All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


First, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro declined to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Then, India followed suit – as the Modi government attempted to balance its historic ties with Moscow and its strategic partnership with Washington.

Now, Saudi and UAE leaders are refusing to take Biden’s calls as the US president tries to contain surging oil prices, according to the Wall Street Journal, which adds that the Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled “they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere.”

“There was some expectation of a phone call, but it didn’t happen,” said one US official of a planned discussion between Biden and the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. “It was part of turning on the spigot [of Saudi oil].”

The U.A.E.’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan also ghosted Biden in recent weeks according to Middle East and US officials.

Yet, both Prince Mohammed and Sheikh Mohammed took phone calls from Russian President Vladimir Putin after declining to speak with Biden, according to the WSJ. They also spoke with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky.

Biden was able to get through to Prince Mohammed’s 86-year-old father on Feb. 9, however the U.A.E.’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the call between Mr. Biden and Sheikh Mohammed would need to be rescheduled, according to the report.

What do they get out of it?

As the Journal notes,

The Saudis have signaled that their relationship with Washington has deteriorated under the Biden administration, and they want more support for their intervention in Yemen’s civil war, help with their own civilian nuclear program as Iran moves ahead, and legal immunity for Prince Mohammed in the U.S., Saudi officials said. The crown prince faces multiple lawsuits in the U.S., including over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.”

There’s the ask.

Meanwhile, the Emiratis share Saudi concerns about the less-than-adequate level of engagement by the US regarding recent missile strikes by Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen against both the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The two kingdoms are also concerned about the revival of the Iran nuclear deal – which is in its ‘final stages of negotiations,’ yet does zero to address their security concerns.

So for those keeping track, while the west has continued to insist that Russia is isolated – and make no mistake, these sanctions will be immediately crippling – if one considers the population and resources which originate in China, India, Brazil and the Middle East kingdoms basically half the world’s population and those who control most of the world’s commodities aren’t on board with punishing Putin or easing the situation to the west’s benefit.

And as the Journal points out,

Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are the only two major oil producers that can pump millions of more barrels of more oil—a capacity that, if used, could help calm the crude market at a time when American gasoline prices are at high levels.”

Too little, too late?

Late last month, Brett McGurk, the National Security Council’s Middle East coordinator, and Amos Hochstein, the State Department’s energy envoy, flew to Riyadh to try and smooth relations – while McGurk also met with Sheikh Mohammed in Abu Dhabi to hear out their frustrations with America’s response to Houthi attacks.

Obviously, diplomacy didn’t go well.

To date, the Saudis and Emiratis have declined to increase oil production – and are instead holding to the previously agreed OPEC production roadmap. What’s more, their energy alliance with Russia, another top oil producer, has boosted OPECs global reach while bringing the Kingdoms closer to Moscow.

Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. forged deep ties with former President Donald Trump, who sided with them in a regional dispute with Qatar, pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal that they had opposed, made his first trip abroad to Riyadh in 2017 and stood by Prince Mohammed after the killing of Mr. Khashoggi. But Mr. Trump’s decision not to respond to an Iranian drone and missile attack on major Saudi oil sites in 2019 rattled Gulf partners who have relied for decades on the promise of U.S. security protection. Iran denied involvement in the oil facility attacks.

The rift between Mr. Biden and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince stretches back to the 2020 presidential election, when the Democratic candidate vowed to treat the kingdom as a “pariah” state after a Saudi hit team killed Mr. Khashoggi in 2018 in Istanbul. -WSJ

Biden also released an intelligence report shortly after taking office which concluded that the 2018 Istanbul murder of WaPo journalist Jamal Khashoggi was approved by Prince Mohammed – who has denied knowledge of the plot despite close associates having been convicted in Saudi court over the the journalist’s death.

The US president also slammed Saudi Arabia over its long war in Yemen, and cut off weapons that the Saudis were using to target Houthis. Biden also removed Houthis from a list of global terrorist groups, after former President Trump added them.

And on Monday (after Biden was ghosted), White House spox Jen Psaki confirmed that Biden stood by his view that the Saudis should be treated like a “pariah,” and that their leadership has ‘little redeeming social value.’

In an interview with the Atlantic magazine published last week, Prince Mohammed said when asked if Biden misunderstood him: “Simply, I do not care,” adding that the US president shouldn’t have alienated Saudi leaders. “It’s up to him to think about the interests of America,” he said, adding “Go for it.”

So, perhaps don’t call the country that could bail you out of an oil crunch a “pariah” if you might require their assistance.

*

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

Biden Bans Russian Oil and Gas Imports, Devastating Impacts

March 9th, 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

US President Joe Biden announced on March 8 the suspension of oil imports from Russia. The measure is one of the most radical taken by Washington so far, considering that about 10% of the oil consumed by the US is of Russian origin. Considering that the American society is heavily dependent on oil (with most families owning more than one car), the move could directly affect Biden’s popularity.

These were some of Biden’s words in his speech announcing the new measure:

“Today I’m announcing the United States is targeting the main artery of Russia’s economy. We’re banning all imports of Russian oil and gas and energy. That means Russian oil will no longer be acceptable at US ports and the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin’s war machine (…) This is a move that has strong bipartisan support in Congress and I believe in the country. Americans have rallied to support the Ukrainian people and made it clear we will not be part of subsidizing Putin’s war (…) This is a step that we’re taking to inflict further pain on Putin, but there will be costs as well here in the United States”.

Biden makes it clear that his measure will harm American society but decides to take this risk simply to attack the Russian economy, which he considers essential to neutralize Russian military power. Although Russian oil represents a small percentage of American consumption, any loss of oil source can negatively affect a country as dependent on this resource as the US, whose social structure is based on individual road transport, with a very wide distribution of vehicles. Any increase in the price of oil negatively impacts the image of an American president.

