warfare of media conglomerates often funded by the Bill Gates crime family. In light of all this I ask in my latest commentary published today, February 16, “Is Justin Trudeau Waging a War on the National Security of Canada and Canadians?” See this.

This article comes closely on the tails of my previous essay, “Trudeau and the Truckers.”

One of the major players in this coup being attempted by the Trudeau Liberal in in Canada is Chrystia Freeland. Freeland doubles as both Canada’s Finance Minister and as a top Board member of the Swiss-based World Economic Forum. She collaborates closely with Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh who are also disciples of the WEF Founder Klaus Schwab WEF. Schwab and his Canadian kindergarten are seeking to impose a “Great Reset.”

We are now getting more proof that the Great Reset is, in its Canadian context, a power grab led by the Schwab/Freeland/Trudeau/Singh set of co-conspirators. The radical character of this power grab becomes especially clear from Freeland’s description of the new regime of terrorist banking laws being rushed into force. The assumption is made that the Truckers are terrorists, occupiers, and insurectionists who must be stopped through radical alterations in the structure of our core financial relationships in Canada. The bankers, it seems, are involved in this coup.

The Act would empower banks with huge new authorities to seize accounts of those customers who they suspect of being “terrorist” Truckers. The new powers could also be applied to the partners, friends, family, allies, and associates of those unilaterally declared to be Trucker terrorists by the bankers who are subject to no judicial oversight whatsoever.

This process of financially wrecking the targets of Trudeau’s war on dissidents can take place completely at the discretion of bankers who essentially are now being deputized to wage play a central role in the ascent to the emergency measures dictator. Like the makers of the deadly COVID injections, the Canadian bankers in league with Trudeau are to be indemnified in their new role as a financial police force. They can’t be sued by the victims of the reign of financial terror being pushed by Freeland and her WEF co-conspirators.

It is becoming increasingly clear that globalist forces including the WEF are directing the effort by the legacy media and government to smear and criminalize the large constituency that identify with the agenda of the Canadian Freedom Convoys. The Canadian brach of the global coup want to extend the US Biden regime’s preoccupation with ruining the lives of political opponents by smearing the descendants of the “Deplorables” as “domestic terrorists” and “White supremacists.”

Faked Evidence?

Trudeau’s effort to institute the Emergency Act has no factual basis to back it up. The main supposed evidence being offered points to a police claim in Alberta about a supposed cell being of terrorists being discovered at the Coutts protest just south of Lethbridge where I live. A report from Global News lays out the claims of police along with pictures of the weapons that they claim to have discovered among the protesters.

Of course none of this has been litigated. It seems, however, that court proceedings are increasingly irrelevant in this era. We live in a time when there is plenty of evidence that trial-by-media is all that is required to destroy people seeking to blow the whistle on crime and corruption. This scenario is being played out in spades in the war of smear and disinformation directed at the Truckers and at their allied lawyers, scientists and medical practitioners. See this.

The possibility that the emerging police state in Canada might not be above planting weapons on Truckers to accuse them of terrorism has already been raised by former RCMP officer, Danny Bulford. After condemning the “authoritarian” character of Canada’s vaccine policies, Bulford left the RCMP where he was for a time a sniper in the unit assigned to protect Justin Trudeau. Listen to his warnings about the possible intentions of possible saboteurs inside the government who might be seeking to smear and criminalize the Canadian Truckers who have courageously taken a bold stance in defence of Canadian democracy and the rule of law.

*

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

What to Do About Inflation

February 17th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Americans live from threat to threat. Now that the “covid threat” and the “Russian threat” have played out, we have the “inflation threat,” but is it any more real?

It is true that the Central Bank has poured out unprecedented amounts of money for more than a decade.  The excuses were:  to cause a 2% annual inflation that would stimulate economic growth, and to save the economy from the banks financial speculations. 

I didn’t think the Federal Reserve could create so much new money without driving up inflation and interest rates and driving down the dollar and equities.  But the money went into the prices of financial assets–stocks and bonds–and into home prices.  If you were loaded up with stocks and bonds and residential real estate, the Fed made you rich.  The money also went into bank reserves as the Fed bought troubled assets from the banks and put them in the Fed’s portfolio.  

So the expected inflation in consumer goods and services did not occur.

Now suddenly here is inflation with some measures knocking on double-digit doors. Judging by high stock and bond prices, this is not inflation from previous money-printing being drawn out of stocks and bonds to spend on consumer goods.  Some claim that the checks sent to locked-down people to substitute for missing pay checks are at fault, but this money, at best, only replaced the money in the missing pay checks.

So what is the cause of the inflation?  Or, more precisely, is it really inflation, that is, prices driven up by excessive spending, or is it a reduction of supply in relation to demand? If the latter, the solution is to increase supply, not reduce demand with higher interest rates or higher tax rates.

The better part of the rise in prices is the direct result of the foolish and counterproductive lockdowns. The lockdowns reduced supply.  Much work came to a halt.  Supply chains were adversely impacted. Many businesses failed and have not reopened.  Real GDP declined, but money didn’t.  

With the flow of goods and services reduced while money wasn’t, prices rose.  Many service businesses, such as pool services, heating and air, jumped at the chance to raise prices. Supermarkets have to bid for items in short supply, and this has pushed food prices up.  

Other idiotic policies of governments, such as vaccine mandates for truckers, have tied up delivery trucks in protests. The California governor banned half of the US trucking fleet from entering the state, because it doesn’t meet emission standards.  This means the docks at the ports can’t be unloaded, which means the ships waiting to unload can’t unload.

The fake “Russian threat” sent up the oil prices. The extraordinarily low interest rates caused a house building boom, driving up prices of construction materials. 

Equity valuation driven by money creation is not a good thing.  But the Fed has been at it for so long, how does the Fed stop without unwinding values based on Fed liquidity?  Washington’s abusive misuse of the dollar as reserve currency by imposing sanctions on other countries has led to Russia and China organizing their own system of international payments.  This will cause the use of dollars, and therefore the demand for dollars to drop, leaving the Fed with the problem of dollar depreciation, which will add to inflation. A less valued dollar raises import prices.

To sum up, the sources of today’s rising prices are three.  The Fed quantitatively eased to save the banks and went on from there to make the rich richer by driving up stock, bond, and real estate prices, and rents rose with real estate prices.  Washington undermined the dollar by discouraging countries from its use with sanctions.  The lockdowns shrank supply and set back the ability to produce, resulting in supply and demand sending prices up.

The solution to this problem is not higher interest rates. There is no doubt that interest rates are artificially low because of the Fed’s bond purchases, but raising interest rates will not repair the damage to supply caused by the lockdowns and caused by the financialization of the economy that the Federal Reserve has aided and abetted. 

A financialized economy is one in which debt service–mortgage, car, credit card, student loans–uses up a large percentage of monthly income, leaving little discretionary income to drive economic growth. Financialization was worsened by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.  The repeal permitted commercial banks to be investment banks. This changed the nature of bank lending and behavior. Instead of lending for new plant and equipment, the banks finance takeovers of existing assets and engage in financial speculation.

The solution to the causes of the current inflation is to remove the policies that restrain the growth of output. There has to be a supply-side solution.  In the early Reagan years the solution was a reduction in the high marginal tax rates that restricted output.  Today the supply-side solution is policies that move the economy away from the absorption of income in debt service and toward supporting the expansion of output. 

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Oversaturation of Ukrainian Forces Escalates Security Crisis

February 17th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The current security crisis in Ukraine fueled by Kiev and its western allies is on the verge of triggering a new wave of violence in the Donbass region. Recent statements by Russian officials have warned about the possibility of a resurgence of large-scale clashes, which would be a consequence of the extreme militarization promoted in the conflict zone by Ukrainian forces. However, Kiev’s government continues to ignore all the warnings made by Moscow, boosting the aggressiveness of its measures day after day.

In a recent statement, Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Mihail Popov stated that the current situation of concentration of troops and weapons on the Donbass border is generating a process of “oversaturation”. This process, in addition to the belief in unrestricted Western support in any circumstance, can take both the Ukrainian regular armed forces and the paramilitary nationalist militias to an illusion of invincibility, pushing them into conflict whose violence is expected to reach unprecedented levels.

Earlier, the head of Russian foreign intelligence service, Sergey Naryshkin had already made a statement claiming that Kiev is preparing its forces for a new attack on Donbass. Naryshkin mentioned he has data that proves that the combat units of the Ukrainian army are already concentrated in the line of contact with the autonomous republics, ready to start a new wave of attacks, whose objective seems to be not only to fight the rebels, but also to try to bring Russia into the conflict.

In the same vein, the deputy head of the Donetsk’s Militia Department, Eduard Basurin, stated that Kiev transferred its S-300 anti-aircraft artillery division to Donbass, as well as several rocket launch systems, which undoubtedly indicates that there is an offensive plan in progress. The popular media of the autonomous republics also denounced that several service points of guidance for aviation are being installed by the Ukrainian armed forces in the line of contact in the Donbass, which raises the concern about possible air attacks with high power of destruction.

Another news that has also raised concern among people in Donetsk and Lugansk is the sending to the border of Ukrainian soldiers from the 24th Brigade, which is a special group of the armed forces, trained in the use of advanced weapons, such as the Swedish anti-tank systems NLAW and a wide list of American grenade launchers. This indicates that that Ukrainian forces are preparing for a really brutal and violent attack, the aim of which will be to provoke a Russian intervention to protect the local population.

In this third week of February, most of the Russian troops on the border were demobilized. In the West, media agencies are spreading a series of fake news, alleging absurd hypotheses to reconcile the discourse of the “invasion plan” with the retreat of the soldiers. In fact, what happened was simply the conclusion of a series of Russian military exercises in the region, which had several objectives, including preparing the troops for an eventual emergency and also demonstrating strength in the face of external threats (considering that it is NATO that represents a threat to Russia with the occupation of the entire border). If it had been at all concerned about peace, the Ukrainian government would take advantage of the moment the Russian troops were withdrawing and would also start a demilitarization. But, apparently, Kiev’s plans are different.

There is nothing rational or strategic in trying to induce Russia into direct combat with Ukrainian forces, but Kiev’s officials are deluded about a possible victory, as they believe they will receive unrestricted Western support in such a situation. Indeed, the West foments chaos sending money and weapons, trying to provoke Russia to intervene and thus fulfill the prediction of the “invasion”.

*

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

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

Featured image is from balticword.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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Pfizer and BioNTech have requested emergency use authorization (EUA) for doctors to administer two doses of their mRNA COVID-19 biologic to infants as young as six months old. A statement from Pfizer states that the “rolling submission” application was submitted on Feb. 1, 2022 at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “in response to the urgent public health need in this population.”1 Ten days later the company withdrew the request to gather more data on the vaccine’s effectiveness, which was suboptimal in two to four year olds, and provide evidence for a three dose primary series, rather than two doses.2

Pfizer Vaccine Fails to Elicit Robust Immune Response in Younger Children

Pfizer’s own data3 demonstrates that the vaccine failed to elicit a strong enough immune response with just two three microgram doses for some within the age group making the EUA process unique from any other age group’s authorization thus far. Pfizer had originally sought authorization for two doses to allow parents of young children to begin the vaccination process while awaiting potential authorization of a third dose. The third dose is scheduled to be administered no earlier than eight weeks after the second dose.4

Some physicians and public health officials have expressed concern that such an unusual vaccine approval application will further deter parents from vaccinating their children.4 As it currently stands, the FDA has granted an EUA to Pfizer for five- to 11-year-olds to receive two 10 microgram doses of the COVID vaccine and also approved a 30-microgram booster dose for ages 12 and up.5

CDC Data Says Booster Less Beneficial to Younger People

Newly published data released from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirms that the rationale for booster doses is less compelling in terms of providing benefit to younger populations compared to adults.6 Dr. Dan Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated:

I’m in favor of boosters, but I don’t want to overstate their importance. The benefit of a booster dose is clearly greater in the elderly. It is progressively less in the lower risk groups.”6

The FDA’s Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) had been scheduled to meet on Feb. 15 to review the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness data and discuss Pfizer’s request. The FDA authorized the two-dose vaccine for use in children five through 11 years old in October 2021. According to the CDC, approximately one third of children in that age group have received the vaccine.7

An article by VOX states that giving COVID vaccines to children will help stop the spread of the virus and relieve stress on hospitals and allow schools to stay open…

[Vaccines for young children] would also provide peace of mind to parents, caregivers, and teachers whose lives have been repeatedly disrupted as the highly transmissible omicron variant continues to rage.

The article continues stating that vaccination of this age group, which makes up more than 20 million children, would help to close one of the biggest remaining gaps in vaccine eligibility.4

Only 27 Percent of Parents Eager to Vaccinate Children Under 12

An October survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation8 found that only 27 percent of parents with children ages five to 11 years old were “eager” to get the vaccine for their children while 30 percent said they will definitely not allow the vaccine to be given to their young children. Parents cited concerns over potential long-term side effects as well as the desire to “wait and see” how the vaccine is working.

Some Physician Researchers Urge Caution in Giving COVID Vaccine to Children

A group of physician researchers who collectively pioneered several vaccines and experimental cancer drugs wrote an opinion piece8 for The Washington Times in October urging the public to apply the brakes in the hastiness of administering the new COVID vaccine to the pediatric population. The article outlines the existing disabling reactions in adults, the use of novel mRNA technology which releases pro-inflammation factors with no built in “off” switch, and the fact that COVID is rarely causing severe illness in children.

The authors also outlined the history of medicine and how we have seen “time and time again” tragic side effects which are not known until decades later. The article concludes:

There is a lot that we don’t know about the long-term safety of available COVID-19 vaccines. Bottom line, no health professional in good conscience can look a parent in the eye today and say these vaccines are unequivocally safe. As medical students, we took the Hippocratic oath, a promise to practice ‘primum non nocere,’ meaning ‘first, do no harm.’ Let us patiently wait for the completion of long-term safety studies before we rush ahead blindly with blanket public health solutions that may cause unintentional and irreparable harm.8

*

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

Notes

1 Pfizer. Pfizer and BioNTech initiate rolling submission for emergency use authorization of their Covid-19 vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age following request from U.S. FDA.Feb. 1, 2022.

2 Lovelace B. Pfizer postpones FDA request for Covid vaccine for kids under five. NBC News Feb. 11, 2022.

3 Lovelace B. Pfizer is testing a third Covid vaccine dose in young kids, delaying trial results. NBC News Nov. 4, 2021.

4 Irfan U. Why young children have waited so long for COVID-19 vaccines. VOX Feb. 3, 2022.

5 Pfizer. Pfizer and BioNTech receive US FDA emergency use authorization of COVID-19 vaccine booster for individuals 12 years of age and older.  Jan. 3, 2022.

6 Mandavilli A. Younger Americans benefited less from booster shots than older people. The New York Times Feb. 4, 2022.

7 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update: FDA advisory committee meeting request for authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 4 years of age. PR Newswire Feb. 1, 2022.

8 Hamel L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: October 2021. Kaiser Family Foundation Oct. 28, 2021.

9 Kwak L, Rosen S, Shachar I. Applying brakes on ‘warp speed’ COVID-19 vaccinations for children. The Washington Times Oct. 28, 2021.

Featured image is from The Vaccine Reaction

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The plandemic of the “fully vaccinated” rages on as the latest data shows that the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths from the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) are occurring in people who took the jabs.