The barrel of oil has been increasing its price exponentially recently, having reached the incredible mark of 129,00 dollars on the day Biden announced the ban. With that, the American people will pay directly for the material consequences of Biden’s political plans, whose focus, rather than improving Americans’ lives, seems to be simply trying to harm Russia in some way.

In Parliament, politicians seem to agree with Biden’s measure, considering the US government’s priority to “contain” Russia in every way possible. House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised Biden’s decision and promised to pass rigid laws against Russian energy over the next few days. In the same vein, state departments seem to be committed to the government’s plans, promising to increase US energy production in order to fill the gap left by the banned oil and gas imports. For example, the Department of Energy raised its forecast for oil production in 2023 by 390,000 barrels per day, for a total of 12.99 million barrels per day. This year alone, US oil production is expected to increase by 60,000 barrels a day.

It is difficult, however, for this anti-Russian enthusiasm to be shared by the American people, who is not interested in plans to “punish” Moscow. No American citizen wants to pay more in fuel just to “contain Russia”. Despite Parliament and state departments showing support for Biden, it is virtually inevitable that his popularity will continue to drop sharply in the coming months due to such measures.

To avoid aggravating the problems, Washington is already taking several emergency initiatives. In addition to increasing domestic production, the American government is advancing in negotiations for the recognition of the Maduro government in Venezuela, with the possibility of an end to the economic embargo in the coming months. The objective is simple: expand energy sources and reduce the responsibility of domestic production – and, to achieve its goals, Washington overcomes any political or ideological barriers.

So, being the world’s largest oil producer and re-establishing ties with Venezuela, it is possible that the US will reduce the damage of its ban on Russian oil, but the same cannot be said about the Europeans, who heavily depend on Russian energy sources for the supply of the entire continent. Biden himself seems to admit this problem: “We’re moving forward with this ban understanding that many of our European partners and allies may not be in a position to join us (…) But we’re working closely with Europe and our partners to develop a long-term strategy to reduce their dependance on Russian energy as well”.

Indeed, if Biden and his team were really concerned about EU’s interests, it would be simpler to say that European states can freely trade energy with Russia despite ideological barriers – as is currently happening between Washington and Caracas. But, on the contrary, the Democrat insists on an unrealistic speech about alternative sources ‘to reduce dependance”, maintaining the position that the ban on Russia is an elementary measure to be followed.

Biden tries to show some “optimism” towards the European energy supply but fails. It is impossible for any alternative project to bring energy to the Europeans to be completed in time to avoid damage from a possible ban on the cooperation with Russia. Although the American president admits that some European states cannot follow the American attitude at the moment, it is inevitable that international pressure will arise for such a ban to occur, considering the influence of the American government’s decisions within the European political space. So, the most likely for the near future is that European countries will start banning Russian energy on a large scale, even if it harms their internal social scenarios.

The American message in this regard is clear: Washington can do anything to guarantee its interests, even negotiating with Venezuela, but its partners are not allowed to follow this same sovereign path. It is up to the Europeans only to follow American decisions, with no real sovereignty in the EU States. The US government says that punishing Russia is more important than securing national social and economic interests in the energy sector, and the entire West simply accepts this passively.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 OilPrice.com

Putin’s War Is Wrong – So Is Blacklisting Russian Artists

March 9th, 2022 by American Committee for US-Russia Accord

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 

 

 

 

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


There are many sidebar issues of Russia’s assault on Ukraine.   These may seem irrelevant, insignificant, even anodyne, as we watch in horror the suffering of Ukrainian civilians, but they have at least a secondary impact on the longer-term relations between Russia and the West and, one hopes, a Ukraine with healthy relations with both.

I serve on the board of a chamber music organization in Charlottesville, Virginia that hosts performers of the highest international order in a concert series.  The opening concert of the 2022-23 season is scheduled to be the brilliant 20 year old Russian pianist, Alexander Malofeev.  Yet we have just heard from a fellow presenter in Canada that a concert by Malofeev has been canceled, due to the fact that he has not publicly spoken out in opposition to his country’s aggression in Ukraine.

The retribution being carried out against individual Russians—sports figures, business leaders and artists, includes the peripatetic St. Petersburg-based conductor, Valery Gergiev, whose various European appointments are being revoked, as well as the celebrated diva, Anna Netrebko, recently removed from the roster of the Metropolitan Opera.  These punitive moves are being attributed to the friendship of the two international stars with President Putin.  This notwithstanding, a blanket policy of shunning Russian artists begs a number of questions, namely:

It has repeatedly been emphasized by the Biden administration and European allies throughout the current crisis that blame for the crime of invading Ukraine belongs to the Russian government, not the Russian people – therefore the punishment should be directed accordingly.
With regard to the matter of public condemnation of the attack on Ukraine, let us reflect—given the current mood in Moscow—on the possible ramifications of such statements by prominent Russians, both for themselves and for their families.  Moreover, consider that Mr. Malofeev is the age of a typical college junior, and, further, that his meteoric rise as a musician (he won the Tchaikovsky International Prize for Young Musicians in 2014 at age 12) and his entire waking life to date has undoubtedly been spent with music scores, not TASS or RT.

Another consequence of Ukraine—not only in the tragic outcome, but in the prolonged buildup—has been the erosion of diplomatic ties between the United States and Russia.  If it is more than mere platitude to say that diplomatic engagement is all the more important in times of crisis and grave danger, as now, then surely the same is true of cultural exchanges.  Ars longa, vita brevis.

All this notwithstanding, there is surely the temptation to employ the bluntest of instruments, on the basis that Russians deserve no less.  But, having visited Russia nine times, with the opportunity to meet with all manner of its people, I can unequivocally vouch for the spirit of goodwill toward the United States and its people.  All the sadder, therefore, to read some recent dispatches from Russia indicating that the Kremlin’s message of U.S./NATO disregard of Russia’s security concerns (which, by the way, many of us have argued are valid) has hardened public opinion against the West and its motives.

I stress that none of this is in any way intended to question legitimate outrage at Russia’s brutal attack.

Rather, it is to say that there will be other business to do with Russia after peace is achieved  – one can only hope that it is soon and lasting – in Ukraine.   To this end, keeping cultural, diplomatic and, to the extent possible, citizen engagement channels open is vital, and the price we may pay for permanent closure of these—not to mention a continuing game of chicken between the U.S/NATO and Russia, from the Baltic to Black Seas—is almost unimaginably high.

*

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

Featured image: Alexander Malofeev (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

A senior epidemiologist has publicly apologized to his daughter’s generation for failing to more strenuously oppose “morally wrong” COVID lockdown measures such as school closures that caused massive damage to children.

The stunning admission was made by Professor Mark Woolhouse, who revealed to Sky News that he was told to “correct” his views after he criticized doomsday COVID models.

The Edinburgh University academic said “plain common sense” was a “casualty” of lockdown and that his daughter’s generation “has been so badly served by mine.”

Decrying harmful lockdown measures such as closing schools as “morally wrong,” Woolhouse said he was told to stay silent when he questioned “implausible” graphs presented by Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) Sir Patrick Vallance that said COVID cases would exponentially double.

“If this projection had been extended for another week we would be talking about one hundred thousand cases per day. Another month would have given us close to half a million. Per day. An exponential projection will give you any number you like if you run it for long enough,” said Woolhouse.

When Woolhouse, author of a new book called The Year the World Went Mad, officially lodged skepticism about the figures, he said his “objections did not go down well”.

“After a flurry of emails I was invited to ‘correct’ my comments,” he says.

Suggesting someone high in government was behind the demand, Woolhouse asserted, “it wasn’t my views that needed correcting, it was the projections.”

However, the situation played out for a second time when a new model in October 2020 predicted 4,000 deaths a day in the UK despite the “fact that the second wave was already beginning to slow.”

“The model that generated the 4,000 deaths a day figure was an outlier – all the other model projections gave much lower numbers,” writes Woolhouse, noting how the graph was broadcast to millions of TV viewers anyway.

Woolhouse also revealed how the government knew “people over 70 were 10,000 times more likely to die from COVID than those under 15,” but deliberately pursued policies that didn’t take this into account and harmed children.

Woolhouse’s comments would have normally made for a banner headline news story.

However, they serve as another reminder that the war in Ukraine has completely obliterated the harm caused by lockdown from the news, and with it the culpability of countless top technocrats who imposed it on the rest of us.

Whether anyone will face any kind of responsibility for the devastation wrought on the population, particularly children, appears to a diminishing possibility.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the Twitter video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Senior Epidemiologist Apologizes to Daughter’s Generation for “Morally Wrong” Lockdown Measures
  • Tags: ,

Scientific Integrity Is Dead. Here’s Proof.

March 9th, 2022 by Steve Kirsch

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

Four examples show that scientific integrity is pretty much dead worldwide. There are only a few people left who support these principles and they’ve been marginalized by all mainstream leaders.

In this article, I am going to show two simple, but very important, examples that I believe prove, without any doubt, that scientific integrity is dead. I cannot explain the lack of outrage from the mainstream scientific community any other way.

Example 1: mRNA COVID-19 Injections Are Killing Teenagers

The Journal of the College of American Pathologists published a shocking new report on Monday, Feb. 14, 2022 about the cases of two teenage boys who died following mRNA COVID-19 injections.

The report’s lead author is Dr. James Gill, the chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut and the 2021 President of the National Association of Medical Examiners.

Both boys died in their sleep less than a week after the second dose, and neither had any known health conditions prior to death. In these cases, autopsies of the two teenagers found evidence of myocarditis.

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy,” the report concludes.

This observation is confirmed in another recently published paper by Flavio Cadegiani, “Catecholamines are the key trigger of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis and sudden deaths: a compelling hypothesis supported by epidemiological, anatomopathological, molecular and physiological findings.” Dr. Peter McCullough is familiar with Flavio’s work and told me he thought it was brilliant.

So the vaccine killed two kids in Connecticut which has around 1% of the population of the US.

Isn’t it odd that we are seeing multiple reports from one small state and complete silence from everywhere else?

Did Connecticut just get unlucky? It appears not.

Let’s extrapolate this to the US and estimate around 200 kids in the US have been killed by the vaccine.

Some people may say that that isn’t a valid extrapolation.

OK, then try this one for size:

VAERS is underreported by a factor of 41 based on my calculations. This number was recently confirmed by Joel Smalley who analyzed the Massachusetts death data. He got 40.9 (from 1759 actual deaths/43 VAERS reported deaths) which I think is close enough to my estimate.

So 41*64 reported deaths = 2.624 actual excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines.

Even if you take a very low-ball estimate of the underreporting factor (URF) of 20, you still end up with 1,280 child deaths, a very troubling figure.

So our simplistic 200 estimate just from linearly extrapolating the known myocarditis deaths in CT was an underestimate (as we expected).

Let’s be clear. Dr. Paul Offit has said that 1 death per million vaccinated is unacceptable for a vaccine. Here, we have more than 1 child death per million vaccinated which is even worse than just 1 death.

Is anyone publicly calling for a halt to these vaccines for kids? No way. Not a chance. They are nearly all pushing for giving it to even younger kids.

Is anyone calling for amending the label on the vaccine to note this new information? Are you kidding? No way. AFAIK, the label hasn’t been amended in over a year.

Example #2: The CDC has been withholding unfavorable vaccine data because it might be misinterpreted

On February 20, 2022, The New York Times confirmed that the CDC was withholding data that is unfavorable to the safe and effective vaccine narrative.

Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.

Watch this CBS news video at 7:39 where the New York Times reporter says clearly: “One of the big problems I’ve been hearing about here is that the CDC didn’t want to get some of these data out because they were worried it would be misinterpreted. And all the experts I spoke to said that this is a terrible reason because when you hide data or when you keep data from being released it actually breeds more mistrust.”