Public Health Scotland (PHS) is reporting that an astounding four out of every five covid hospitalizations and deaths are jabbed, meaning only 20 percent of hospitalizations and deaths blamed on covid are occurring in the unvaccinated.

According to the figures, cases were down overall in February compared to January. However, the bulk is still comprised of fully vaccinated individuals, including the triple-vaccinated.

The data shows that the latest “wave” of negative health outcomes is occurring in three-pricked people, a demographic in which the death rate soared by 495 percent in the month of January.

“Overall cases have dropped in the last month in all demographics significantly compared to the number of cases recorded between 11th Dec and 7th Jan 22, but in both months the vaccinated have accounted for the vast majority of cases,” reported the Daily Exposé.

“The main difference between the two months is that the double vaccinated accounted for the majority of cases between 11th Dec and 8th Jan 22; recording 145,890 cases, but the triple vaccinated accounted for the majority of cases between 8th Jan and 4th Feb 22; recording 46,951 cases.”

The plandemic would already be over were it not for the “vaccines”

It turns out that the case rate is dropping substantially among the unvaccinated while it continues to rise among the fully vaccinated, and especially among the fully-fully vaccinated who are getting three shots or more.

Between December 11 and January 7, the non-jabbed population accounted for just 15 percent of all new cases of the Fauci Flu. One month later from January 8 through February 4, that percentage dropped to less than 13 percent.

Meanwhile, the vaccinated population accounted for 85 percent of all new cases between December 11 and January 7, with just 9 percent of those cases occurring in the one-dose vaccinated. (Related: Cases of covid among the fully vaccinated in Taiwan are also way, way up.)

Thirty-two percent of all new cases in the vaccinated category occurred in the triple vaccinated while 59 percent occurred in the double vaccinated.

“But fast forward one month and we find that the vaccinated accounted for 87% of cases, with the one-dose vaccinated accounting for 4% of those cases, the double vaccinated accounting for 33% of those cases, and the triple vaccinated accounting for 63% of those cases,” the Exposé further reported.

“This means that despite cases falling among all demographics they actually fell the most among the not vaccinated, single vaccinated, and double vaccinated, with the lowest drop coming in the triple vaccinated. This doesn’t make sense if the Covid-19 vaccines are effective. Clearly they are not, at least when it comes to preventing infection.”

As for hospitalizations, the unvaccinated are doing better and better overall while the fully vaccinated are doing worse and worse overall.

The PHS data shows that hospitalizations among the unvaccinated fell by -24 percent in January compared to in December. Hospitalizations among the triple vaccinated, meanwhile, increased by an astounding 88 percent.

“The vaccinated population accounted for 75% of hospitalisations between 11th Dec and 7th Jan 22, with 7% of those hospitalisations among the one-dose vaccinated, 46% of those hospitalisations among the triple vaccinated, and 47% of those hospitalisations among the double vaccinated,” the Exposé further reported.

“But fast forward one month and we find that the vaccinated accounted for 80.5% of hospitalisations, with the one-dose vaccinated accounting for 6% of those hospitalisations, the double vaccinated accounting for 26% of those hospitalisations, and the triple vaccinated accounting for 68% of those hospitalisations.”

*

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

Featured image is from Uncanceled News

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

Months of frenzied speculation about an imminent Russian invasion of Kiev by Western journalists, think tanks, and politicians culminated on February 15 with Moscow reducing its military footprint near Ukraine’s border.

The withdrawal came one day before President Joe Biden‘s administration inexactly forecast a phantom incursion.

Panic was stoked to a perplexing degree. Atlantic Council representative Melinda Haring declared on February 11 that Russian President Vladimir Putin had “big weekend plans” forthcoming in Ukraine, including cutting off the nation’s power and heat, knocking out its entire navy and air force, killing a number of general staff in order to install a pro-Russian president, and resorting to “full-scale military invasion if Ukraine doesn’t give in.”

When none of this came to pass over the weekend, Haring meekly claimed emotions were “running high,” and she’d “let them get the better” of her. She said she would be “more judicious” in future.

Still, Haring complained of “Russian trolls,” and as Russia withdrew forces, she conveniently reframed the narrative. “We’ve been so focused on Russian troops and tanks that we missed Moscow’s strategy: strangle Ukraine’s economy and sap the resolve of its people.”

Almost as baffling and bizarre was British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss boldly asserting on January 22 that London possessed “information” indicating Moscow planned to forcibly install a puppet government in Kiev. Forces would invade Ukraine and mount a coup through the help of a quintet of Ukrainian politicians with alleged links to Russian intelligence.

“The information being released today shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking,” Truss stated.

An Illogical Coup Leader

When asked to substantiate the claims, British officials were at a loss, and also refused to clarify how the information was obtained and verified.

These claims rapidly circulated. The New York Times praised Britain’s reckless inflaming of a highly volatile situation as “muscular.” But the media also acknowledged Truss “provided no evidence” to support the bombshell allegations.

In an ironic twist, Yevhen Murayev, a former Ukrainian MP named by London as the Kremlin’s pick for President, expressed amusement and dismay.

“You’ve made my evening. The British Foreign Office seems confused,” he told the Observer while laughing. “It isn’t very logical. I’m banned from Russia. Not only that, but money from my father’s firm there has been confiscated.”

Two days later, London followed the US lead in withdrawing its embassy staff from Kiev. Yet hours later, a senior European diplomat made clear European Union member states would not withdraw, adding snidely there was no need to “dramatize” the situation while talks with Moscow continued.

The Washington Post added to the confusion on January 29 when they quietly revealed that intelligence underlying Truss’ shock announcement was “collected and declassified” by the US, and the Biden administration had specifically asked British authorities to publicly expose the purported plot.

Oddly, details weren’t shared with allies, such as Germany, where officials consistently expressed skepticism toward the notion that Russia would invade Ukraine.

Nowhere in the Post’s coverage did the newspaper ask a very obvious question—why was the disclosure of the incendiary material outsourced in this manner?

An Obliging Client State

Britain’s laundering of US intelligence created the illusion that an ally had independently reinforced dodgy claims from US officials of an imminent Russian invasion. It allowed Washington to recast the December transfer of 90 tons of “lethal aid” to Ukraine as reactive.

What’s more, the ruse provided plausible deniability in the event that the false narrative unraveled, as it inevitably did.

The Biden administration knew very well that London could be relied upon. At the conclusion of World War II, a Foreign Office official ruefully concluded that a bankrupt Britain’s future lay in serving as “junior partner in an orbit of power predominantly under American aegis.”

Ever since, the UK government has consistently gone further than most countries in serving Washington interests.

In September 2021, Yahoo! News exposed how the CIA had “secret war plans” to kidnap or even assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange if he attempted to leave the Ecuador embassy in London for Moscow. The report contained a shocking example of Britain’s willingness to do the bidding of US intelligence. (Note: Assange’s legal team says Assange was opposed to Ecuador’s proposal to assign him to a diplomatic post in Moscow.)

Scenarios to thwart Assange’s escape included “gun battles with Kremlin operatives on the streets of London” and “shooting out the tires of a Russian plane carrying Assange before it could take off for Moscow.” US officials reportedly “asked their British counterparts to do the shooting if gunfire was required, and the British agreed.”

The British also took the leading role in producing propaganda ahead of the US invasion of Iraq.  As far back as 1998, MI6 “black propaganda specialists” were involved in “psychological warfare” known as Operation Mass Appeal, according to former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The foreign spying agency circulated “intelligence” to media outlets “to help shape public opinion about Iraq and the threat posed by WMD [weapons of mass destruction].”

“We have some outlets in foreign newspapers – some editors and writers who work with us from time to time – where we can spread some material,” MI6 representatives told Ritter. “We just need to be kept informed on what you are doing and when, so we can time the press releases accordingly.”