Where is the outrage?

Apparently only from misinformation spreaders like Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Paul Alexander.

I can’t recall seeing Robert so upset (you can tell he’s upset because he repeats himself over and over at how upset he is). Watch this video which has been viewed fewer than 100,000 times:

Example #3: The silencing of Dr. Peter Schirmacher

I’ve written earlier about the unethical silencing of one of the world’s top pathologists, Dr. Peter Schirmacher.

Nobody in the scientific community spoke out how Schirmacher’s family was threatened which caused him to be silenced about his stunning results.

Let’s be clear: the lack of outrage from the scientific community is a tacit endorsement that physical threats are acceptable for silencing scientists who have evidence that is counter-narrative.

Example #4: The rejection of technical papers that don’t support the narrative

Jessica Rose had her paper on myocarditis retracted by the publisher (Elsevier) for no valid reason. Others have had their papers accepted, passed peer review, and then never get published.

Nobody is speaking out about these injustices. They just let them happen.

The CDC responds by doubling down on the deception

The CDC just published a study in The Lancet Infectious Disease saying that there is no link between the vaccines and death.

I’m serious.

Check out the BBC story that just came out, “Covid vaccines not linked to deaths, major US study finds.” The article goes on saying, “A major study of vaccine side-effects in the US found no link between two Covid jabs and the number of deaths recorded after vaccination.”

No link?!?!

OK, then how do they explain:

  1. The huge increase in deaths reported by multiple insurance companies
  2. Up to a 93% incidence of telltale blood clots noticed by an embalmer.
  3. The deaths in Connecticut (noted above) which were determined to be caused by the vaccine. These kids died in their sleep. If it wasn’t the vaccine, what caused these deaths?
  4. The highly unusual causes of deaths in the kids the CDC analyzed. Those kids did not die from normal causes. But the CDC never mentioned that in their analysis that the causes of death didn’t line up statistically. They just said nothing, nothing! (reminding me of the famous line uttered by Sgt. Schultz of Hogan’s Heroes fame).
  5. Dr. Peter Schirmacher’s study which found the vaccine caused the death in at least 30% of the cases examined (deaths within 2 weeks after being vaccinated).
  6. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi’s study which found that the vaccine caused the death in over 90% of the cases examined
  7. If it wasn’t the vaccine, what killed Jacob Clynick?
  8. If it wasn’t the vaccine, what killed Ernest Ramierez Jr? The autopsy revealed it was clearly the vaccine. Obviously, the CDC disagrees. What was the cause?

The answer is they don’t explain any of these things because they can’t. And nobody is going to hold them accountable, especially the mainstream media. The mainstream press will not ask any of those questions. It is never going to happen.

One unusual side note is the choice of journal for their paper. In February 2021, the pro-vax editor of that journal, John McConnell wrote an op-ed praising the safety of the COVID vaccines. Exactly one year later, the journal announced on February 25, 2022 that he’s dead. Did he die after the booster? What did the autopsy show was his cause of death? We are not allowed to know that. Nobody is talking. You gotta love the transparency.

The silence is deafening

The silence on these issues and other evidence that is counter-narrative is deafening.

This just shows you how corrupt the systems are that so few people are speaking out publicly and showing their outrage like Malone did in the video above.

What Malone did is speak up for scientific integrity.

What others did is remain silent.

All of these institutions and individuals are keeping their mouths shut:

  1. All members of the CDC and FDA outside committees; they don’t want to get kicked off the committees.
  2. Top universities that are supposed to be supporting scientific integrity like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UCSF, … There is nothing from the leaders of these institutions or any of the faculty members.
  3. Top medical societies like the AMA and IDSA and all others
  4. Top medical journals: not a single one spoke out about this.
  5. Top medical thought leaders like Eric Topol, Monica Gandhi, …
  6. Congress
  7. The mainstream news media
  8. Even so-called “truth seekers” like Debunk The Funk, ZdoggMD, and Your Local Epidemiologist (Dr. Katelyn Jetelina) were silent on the matter. Amazing!

I don’t think any of these institutions or individuals are going to object anytime in the near future due to fear of retribution.

So the CDC can continue to withhold all unfavorable data, continue to “study” any deaths that were clearly caused by the vaccine, and everyone will continue to ignore all the safety data that is released that is in plain sight (like the Connecticut study) that is contrary to the narrative.

When will this end?

For scientific integrity to be restored, we need to have more than just Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Paul Alexander, and several others who are outraged and not afraid to speak out.

We need people who have the courage to be on the right side of history.

I don’t know when that will happen.

The pace of adoption seems pretty slow.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 

 

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

— “The Hollow Men,” T.S. Eliot

Barely three years into the 2020s, and we seem to be living out the prophesies of the Book of Revelation with its dire warnings about plague, poverty, hatred and war.

Just as the government hysteria over the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be dying down, new threats have arisen to occupy our attention and fuel our fears: food shortages, spiking inflation, rocketing gas prices, and a Ukraine-Russia conflict that threatens to bring about a world war.

Is this the end of the world as we know it? Or is this the beginning of the end of the world?

Will the world end with a bang or will it end, as T.S. Eliot concludes, with a whimper?

Robert Frost, torn between a vision of the world ending in fire (the hot flame of violence, anger and greed) or ice (the cold burn of hatred), suggests that either would suffice to do the job.

And then there’s the Polish-American poet Czeslaw Milosz, who envisioned the day the world ends as a day like any other: “Those who expected lightning and thunder are disappointed. And those who expected signs and archangels’ trumps do not believe it is happening now. As long as the sun and the moon are above, as long as the bumblebee visits a rose, as long as rosy infants are born, no one believes it is happening now… There will be no other end of the world.”