A particularly controversial British intelligence assessment claimed Iraq President Saddam Hussein was capable of attacking Europe with WMD in just 45 minutes. It turned out the source was a lone Iraqi taxi driver.

The claim was repeated in a televised speech by President George W. Bush in September 2002 and proved fundamental to the war in Baghdad two months later.

British intelligence led the way in fomenting the US-led conflict against Syria in August 2013, after opposition-controlled Ghouta was allegedly struck by rockets fired by government forces containing the chemical agent sarin.

The incident had the hallmarks of a false flag operation. US officials were forced to concede evidence implicating the Syrian government was hardly a “slam dunk,” and communications intercepted by German spies indicated that whatever happened, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s  government had not sanctioned or been aware of the attack.

However, the British Joint Intelligence Committee possessed no such doubts and declared it was “highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible,” and “there [were] no plausible alternative scenarios.”

This resulted in a parliamentary vote on launching military intervention in Syria (alongside Washington and Paris mere days later). But that failed, taking the question of Western military action against Damascus off the table.

British Influence Operations In Ukraine

Ukraine is a country where Britain consistently seeks to influence events in order to derive economic, political, and military benefits.

For example, leaked documents indicate London funded consultants to effectively market neoliberal labor “reforms” to the Ukrainian public, which would destroy employment rights and protections.

The Foreign Office also financed Ukraine’s StopFake, a purported “fact-checking” website with deep links to fascist elements in the country.

StopFake defended Ukrainian military training camps for children that are run by the Neo-Nazi militia Azov Battalion. They also defended Andrey Parubiy, a Ukrainian parliamentary speaker from 2016 – 2019

Parubiy is an avowed Adolf Hitler fan. When Parubiy visited Britain in 2018, local reporters sprang to his defence. He was implicated in a reported false flag massacre of Maidan protesters in February 2014.

Even more significantly, the Foreign Office is secretly co-opting journalists and media organizations in Kiev via funding, training, and the surreptitious production of anti-Russian, pro-Western, and pro-NATO content. “Girls on HBO…but in Ukraine” was one suggested example of programming to support in leaked internal files.

These efforts are a component of a £100 million clandestine drive by London to “weaken the Russian state’s influence” over its neighbors.

All of which is another facet of Britain’s bond with the US that has been absolutely fundamental: relations between Moscow and Washington must remain tense.

By presenting itself as a dependable bastion of European security, Britain can remain relevant globally, able to perpetually piggyback off its partner’s might.

For this reason, London was willing to circulate bunk US intelligence about an impending Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The West Keeps ‘Guessing’

Fittingly, in the wake of Moscow’s announcement that it would withdraw troop deployments from some annual military exercises, Britain’s notorious Sun tabloid published an “exclusive” stating Russia was still planning to invade at 1 am London time on February 16.

No “massive missile blitz” happened so the Sun updated the “exclusive” to say “Putin continued to keep the West guessing.”

The article quoted Truss at some length, who said officials were “preparing for the worst,” believed an invasion “highly likely,” and “over the next few days there could be an attempt to claim the Ukrainians are attacking them so the Russians have a justification for invading.”

“Certainly, our latest intelligence suggests that an invasion is imminent, that it’s highly likely, and that we’ve seen 100,000 troops stationed around the border,” Truss fulminated. “We would expect multiple sequenced attacks and not a single strike.”

“We could be on the brink of a war in Europe. That would have severe consequences not just for the people of Russia and Ukraine but also for the broader security of Europe,” Truss added.

Such fearmongering has been de rigeur since 1946, when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill delivered an iconic speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.

Churchill warned that communism posed “a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization.” Without “a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the US,” there may be another World War.

At the time, opinion polls indicated American citizens not only valued and trusted their Soviet ally far more than Britain, but they foresaw a much-reduced role for the latter in world affairs following the war.

Churchill’s comments were poorly received, but their impact was quickly apparent. Six months later, US-Soviet cooperation collapsed due to disagreements over the future of occupied Germany.

Washington became wedded to a hardline anti-Soviet policy, and the Cold War was launched.

*

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

Kit Klarenberg regularly publishes articles on the role of intelligence agencies in shaping politics and perceptions. Substack: kitklarenberg.substack.com

Selected Articles: Ukraine Invasion Scheduled for Wednesday Canceled

February 17th, 2022 by Global Research News

Ukraine Invasion Scheduled for Wednesday Canceled

By Ray McGovern, February 16, 2022

Over recent weeks, AP’s ace reporter Matthew Lee and colleagues had been repeatedly led down the White House garden path by the likes of broken-record “the-Russians-are-coming-and-it-could-be-Wednesday” national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

Failure in Moscow: Liz Truss Loses Britannia’s Way

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, February 17, 2022

UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is synonymous with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s idea of groping diplomacy.  Graceless, all confusion, and much ignorance besides, she has been given the task of howling in the Kremlin’s direction, warning that no invasion of Ukraine will be tolerated by Global Britain.

Crafting Messages for Vaccine Compliance. “Guilt, Anger, Embarrassment or Cowardice — What Works Best?”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, February 16, 2022

In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected.

Biden Insists Russian Invasion “Distinctly Possible” Despite Troop Demobilization

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 16, 2022

The Russian troops that took part in defense exercises in Belarus and Crimea are now returning to their barracks, contradicting widely circulated reports that Russia is about to invade Ukraine. Although Moscow repeatedly stressed that troop mobilizations were for defense exercises, a weak and unverified intelligence leak disseminated across Western media claimed that Russia would invade Ukraine on February 16.

Heroic GMU Law Professor Todd Zywicki Defeats Vaccine Mandate

By Jeff Deist, February 16, 2022

Heroic George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki sued his employer last year over its vaccine mandate for faculty and staff. His argument was clear: he had existing (demonstrable) antibody immunity from an earlier covid infection, and thus his immunologist considered a vaccine both potentially harmful and medically unethical.

Biden’s Decision to Seize Afghan Assets Is Immoral and Inhumane

By Alex Shephard, February 16, 2022

This decision is a betrayal of all that, as well as a betrayal of Biden’s promise to build a foreign policy built on cooperation and mutual respect. It will have serious repercussions for Afghanistan’s financial future, preventing the country from establishing a sound monetary policy, possibly for years.

ISIS Prison Break: False Flag by Kurds to Keep US Forces in Syria

By Nauman Sadiq, February 16, 2022

High-security al-Sina’a prison is one of several detention centers in Syria’s northeast guarded by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The facility hosted 3,000 ISIS militants who were captured by the Kurds after the fall of the ISIS caliphate in 2019.

Canada’s Digital Crackdown on Freedom. Trudeau Answers to the Davos Elites

By Leo Hohmann, February 16, 2022

With the stroke of a pen and an announcement from a podium, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has essentially declared himself supreme dictator over the nation on our northern border.

Is Justin Trudeau Waging a War on the National Security of Canada and Canadians?

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, February 16, 2022

Justin Trudeau is a fitting embodiment of those who inhabit the peaks of privilege in this unjust society. His recent action personifies how some members of his dynastic class further their unbounded quest for power by disguising their actions behind a veneer of emergency measures.

In the Donbass, the Fuse Is Lit

By Manlio Dinucci, February 16, 2022

Every day, signs of an imminent war intensify. The State Department is evacuating the Embassy in Kyiv leaving behind only a few diplomats and a team of Marines, and is warning US citizens to leave Ukraine because “it would not be able to protect them from the Russian attack.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Ukraine Invasion Scheduled for Wednesday Canceled

Failure in Moscow: Liz Truss Loses Britannia’s Way

February 17th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Incompetent politicians and diplomats are on the level with ill-prepared generals fighting current wars with dated methods.  They err, they stumble, and they may well be responsible for the next idiotic slander, misfire or misunderstanding.  UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is synonymous with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s idea of groping diplomacy.  Graceless, all confusion, and much ignorance besides, she has been given the task of howling in the Kremlin’s direction, warning that no invasion of Ukraine will be tolerated by Global Britain.

Truss, former international trade secretary known for her “goofy public persona”, took over from the less goofy and somewhat severe Dominic Raab as foreign secretary in Johnson’s ministerial shake-up last year.  Her time at the Department of International Trade had been dubbed the “Department for Instagramming Truss”, given her insatiable appetite for social media platforms.

Ideology, not facts, interest her.  As she explained to Politico, “I’m probably one of the more ideological among my colleagues, in that that’s what motivates me.”  Her rapid immaturing has seen her moving ever more towards economic libertarianism, founding the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs keen to savage and prune employment laws and regulations.

The placing of ideology before facts has somewhat dented her performance at critical points.  In foreign relations, notably when war might be peeking around the corner between Ukraine and Russia, this is telling.  During the course of the BBC’s Sunday Morning show, she claimed that “we are supplying and offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea.”

Identifying the wrong sea enabled Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, the reliably stern ice queen Maria Zakharova, to move in for the kill.  “The Baltic countries are called so because they are located precisely off the coast of this [Baltic] sea.  Not the Black [Sea].”  A grave Zakharova could only reflect that, “If anyone needs to be saved from anything, then it is the world from the stupidity and ignorance of Anglo-Saxon politicians.”

During that now notorious closed-door meeting between Truss and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, ignorance basked gloriously, with Truss floundering with amateurish accomplishment.  Truss, so goes the account, demanded of the Russian Foreign Minister that his country move its troops away from the Ukrainian border.  Lavrov’s steely point was elementary: Moscow could do what it wanted to within its own borders.

Then came the grenade, pin removed.  Truss, having previously been interested in trade, probably had her mine on cheese or pork products.  The Foreign Secretary was asked (trap laid in full view) whether the UK recognised sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh.  According to the Kommersant newspaper, Truss was defiant: the UK would never recognise them as Russian.  In the long tradition of the diplomatic corps, the UK ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, had to aid Truss in correction.  Rostov and Voronezh were, well, Russian.

This gave Lavrov much ammunition in the press conference that followed.  He claimed that talking to Truss was like “speaking to a deaf person who listens but cannot hear”.  Spokesman Dmitry Peskov, when asked about Truss’s limited understanding of the region and, so it went, her brief, seemed to relish it.  “We are not in the position to answer this question.  It’s the Foreign Ministry’s competence.”

On Sky News, Russia’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyanskiy, was brutally direct.  “There is always room for diplomacy but, frankly, we don’t trust British diplomacy.  I think in recent years British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless.”

The Truss ignorance show did not go down well in those quarters that still feel Britannia has a muscular role to play in foreign affairs.  Having cut his teeth as British ambassador to Moscow, Tony Brenton mourned the Truss Moscow “performance” as completing “the process of the UK  making itself irrelevant to serious diplomatic efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis.”

Former editor of the Financial Times, Lionel Barber, homed in on Lavrov as “Putin’s Gromyko”, one who ate “Liz Truss alive on camera, dismissing her as an ignorant lightweight who spends too much time on social media.”

Martin Fletcher, former foreign editor of The Times, bemoaned Truss’s lass of serious preparation and her visit to Moscow as, for the most part, “a glorified photo opportunity”.  What he would have given for a harder, more disciplined engagement with the Russians, the sort that the late former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was rather good at.

Some British pundits were left scrounging for nuggets of justification.  James Forsyth clucked his way to suggesting that Lavrov’s rudeness was somehow a “sign that Liz Truss held the line in their meeting”.  Rallying support for Truss was the gossip columnist of the Spectator, who could not stomach the “Brit-poisoning Kremlin” to any degree. “For her part, Truss stayed calm and walked off after the snub, having used her meeting to re-emphasise the British government warnings about the build up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.”

The problem with Truss is fundamental, having little to do with showmanship or any proud display in the face of stupidity or a basic lack of understanding.  She may well be representing a power diminished, but the UK, billing itself as Global Britain, is doing poorly under her hollow, social media driven stewardship.  Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has even labelled her assessment of Beijing and Russian intentions (for Truss, these are inseparable) as “nothing short of demented.”

Writing for Spiked, Mary Dejevsky, having cut her teeth as Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992,  showed her talons in explaining why the Truss adventure was, diplomatically, all fizz and utter failure.  “Dispatched for little more than a day trip to Moscow, Liz Truss managed to confirm all of Russia’s negative preconceptions about British diplomacy – arrogance, coldness and an attachment to hypocritical sermonising about ‘values’ – while adding at least one more: ignorance.”  Punchy stuff, and accurate to boot.

*

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

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

Introducción 

En el transcurso de los últimos dos años a partir de principios de enero de 2020, he analizado la evolución de la crisis del coronavirus. 

Desde el principio, en enero de 2020, hubo una campaña de miedo en escala internacional. El objetivo era de convencer a toda la población de la existencia de una peligrosa epidemia. Una mentira. 

Estamos ante un proceso sumamente complejo. Estamos viviendo una de las crisis más graves en la historia de la Humanidad. 

 

 

 

 

El movimiento de protesta en Canadá

El Primer Ministro Trudeau califica al “Freedom Convoy” de los camioneros como un grupo de terroristas, racistas y antisemitas….

Véase la producción de Global Research:

Es un engaño

Poblaciones enteras en mas de 190 países miembros de Naciones Unidas han sido engañadas tanto por sus Gobiernos como por los medios de comunicación sobre las causas y las devastadoras consecuencias de la “pandemia” de COVID-19.

La verdad es que el nuevo coronavirus esun pretexto y una justificación a favor de poderosos intereses financieros y Gobiernos corruptos para precipitar al mundo entero en una espiral de desempleo masivo, bancarrota, y pobreza extrema.

Más de 7 mil millones de personas a nivel global han sido afectadas directa o indirectamente por la crisis del coronavirus.

“El pretexto global” 

Confirmado por destacados científicos, así como por organismos oficiales de salud pública, incluida la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y el Centro para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) de EE. UU. COVID-19 es un problema de salud pública, pero NO es un virus peligroso.

La crisis del COVID-19 está marcada por una “emergencia” de salud pública bajo los auspicios de la OMS que se está utilizando como pretexto y justificación para desencadenar un proceso mundial de reestructuración económica, social y política. La tendencia es hacia la imposición de un  Estado totalitario.

Se está aplicando ingeniería social. Se presiona a los gobiernos para que extiendan el confinamiento, a pesar de sus devastadoras consecuencias económicas y sociales.

No existe una base científica para implementar el cierre de la economía global como un medio para resolver una crisis de salud pública. Tanto los medios como los gobiernos están involucrados en la difusión de desinformación.

La campaña del miedo no tiene base científica. Los gobiernos MIENTEN. De hecho, se están mintiendo a sí mismos.


Capitulo II 

La cronología de la crisis del Coronavirus

Identidad Digital: La Alianza ID-2020 se reúne el 19 de septiembre de 2019

19 de septiembre de 2019:

L a Alianza ID-2020 celebró su Cumbre en Nueva York, titulada “Rising to the Good ID Challenge”. La atención se centró en el establecimiento bajo los auspicios de GAVI (Alliance for Vaccine Identity) de una vacuna con un pasaporte digital incorporado . El objetivo declarado era la creación de una base de datos digital mundial.

18 de octubre de 2019. Evento 201. El ejercicio de simulación de pandemia 201. El virus 2019-nCoV

El Foro Económico Mundial (FEM) se reúne en Davos, del 21 al 24 de enero de 2020

21-24 de enero de 2020: Consultas en el Foro Económico Mundial, Davos, Suiza, bajo los auspicios de la Coalición para Innovaciones en Preparación para Epidemias (CEPI) para el desarrollo de un programa de vacunas.