In Milosz’ words can be found a distant echo of a warning issued by Bertram Gross in his book Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America:

“Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. In any First World country of advanced capitalism, the new fascism will be colored by national and cultural heritage, ethnic and religious composition, formal political structure, and geopolitical environment… In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic-as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic facade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal. I am worried by those who fail to remember-or have never learned -that Big Business-Big Government partnerships, backed up by other elements, were the central facts behind the power structures of old fascism in the days of Mussolini, Hitler, and the Japanese empire builders.”

Look beyond the drum-pounding distractions of war and the fear-inducing tactics of the Deep State, and consider the long-term ramifications of the so-called sanctions being levied against Russia right now: not just the governmental sanctions, but the corporate lockdowns.

As CBS News reports, “Car shipments were paused. Beer stopped flowing. McDonald’s shut down sales of Big Macs. Cargo ships dropped port calls and oil companies cut their pipelines. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is leading some of the world’s best known brands—from Apple to Disney and Ikea—to abruptly exit a country that’s become a global outcast.”

This is shunning on a global scale.

Some companies, as Fortune reports, have gone above and beyond what was required by government sanctions. For instance, “major oil companies, including Exxon, BP, and Shell, ended joint investment projects with Russian oil companies.

Major retailers, including H&M, Nike, Ikea, and TJX, have shut down Russian sales and closed stores. Visa, Mastercard, and American Express shut down global services in Russia…

Boeing cut off support for Russian airlines and closed its offices in Moscow, while Delta ended its Russian code-sharing arrangement… FedEx and UPS shut services to Russia. Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft all have taken significant action to combat Russian aggression and disinformation.”

You basically have Russia becoming a commercial pariah,” confirmed economist Mary Lovely. “Pretty much no company, no multinational, wants to be caught on the wrong side of U.S. and Western sanctions.”

Russia’s military aggression has paved the way for a show of force by a punitive Big Business-Big Government power alliance that, until recently, had been exerting itself on a smaller scale to sanction individuals whose behavior was deemed to be hateful, discriminatory, conspiratorial or anti-government.

There’s no going back from here.

This may well be the end of the world as we know it.

This particular apocalypse is the fallout from a silent coup that has given the Corporate State a taste for punitive power and an understanding of the ease with which it can use that power to manipulate, control and direct the world governments.

For good or bad, it will change the way we navigate the world, redrawing the boundaries of our world (and our freedoms) and altering the playing field faster than we can keep up.

This new world order—a global world order—made up of international government agencies and corporations owes its existence in large part to the U.S. government’s deep-seated and, in many cases, top-secret alliances with foreign nations and global corporations.

This powerful international cabal, let’s call it the Global Deep State, is just as real as the corporatized, militarized, industrialized American Deep State, and it poses just as great a threat to our rights as individuals under the U.S. Constitution, if not greater.

We’ve been inching closer to this global world order for the past several decades, but COVID-19, which saw governmental and corporate interests become even more closely intertwined, shifted this transformation into high gear.

Now, in the face of Russia’s aggression, fascism is about to become a global menace.

Given all that we know about the U.S. government—that it treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to be bought, sold, bartered, traded, and tracked; that it repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn; and that it wages wars for profit, jails its own people for profit, and has no qualms about spreading its reign of terror abroad—it is not a stretch to suggest that the government has been overtaken by a power elite that do not have our best interests at heart.

Indeed, to anyone who’s been paying attention to the goings-on in the world, it is increasingly obvious that we’re already under a new world order, and it is being brought to you by the Global-Industrial Deep State.

It remains unclear whether the American Deep State (“a national-security apparatus that holds sway even over the elected leaders notionally in charge of it”) answers to the Global Deep State, or whether the Global Deep State merely empowers the American Deep State. However, there is no denying the extent to which they are intricately and symbiotically enmeshed and interlocked.

Consider the extent to which our lives and liberties are impacted by this international convergence of governmental and profit-driven corporate interests in the surveillance state, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, the intelligence sector, the security sector, the technology sector, the telecommunications sector, the transportation sector, the pharmaceutical industry and, most recently, by the pharmaceutical-health sector.

All of these sectors are dominated by mega-corporations operating on a global scale and working through government channels to increase their profit margins. The profit-driven policies of these global corporate giants influence everything from legislative policies to economics to environmental issues to medical care.

On almost every front, whether it’s the war on drugs, or the sale of weapons, or regulating immigration, or establishing prisons, or advancing technology, or fighting a pandemic, if there is a profit to be made and power to be amassed, you can bet that the government and its global partners have already struck a deal that puts the American people on the losing end of the bargain.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished.

In its place is a shadow government—a corporatized, militarized, entrenched global bureaucracy—that is fully operational and is not only running the country but is about to take over the world.

Given the trajectory and dramatic expansion, globalization and merger of governmental and corporate powers, we’re not going to recognize this country (or the rest of the world) 20 years from now.

It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the Global Deep State’s structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.

Yet mark my words: the U.S. government will not save us from the chains of the Global Deep State.

The current or future occupant of the White House will not save us.

For that matter, anarchy, violence and incivility will not save us.

Unfortunately, the government’s divide and conquer tactics are working like a charm.

Despite the laundry list of grievances that should unite “we the people” in common cause against the government, the nation is more divided than ever by politics, by socio-economics, by race, by religion, and by every other distinction that serves to highlight our differences.

The real and manufactured events of recent years—the pandemic, invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have all conjoined to create an environment in which “we the people” are more divided, more distrustful, and fearful of each other.

What we have failed to realize is that in the eyes of the government, we’re all the same.

When the government and its Global-Industrial Deep State partners in the New World Order crack down, we’ll all suffer.

If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.

One of the most important contributions an individual citizen can make is to become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think globally, act locally.”

America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.

Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

And then, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of communities and local governments to invalidate governmental and corporate laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

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

The Global Digital ID Surveillance Plan Accelerates – Urgent Resistance Needed

By Jesse Smith, March 08, 2022

The COVID-19 plandemic provided the perfect cover for all manner of “New Normal” changes that were always intended to become permanent. One change in particular has continued to go mostly under the radar – the increasing use of all-pervasive surveillance.