La evidencia sugiere que el proyecto de vacuna nCoV 2019 ya estaba en marcha en 2019. (Ver Capítulo VIII). Se anunció oficialmente en Davos, 2 semanas después del anuncio del 7 de enero de 2020 por parte de las autoridades chinas, y apenas una semana antes del lanzamiento oficial de la Emergencia de Salud Pública Mundial de la OMS el 30 de enero de 2020.

30 de Enero 2020. Emergencia de la OMS: ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)’

La “emergencia” de salud pública de COVID-19 bajo los auspicios de la OMS se presentó a la opinión pública como un “solución” para contener el “virus asesino”.

Si se hubiera informado a la opinión pública que el COVID es (según la definición de la OMS) “similar a la gripe estacional”, la campaña de miedo se habría derrumbado. 

La OMS lanzó la primera etapa de esta crisis (fuera de China) el 30 de enero de 2020 en un momento en que había 5 casos en EE. UU., 3 en Canadá, 4 en Francia y 4 en Alemania.

En total, 83 casos PCR positivos fuera de China, para una población mundial de 6,400 millones.  

El dia siguiente,

31 de enero de 2020: Decisión del presidente Trump de suspender los viajes aéreos con China

Al día siguiente (31 de enero de 2020), Trump anunció que negaría la entrada a los EE. UU. de ciudadanos chinos y extranjeros “que hayan viajado a China en los últimos 14 días” . Esto desencadenó de inmediato una crisis en los viajes aéreos, el transporte, las relaciones comerciales entre EE. UU. y China, así como las transacciones de transporte y envío.

El 20 y 21 de febrero de 2020 marca el comienzo de la crisis financiera de 2020

20 de febrero de 2020:  En una conferencia de prensa el jueves 20 de febrero por la tarde (hora CET) en una  sesión informativa en Ginebra, el Director General de la OMS.  El Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , dijo que estaba

“preocupado porque la posibilidad de contener la transmisión del coronavirus se estaba “cerrando”…

“Creo que la ventana de oportunidad todavía está ahí, pero la ventana se está estrechando”.

Solo hubo 1.076 casos fuera de China

Nota: Los datos tabulados anteriores para el 20 de febrero de 2020 indican 1.073 casos. 1.076 casos en conferencia de prensa de la OMS

Estas declaraciones de “conmoción y asombro” contribuyeron a aumentar la campaña de miedo, a pesar de que el número de casos confirmados fuera de China era extremadamente bajo.

15 en EE. UU., 8 en Canadá, 9 en el Reino Unido. (Ver tabla a la derecha, 20 de febrero de 2020).

Esas son las cifras utilizadas para justificar las advertencias del Dr. Tedros: “la ventana se está estrechando”:

Se registró un mayor número de casos fuera de China en Corea del Sur (153 casos según la OMS) e Italia (registrado por las autoridades nacionales).

Datos de la OMS registrados el 20 de febrero de 2020, al comienzo del llamado colapso financiero de COVID(derecha)

11 de marzo de 2020: La pandemia histórica de COVID-19, confinamiento, cierre de 190 economías nacionales

El Director General de la OMS ya había preparado el escenario en su conferencia de prensa del 21 de febrero .

“el mundo debería hacer más para prepararse para una posible pandemia de coronavirus”. La OMS había llamado a los países a estar “en una fase de preparación”.

El número de casos confirmados fuera de China (6.400 millones de habitantes) fue del orden de   44279 y 1440 muertes  ( cifras registradas por la OMS para el 11 de marzo, (el 12 de marzo) (ver tabla a la derecha).

Estas son las cifras utilizadas para justificar el confinamiento y el cierre de 190 economías nacionales.

Estimaciones falsas, “Fake Science”, Mentiras 

La prueba RT-PCR no tiene sentido (ahora confirmada por la OMS y los CDC). Toda la base de datos de los llamados “casos confirmados de COVID” es inválida.

Estas son las estimaciones que se han utilizado para justificar TODOS las restricciones alrededor de la “pandemia” de COVID-19 desde marzo de 2020. Las cifras sobre la  mortalidad relacionada con COVID-19 también son inválidas (Véase Capítulo III).

Estas son las “estimaciones” falsas utilizadas para justificar la violación de derechos humanos fundamentales.

 

El SARS-CoV-2 es “similar a la gripe estacional” según los CDC y la OMS. No es un virus asesino . (Ver Capítulo III)

Los impactos económicos y sociales

Los impactos económicos y sociales de los confinamientos son devastadores: quiebras, endeudamiento desempleo, pobreza y desesperación.  El impacto destructivo de las restricciones relativas a la pandemia de COVID-19 (Ver Capítulos IV y V)

La vacuna

Las vacunas de ARNm de COVID-19 han derivado en una tendencia mundial al alza en la mortalidad y morbilidad que está ampliamente documentada (ver Capítulo VIII). Un informe confidencial de Pfizer hecho público bajo Freedom of Information (FOI) confirma que la inyección de COVID-19 es una “vacuna asesina”. 

Mortalidad ligado a la vacuna desde 1990. Base de datos del gobierno de EEUU (VAERS database).

Chart Description automatically generated

“En un par de meses, los informes sobre fallecimientos derivados de las inyecciones de COVID superaron el recuento récord anual de cualquier otra vacuna en la base de datos. En menos de doce meses, el número de muertes relacionadas con las inyecciones de COVID superó el total de muertes reportadas en relación con todas las demás vacunas en los últimos treinta años.”

El  Impacto sobre la mortalidad (diciembre 2020 – febrero 2021)

Source: HeathData.org

5. Reportados y registrados

 para UE/Reino Unido/EE.UU.: 61654 muertes relacionadas con inyecciones de COVID-19 y 9 755 085 lesiones notificadas al 28 de enero de 2022  (solo se notifica y registra un pequeño porcentaje de muertes y lesiones).

La evidencia es abrumadora. Al momento de escribir (enero de 2022 ), las últimas cifras oficiales  apuntan a aproximadamente:

61 654 muertes relacionadas con inyecciones de COVID-19 y

9 755 085 lesiones para la UE, EE.UU. y el Reino Unido combinados.

Pero solo una pequeña fracción de las víctimas o las familias de los fallecidos pasarán por el tedioso proceso de informar las muertes y los eventos adversos relacionados con la vacuna a las autoridades sanitarias nacionales.

Además, las autoridades sanitarias están activamente involucradas en ofuscar las muertes y lesiones resultantes de la “vacuna” contra COVID-19 “no aprobada” y “experimental”.

Basado en datos históricos (Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS, p. 6)

“Los eventos adversos de los medicamentos y las vacunas son comunes, pero no se notifican. … menos del 0,3 % de todos los eventos adversos de medicamentos y del 1 al 13 % de los eventos graves se notifican a la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA). Asimismo, se notifican menos del 1% de los eventos adversos de la vacuna. (énfasis añadido)

Si bien no estamos en condiciones de establecer estimaciones precisas, podemos establecer el orden de magnitud.

Multiplique las cifras oficiales (registradas y registradas) por el parámetro correspondiente para obtener los NÚMEROS REALES de muertos y heridos.  

Números muy altos

Suponiendo que se informe un 10 % de las muertes y los eventos adversos (una suposición muy conservadora según  Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc , p. 6)

La “vacuna” del COVID-19 habría resultado en

610.000 muertes y casi 100 millones de “ eventos adversos” para una población combinada de aproximadamente 830 millones (Reino Unido, UE, EE. UU.). 

6. Pfizer tiene antecedentes penales en el Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos. (Ver Capítulo VIII)  

7. Cuales son los intereses detrás de ese proyecto

Debate: ¿Se trata de un proyecto imperialista?