Who Wants War with Russia?

By Philip Giraldi, March 08, 2022

Former GOP Vice President Mike Pence has called for anyone supporting Russia to be kicked out of the party which will no doubt produce a purge of members who are reluctant to go to war on behalf of foreign country and no ally Ukraine.

The Great Reset’s 5G Cyborg Ecosystem

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, March 08, 2022

The Great Reset is a globalist plan that is moving forward at lighting speed. The COVID-19 pandemic was part and parcel of that plan, as detailed in Klaus Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” but to really fulfill the technocrats’ ambitions, a war of some kind is likely needed.

NATO’s Key Role in the UK

By Matt Kennard, March 08, 2022

As tensions grow between NATO and Russia over Ukraine, Declassified takes a look at the UK’s role in the organisation that Vladimir Putin has blamed for his illegal war. Some 574 foreign personnel from 29 countries are deployed with NATO across three sites in Britain.

National Endowment for Democracy Deletes Records of Funding Projects in Ukraine

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, March 08, 2022

The archived webpage captured February 25, 2022 from 14:53 shows that NED granted $22,394,281 in the form of 334 awards to Ukraine between 2014 to the present. The capture at 23:10 the same day shows “No results found” for Ukraine. As of right now, there are still “No results found” for Ukraine.

Dr. Robert Malone: The CDC Hid COVID Data and Committed Massive Scientific Fraud

By Ethan Huff, March 08, 2022

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that large portions of data about the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) are not being published because the world might “misinterpret” them. And Dr. Robert Malone is warning that this amounts to fraud.

Navigating Our Humanity: Ilan Pappé on the Four Lessons from Ukraine

By Ilan Pappe, March 08, 2022

The unprecedented collective EU decision to open up its borders to the Ukrainian refugees, followed by a more guarded policy by Britain, cannot go unnoticed in comparison to the closure of most of the European gates to the refugees coming from the Arab world and Africa since 2015.

The Doomsday Project, Deep Events, and the Shrinking of American Democracy. Prof. Peter Dale Scott

By Prof Peter Dale Scott, March 08, 2022

The egalitarian mindset is widely shared among Americans. But Washington today is securely in the hands of the global repressive dominance mindset, and a deepening of the military-industrial complex into what in my most recent book I call the American war machine.

Cutting Scholarly Ties: The West, Ukraine, and the Russian Academy

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, March 08, 2022

The times have tilted, and now universities, notably in Western states, find themselves rushing with virtuous glee to divesting and banning contacts and links with the Russian academy. Russian President Vladimir Putin is deemed a monster of unsurpassed dimension; the Russian attack on Ukraine emptied of historical rationale or basis. There is simply no room for academic debate, in of itself a risible irony.

Women’s Day 2022: Women’s Rights in Afghanistan, “A Justification for War”

By Felicity Arbuthnot, March 08, 2022

Remember the deluge of political concern over the subjugation of Afghan women at the time of the October 2001 invasion? The tsunami of documentaries, articles, books on their plight, contributing to the justification of another invasion – actually for $trillions of minerals, a geographically strategic country and a pipeline.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Global Digital ID Surveillance Plan Accelerates

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the world’s eyes are on Ukraine on this International Women’s Day, March 8, 2022, we are reminded of the disproportionate impact that war and militarism have on women. This is a reality that the women of the global South are acutely aware of because of the steady assaults on the humanity of peoples in the South executed by the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination. The militarized terror of the Axis of Domination in the service of their economic elites have been even more intensely felt by the women of Africa and the African Diaspora. 

The socialist groundings of the day were expressed in its early unfolding. Indeed, the earliest militants for International Working Women’s Day, lifted up the violence of capitalism as labor exploitation. On March 8, 1908 in New York, 15,000, largely immigrant women marched for labor, voting rights and challenged class exploitation. Thus the seeds were planted for International Women’s Day as imperialism, colonialism, and white world supremacy were in full effect.

Black women’s labor complicated this fight given racialized apartheid into domestic work in the U.S., colonized globally. In the U.S. there were more than a million African American domestic workers before the start of the second European world war. Black anti-imperialist revolutionary, Claudia Jones captures this dialectic of gender, race and class exploitation in her powerful article, “An End to the Neglect of the Problem of the Negro Woman.” She gave voice to the women of the Black/African world locked in and struggling against the Pan-European white supremacist, patriarchal, colonial, imperialist project. These are the women in the crossfire of extractivist capitalism, war and militarism across the African world today, struggling to dismantle these systems. We lift them up today with a focus on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, noting other parts of the African world.

As the world is captivated by the war in Europe, BAP cannot help but reflect on the ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the little purchase it has had on the world’s conscience (while commentators point to the war in Ukraine being the most devastating war in Europe since the second imperialist war ended in 1945, the general public knows almost nothing about the most lethal, ongoing conflict in the word taking place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo). The United Nations says it is the deadliest conflict in the world since World War II and the greatest humanitarian crisis at the dawn of the 21st century. An estimated 6 million Congolese have perished in the Congo conflict since 1996, half of the victims five years old or younger. It is a conflict triggered by two invasions (1996 & 1998) by Rwanda, led by Paul Kagame and Uganda, led by Yoweri Museveni, both of whom are backed by the U.S. and UK. When international bodies attempt to hold them to account for their crimes in the Congo, the U.S. or the UK run diplomatic interference or provide political cover, especially for Rwanda’s Paul Kagame. The Biden administration has continued this policy which dates from the Clinton administration – a policy of protecting the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Central Africa.