Gobernanza Global: Hacia un Estado Totalitario

Las personas y organizaciones involucradas en la Simulación 201 del 18 de octubre de 2019  ahora están involucradas  en la gestión real de la crisis una vez que se puso en marcha el 30 de enero de 2020 bajo la ‘Emergencia de Salud Pública de Preocupación Internacional’ (PHEIC) de la OMS, que a su vez estableció el escenario de la crisis financiera de febrero de 2020 y el cierre de marzo.

El confinamiento y cierre de las economías nacionales ha desencadenado varias olas de desempleo masivo junto con la quiebra diseñada (aplicada en todo el mundo) de las pequeñas y medianas empresas.

Todo lo cual está encabezado por la instalación de un Estado totalitario global que pretende romper todas las formas de protesta y resistencia.

El programa de vacunación contra COVID (incluido el pasaporte digital incorporado) es parte integral de un régimen totalitario global. (ver Capítulo VIII)

El infame ID2020 

Es un programa de identificación electrónica que utiliza la vacunación generalizada como plataforma para la identidad digital.

El programa aprovecha las operaciones existentes de vacunación y registro de nacimientos para proporcionar a los recién nacidos una identidad digital portátil permanente vinculada biométricamente. Zonas rojas, mascarillas, distanciamiento social, encierro” (Peter Koenig, 12 de marzo de 2020)

El “Gran Reinicio” del Foro Económico Mundial

El Gran Reinicio del Foro Económico Mundial (FEM) se ha estado gestando durante mucho tiempo. “Presione el botón de Reinicio” con miras a salvar la economía mundial  fue anunciado por el presidente del FEM, Klaus Schwab , en enero de 2014, seis años antes del ataque de la pandemia de COVID-19.

“Lo que queremos hacer en Davos este año [2014] es presionar el botón de Reinicio, el mundo está muy atrapado en una crisis”.

Los mismos poderosos acreedores que desencadenaron la crisis de la deuda global en medio de la “pandemia” de COVID-19 ahora están estableciendo una “Nueva normalidad” que consiste esencialmente en imponer lo que el Foro Económico Mundial describe como “El Gran Reinicio”

Los desempleados (y habrá muchos) recibirían algún tipo de ingreso básico universal y sus deudas (el endeudamiento y la bancarrota a gran escala son el resultado deliberado de los confinamientos y restricciones) se cancelarían a cambio de entregar sus activos a los Estados o, más precisamente, a las instituciones financieras que ayudan a impulsar este Gran Reinicio . El FEM dice que la opinión pública ‘alquilará’ todo lo que necesite: despojando el derecho de propiedad bajo el pretexto de ‘consumo sostenible’ y ‘salvar el planeta’. Por supuesto, la pequeña élite que implementó este Gran Reinicio será dueña de todo. (Colin Todhunter, Gran reinicio distópico, 9 de noviembre de 2020)

Los Microchips

Dos años más tarde, en una entrevista de 2016 con la cadena de televisión suiza en francés (RTS), Klaus Schwab habló sobre la implantación de microchips en cuerpos humanos que son, en esencia, la base de la vacuna de ARNm COVID “experimental”. “Lo que vemos es una especie de fusión del mundo físico, digital y biológico”, dijo Klaus Schwab.

Schwab explicó que próximamente los seres humanos recibirán un chip que será implantado en sus cuerpos para fusionarse con el mundo digital. (Escuchar entrevista en francés)

RTS: “¿Cuándo sucederá eso?”

KS: “Ciertamente, en los próximos diez años”.

“Podríamos imaginar que los implantaremos en nuestro cerebro o en nuestra piel”.

“Y entonces podemos imaginar que existe una comunicación directa entre el cerebro y el mundo digital”.

La entrevista de RTS con Klaus Schwab se presenta en los primeros minutos del video a continuación.

VIDEO: Hacia la tiranía digital con Peter Koenig

Haga clic aquí para vincular a la versión bitchute

Debate: Construyendo un movimiento mundial contra la “tiranía del coronavirus”

Lo que está en juego es la creación de  un movimiento de masas (a nivel nacional y mundial) que cuestione la legitimidad y autoridad de los arquitectos de este proyecto insidioso que, en términos generales, emana de: Big Money, Big Pharma, los conglomerados de tecnología de la información, los aparatos de seguridad e inteligencia, el Complejo Industrial Militar, Big Energy y los medios de comunicación corporativos.

 

ID de reunión: 865 7058 1882
Código de acceso: 480061

Link de acceso directo:  https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86570581882?pwd=N1BYaS9MYm5iWUw1ZjFsVnNrN1ZMZz09 

Ariel Noyola R. le está invitando a una reunión de Zoom programada.

El 16 de febrero, 2022, 16.00 horas (hora de Mexico)

14.oo horas (Los Angeles)

17.oo horas (Nueva York, Montreal)

***

Detalles sobre el Libro de Michel Chossudovsky

La crisis mundial del coronavirus 2020-22 . Destruyendo la sociedad civil, Depresión económica diseñada Golpe de Estado Global y el “Gran Reinicio”  14 capítulos  (Traducción AI)

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

Capitulo XIII

¿Golpe de Estado mundial? El “Gran Reinicio”, la Deuda Global y el “Tratamiento de Choque” Neoliberal

Capitulo XIV

La Bastilla 2.0: “Cambio de régimen real”:

Construyendo protesta y resistencia contra la Agenda COVID-19

 

Archivo de artículos del Michel Chossudovsky  (español)

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on La crisis del Coronavirus 2020-2022: Resumen de la presentación de Michel Chossudovsky, UACM, Ciudad de Mexico, 16 de febrero

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Below are excerpts from articles published on Newsweek and New York Post.

Trudeau’s Power Grab Is Unconstitutional

By Ryan Alford, Professor of Law, Lakehead University

Published on Newsweek

On Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he would be invoking the Emergencies Act, giving him broad emergency powers to quash a nonviolent protest of truckers opposing vaccine mandates. It is only the second time the Canadian government has ever given itself such powers in peacetime.

….

First, the Emergencies Act specifies that only certain types of threats to public order can authorize emergency powers—which is why an order issued by the Governor General on Tuesday made the shocking allegation that the Freedom Convoy’s activities are “directed toward or in support” of terrorism.

It’s an astonishing claim for those who have been following the protests both in Canada’s capital and at border crossings closely. There is not a single violent incident that could possibly support a legally sufficient argument that the protests have been in support of or connected with terrorism.

Second, the new Emergencies Act required a “national emergency” to be invoked, something so serious that it cannot be resolved by means of any other law or combination of laws. And yet, the two most significant challenges to the government—the blockades of the Ambassador Bridge (from Windsor to Detroit) and the crossing from Sweetgrass, Montana to Coutts, Alberta—were both resolved peacefully, and without a single act of violence on the part of either the protesters or the police. At the end of the Coutts blockade, the demonstrators lined up to shake hands with law enforcement (the same ritual that ends every hockey game).

Only the protest in Ottawa remains, and evidence of terrorism, at least outside of the realm of mind-reading, remains rather thin. Moreover, Trudeau has refused to even meet with the truckers.

All of this means that Trudeau has failed to meet the requirements for invoking the Emergencies Act. His doing so is clearly unconstitutional.

Click here to read the full article on Newsweek.

*

Justin Trudeau’s Canadian injustice is just a naked grab for power

By James Bovard

Published on New York Post

To save Canadian democracy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must first destroy it.

Since the start of the pandemic, Trudeau has acted like COVID entitled him to unlimited power in the name of public safety — sort of like Gov. Andrew Cuomo on amphetamines. Now he claims he is entitled to use an iron fist to crush the trucker protest movement against a vaccine mandate.

Many of the protesters believe the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefit and, more important, that they have the right to control their own bodies. Trudeau responded by vilifying the peaceful protesters: “There is no place in our country for threats, violence or hatred.”

Who’s really the threat? 