On this International Women’s Day, March 8, 2022, this ongoing conflict is particularly noteworthy because of a series of wars where the atrocities against women are a key strategy of the perpetrators. Hundreds of thousands of women have been raped, disfigured and mutilated as a weapon of war in order to displace entire villages from resource rich lands. Yet, the U.S. continues to cover for the architects of the crimes in the Congo, especially Paul Kagame, whose army, the UN said in a 2010 report, that if brought in front of a competent court could be charged for committing genocide in the Congo.

Beyond Congo and the African continent, African and other colonized women continually face the brutalities of capitalism and imperialism. In Haiti, the occupation by the United Nations “peacekeeping” troops resulted in massive sexual and physical violence against women and young girls. So has the current Core Group control of the country, which has intensified gang violence. And, currently, the mostly women Haitian garment industry workers, are striking for a living wage and against workplace harassment. We must also point to the continuing assaults on Haiti, assaults on Black women leaders in Colombia, the deaths at the hands of the domestic army in the U.S. referred to as the police, Garifuna women in Honduras murdered by the U.S. coup backed government, the bombardment of women and children in the Gaza strip, death and displacement in Syria and Iraq, and the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen. Indeed, African and other colonized women know the horrors of war, militarism and all forms of hybrid wars carried out by Western powers, intimately.

On this International Women’s Day, March 8, 2022, BAP lifts up the ongoing fight against white supremacist imperialist capitalist patriarchy in the DRC and across the African and colonized world. African and colonized women are at the center of the struggle to dismantle this system.

No Compromise, No Retreat!

*

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

Featured image: Claudia Jones (Licensed under Public Domain)

 

Ucraina, era tutto scritto nel piano della Rand Corp.

March 8th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

Il piano strategico degli Stati uniti contro la Russia è stato elaborato tre anni fa dalla Rand Corporation (il manifesto, Rand Corp: come abbattere la Russia, 21 maggio 2019). La Rand Corporation, il cui quartier generale ha sede a Washington, è «una organizzazione globale di ricerca che sviluppa soluzioni per le sfide politiche»: ha un esercito di 1.800 ricercatori e altri specialisti reclutati da 50 paesi, che parlano 75 lingue, distribuiti in uffici e altre sedi in Nord America, Europa, Australia e Golfo Persico. Personale statunitense della Rand vive e lavora in oltre 25 paesi. La Rand Corporation, che si autodefinisce «organizzazione nonprofit e nonpartisan», è ufficialmente finanziata dal Pentagono, dall’Esercito e l’Aeronautica Usa, dalle Agenzie di sicurezza nazionale (Cia e altre), da agenzie di altri paesi e potenti organizzazioni non-governative. 

La Rand Corp. si vanta di aver contribuito a elaborare la strategia che permise agli Stati uniti di uscire vincitori dalla guerra fredda, costringendo l’Unione Sovietica a consumare le proprie risorse nell’estenuante confronto militare. A questo modello si è ispirato il nuovo piano elaborato nel 2019: «Overextending and Unbalancing Russia», ossia costringere l’avversario a estendersi eccessivamente per sbilanciarlo e abbatterlo. Queste sono le principali direttrici di attacco tracciate nel piano della Rand, su cui gli Stati Uniti si sono effettivamente mossi negli ultimi anni.

Anzitutto – stabilisce il piano – si deve attaccare la Russia sul lato più vulnerabile, quello della sua economia fortemente dipendente dall’export di gas e petrolio: a tale scopo vanno usate le sanzioni commerciali e finanziarie e, allo stesso tempo, si deve far sì che l’Europa diminuisca l’importazione di gas naturale russo, sostituendolo con gas naturale liquefatto statunitense. In campo ideologico e informativo, occorre incoraggiare le proteste interne e allo stesso tempo minare l’immagine della Russia all’esterno. In campo militare si deve operare perché i paesi europei della Nato accrescano le proprie forze in funzione anti-Russia. Gli Usa possono avere alte probabilità di successo e alti benefici, con rischi moderati, investendo maggiormente in bombardieri strategici e missili da attacco a lungo raggio diretti contro la Russia. Schierare in Europa nuovi missili nucleari a raggio intermedio puntati sulla Russia assicura loro alte probabilità di successo, ma comporta anche alti rischi. Calibrando ogni opzione per ottenere l’effetto desiderato – conclude la Rand – la Russia finirà col pagare il prezzo più alto nel confronto con gli Usa, ma questi e i loro alleati dovranno investire grosse risorse sottraendole ad altri scopi.

Nel quadro di tale strategia prevedeva nel 2019 il piano della Rand Corporation – «fornire aiuti letali all’Ucraina sfrutterebbe il maggiore punto di vulnerabilità esterna della Russia, ma qualsiasi aumento delle armi e della consulenza militare fornite dagli Usa all’Ucraina dovrebbe essere attentamente calibrato per aumentare i costi per la Russia senza provocare un conflitto molto più ampio in cui la Russia, a causa della vicinanza, avrebbe vantaggi significativi». È proprio qui in quello che la Rand Corporation definiva «il maggiore punto di vulnerabilità esterna della Russia», sfruttabile armando l’Ucraina in modo «calibrato per aumentare i costi per la Russia senza provocare un conflitto molto più ampio» – che è avvenuta la rottura. Stretta nella morsa politica, economica e militare che Usa e Nato serravano sempre più, ignorando i ripetuti avvertimenti e le proposte di trattativa da parte di Mosca, la Russia ha reagito con l’operazione militare che ha distrutto in Ucraina oltre 2.000 strutture militari realizzate e controllate in realtà non dai governanti di Kiev ma dai comandi Usa.Nato. L’articolo che tre anni fa riportava il piano  della Rand Corporation terminava con queste parole: «Le opzioni previste dal piano sono in realtà solo varianti della stessa strategia di guerra, il cui prezzo in termini di sacrifici e rischi viene pagato da tutti noi». Lo stiamo pagando ora noi popoli europei, e lo pagheremo sempre più caro, se continueremo ad essere pedine sacrificabili nella strategia Usa-Nato.