Except Trudeau seems to be doing most of the threats and hatred. He’s denounced the protesters, baselessly, as “racist” and “misogynistic.” And Monday, he invoked the Emergencies Act, effectively awarding himself martial-law powers to repress resistance. Trudeau said his edict will provide him “the ability to compel” tow-truck companies to remove protesters’ trucks.

He’s even designating protesters as “terrorists” in the name of cutting off their funding. Canada’s

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced Tuesday: “We are broadening the scope of Canada’s anti-money-laundering and terrorist-financing rules so that they cover Crowd Funding Platforms and the payment service providers they use.”

Click here to read the full article on New York Post.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected

Messages designed to induce guilt, embarrassment, anger and “not bravery” were included

Psychological messages that involve community interest, reciprocity and embarrassment worked best, leading to a 30% increase in intention to get injected, a 24% increase in willingness to tell a friend to get injected and a 38% increase in negative opinions of those who decline to get the shot

The messages not only impact people on an individual level but are intended to further divide society, by encouraging people to pass negative judgment onto those who don’t get the shot and pressure others to comply with “social norms”

*

In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected.

Officially titled, “Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake,”1 the researchers must have had some forethought that people would be wary of an experimental gene therapy, and set to work to decipher the best propaganda campaign to ensure their widespread uptake.

The study’s abstract starts out with questionable statements from the start, parroting the myth that “Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic.”2 The authors do not, however, expand on how this is so, considering that just three months after the shot those who are injected are just as likely to pass COVID-19 to their close contacts as those who do not get the shot.3,4

The reasons why people may be reluctant to get COVID-19 shots — such as safety and efficacy concerns — are also ignored by the study,5 which is only concerned with how to best use psychological tactics to get people on board with being injected.

Guilt, Anger, Embarrassment or Cowardice — What Works Best?

The full study, which was published in the December 3, 2021, issue of Vaccine,6 involved two experiments. The first tested “treatment messages” designed to affect people’s intentions about whether or not to get the shot. For the control group, subjects were exposed to a message about bird feeding, while others read the baseline vaccine message, as follows:

“To end the COVID-19 outbreak, it is important for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 whenever a vaccine becomes available. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine means you are much less likely to get COVID-19 or spread it to others. Vaccines are safe and widely used to prevent diseases and vaccines are estimated to save millions of lives every year.”

For the experiment, the following messages were added to the baseline message:7

For example, the guilt message, which is designed to work by social pressure, reads:8

“The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”

Never mind that this statement is false, since they can still spread the disease if they’re injected. Similarly misleading messages designed to demean, guilt and shame people into getting the shot include:9

  • “If one doesn’t get vaccinated that means that one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.”
  • “Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”
  • “[I]t asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”
  • “[I]t asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”

The researchers explained it this way:10

“One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security.

We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators.”

Propaganda Messages Created With No Scientific Support

It’s ironic that the study includes a “trust in science” message, since the messages used in the study were created in early or mid-2020, before science was available to support them. Yet, as noted by a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) article, “The messages tested by the researchers have been woven into mainstream media narratives and public health campaigns throughout the world.”11

In the second part of the study, the most effective messages from part one were tested on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. This included the baseline message along with community interest, community interest + embarrassment, not bravery, trust in science and personal freedom messages.

They found that, compared to the control group, psychological messages that involve community interest, reciprocity and embarrassment worked best, leading to a 30% increase in intention to get injected, along with a 24% increase in willingness to tell a friend to get injected and a 38% increase in negative opinions of those who decline to get the shot.12

The messages are designed to not only impact people on an individual level, but also further divide society by encouraging people to pass negative judgment onto others and pressure others to comply with “social norms.” According to the researchers:

“Viewing vaccination through the lens of a collective action problem suggests that in addition to increasing individuals’ intentions to receive a vaccine, effective public health messages would also increase people’s willingness to encourage those close to them to vaccinate and to hold negative judgments of those who do not vaccinate.

By encouraging those close to them to vaccinate, people are both promoting compliance with social norms and increasing their own level of protection against the disease. Also, by judging those who do not vaccinate more negatively, they apply social pressure to others to promote cooperative behavior.”

Shots as a ‘Morally Right Choice’

Since the pandemic began, conforming to confusing and questionable public health mandates has been made an issue of moral superiority — to the point that those who questioned mask mandates were labeled as “grandma killers.”13

In an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2020, it’s further noted that “vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice.”14 It further suggests that, under this social contract, people should change their behaviors toward those who choose not to get injected, and, indeed, people who are “especially compliant,” i.e., vaccinated, were less generous to those who were not.15 Further:16

“If so, vaccinated individuals should reciprocate by being more generous to a vaccinated other. On the contrary, if the other doesn’t vaccinate and violates the social contract, generosity should decline.”

Propaganda Aimed at Making People Feel ‘Disgusting’

CHD pointed out that one of the authors of the Yale study, Saad Omer, “has an extensive interest in public health messaging” and was behind the “Building Vaccine Confidence Through Tailored Messaging Campaigns” in 2020, which used social media to convince people to get COVID-19 and other shots.17

Working with the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines, Omer detailed what worked in the past to increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine, and suggested it could work for COVID-19 shots. The solution, he said, involved appealing to values and stooping so low as to make a person feel disgusting while presenting vaccines as a form of purity. CHD quoted Omer, who said:18

“We wanted to test out, can we have a purity-based message? So we showed them pictures of genital warts and described a vignette, a narrative, a story, talking about how someone got genital warts and how disgusting they were and how pure vaccines are that sort of restore the sanctity of the body.

So we just analyzed these data. This was a randomized control trial with apriori outcomes. We found approximately 20 percentage point effect on people’s likelihood of getting an HPV vaccine in the next 6 months … We are trying out liberty-based messages or liberty-mediated messaging around this behavior related to COVID-19 outbreak.

That wearing a mask or taking precautions eventually make you free, regain your autonomy. Because if the disease rates are low, your activities can resume.”

This is similar propaganda to what’s being used to promote vaccine passports, with many willingly giving up freedoms that, once gone, may be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 shot, via a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.

Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of freedom that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and control, and erosion of your privacy.

Propaganda Is the Real Misinformation

Carefully crafted messages that play on your emotions and moral compass are just one part of the campaign to ensure public compliance with the mainstream narrative. Fact checking is another tool being used in order to control virtually everything you see and hear online, in order to serve a greater agenda.19

Take the term “conspiracy theory,” which is now used to dismiss narratives that go against the grain. According to investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, this is intentional, as the term itself was devised by the CIA as a response to theories about the assassination of JFK.

Debunked, quackery and antivaccine are all terms that are similarly being used as propaganda tools. “There’s a whole cast of propaganda phrases that I’ve outlined that are cues. When you hear them, they should make you think, ‘I need to find out more about it,’” Attkisson says.20

Likewise, CHD explained, “The efforts to eliminate ‘misinformation’ resulted in unprecedented censorship of virtually anything that steps outside of state-sanctioned consensus and the creation of a captive audience primed to accept a singular narrative.”21

It’s important to remain aware that messages are being carefully crafted to mold human behavior to comply with COVID-19 shots and other public health measures — and to recognize that the use of propaganda is perfectly legal, even in the U.S.

As CHD continued, “And thanks to a multibillion-dollar budget from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we are under the influence of the best messages money can buy — whether or not those messages are true.”22

*

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

Notes

1, 7, 8, 9 ClinicalTrials.gov, July 7, 2020, COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part I

2, 6, 10 Vaccine December 3, 2021, Volume 39, Issue 49, Pages 7158-7165

3 medRxiv October 15, 2021

4 Nature October 5, 2021

5, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 Children’s Health Defense February 4, 2022

13 Steve Kirsch Newsletter November 7, 2021

14, 16 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2020, 117(26) 14890-14899

19 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 2:43

20 The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 22:26

Featured image is from Mercola