Manlio Dinucci  

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Ucraina, era tutto scritto nel piano della Rand Corp.

Death by Peaceful Protest

March 8th, 2022 by Kato Rivera

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

In 1965, a well-meaning lecturer challenged me to discover the real me, and I discovered that not only was I not the genial good guy I imagined myself to be, but the entire world around me was an illusion draped in dark lies and deceit. 

Who had done this? I asked myself; Who was responsible for an education system that forced me to see a world that was not real? I abandoned my career and decided to devote ten years of my life to finding the truth. The sad naivete of youth. Ten years stretched into fifty.

It was not until 2000, aided by the Internet, that I commenced a full-time journey of discovery in which, finally, I made real progress. By 2007, assisted by insiders, I discovered their actual names; a list of global manipulators led by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. By 2010, I had identified 17 elements of their strategic New World Order implementation programme (see oziz4oziz.com/) which I anticipated would eventually grow to 20 because of their apparent fixation with numerology. This seems to be a byproduct of their belief that they are born to rule. Leadership of the NWO is their preordained destiny.

These early insights provided me with ample time to match their strategies with others of the past, and also provided clues as to chapters of history that have now been thoroughly sanitised, including removal from every public library in the world (2003>) all references to genuine democracies. With a budget of $110 trillion, expense was never an issue. However, my timely searches defeated their schedule.

Today, awareness of these entities and their former 2021 agenda is commonplace, as is the scheduled revision and postponement of NWO to 2030. This has had two effects. In most observers, it has inspired a belief that the World Economic Forum plotters have been outed, and that their fiendish plans can surely be confounded by a now-alerted humanity.

A very much smaller group has nervously looked around for the source of the Elite’s supreme arrogance. Nobody, they reasoned, with that much power and resources, is going to be silly enough to permit a 205 year old plan to be derailed that easily. Thus, there has been much speculation about ultimate weapons: a new virus or bacterium; catastrophic application of HAART; lethal climate change; lethal climate change prevention; ionospheric engineering; nuclear war; a hidden source of lethal toxicity.

This latter real world comprehension requires us to recognise the time and resources that they have available to invest in the global takeover.  We need to step back and review their progress, now exposed by history and context.

The first of these strategies was implemented in the 1930s, the design of the UN by Nelson Rockefeller (unsurprisingly, the modern UN HQ is on Rockefeller land in NY).

The tandem strategy was to nurture a little Indian lawyer named Mohandas, who was identified by the Rhodes Foundation in Africa and cultivated and nurtured by the City of London and, probably, the Tavistock Institute.

Gandhi was guided to create a new philosophy of non-violent peaceful protest, with a predetermined outcome. The British Raj had already decided that Red Coat control of the Empire was obsolete and expensive, so the new plan was to cultivate indigenous ‘leaders’ and to fund their success. Adern, Trudeau, and co are merely the most recent students. Africa and India were the experimental training grounds. Students who rebelled were assassinated. Several Hindu authors have exposed Gandhi’s duplicity and hypocrisy, unfortunately, in the language Hindi.

But why? Why nurture protest?

It was long-ago acknowledged by the Elite, as of the French Revolution, that we greatly outnumber them. So a method was needed to neutralise our numerical advantage. The first chicane to be laid was to design national Constitutions, or to suitably amend those that sprang up spontaneously (i.e. The Rights of Man; a manifesto by Thomas Paine). This is why no national constitution today includes the word ‘democracy’. Paine’s inspired effort was virtually demolished; especially expunged being phrases like “All authority resides in the People”.

Eventual discovery of the revisions spurred creation of the first ten US Bill of Rights… unsuccessfully for ordinary Americans.

The next strategy adopted was to promote ‘Gandhi’s’ philosophy of Non-Violent Peaceful Protest. Nevertheless, from time to time, peaceful protests were permitted to succeed in order to reinforce popular confidence, especially among academics, who then assumed the role of proselytism. Academics, school teachers, and students have been the prime targets of this indoctrination because they have never left school and thus have little experience in the real world and, hence, limited capacity to see through the ruse.

Histories that showed the massacres of peaceful protesters have been thoroughly deleted from public libraries, and History as a school subject has been largely removed from curriculum.

Peaceful Protest was demonstrated as potentially successful by the Canadian Truck Convoy, followed by the US and Belgium versions. A million Aussies converging on Canberra showed the world that indeed, the Great Awakening is really happening and it is only a matter of time before The People force the politicians to capitulate.

“Peaceful Protest is clearly the way to go”, everybody has concluded. Yet, nowhere, has the mRNA jab mandate been abandoned.

The current promotion of Peaceful Protest is led from the shadows and occasionally from the front, and is designed to undermine resistance; as are the useless constitutions and bills of rights. In this way our superior numbers mean nothing as we march happily to our execution, all the way singing of victory.

Looked at in this light, it is not surprising why the two most gullible and naive nationalities, Kiwis and Canadians, were the most suckered by this ruse. In other words, the plan is working perfectly. We are being defeated without a shot being fired.

I am unsure where Riccardo Bosi fits into all this. He talks big but does nothing. If he were genuine he would have responded to the two communications I sent him. He would have sent somebody to soften my later provocations. But he ignores me, which is what I would do in his position if I had an extraneous agenda.

Is he playing a double game? I know from peeking behind the curtains that he is part of the US fundamentalist Christian movement, subscribing to “an eye for an eye” sentiment. He is also ignorant and one-eyed, believing the nonsense about Aboriginal royalty spouted by David Cole in Darwin.

Such suspicions provoke other questions: Is Reiner Fuellmich and the ICC a part of this ploy?

Frankly, I never trust lawyers, whether Gandhi or Fuellmich. Look at the evidence. Why adopt the International Criminal Court when the US does not recognise it? Yet most of the top organisers of the mRNA and IMT/HCQ therapy-banning democide leaders are Americans? None of this makes strategic sense, unless it is all theatre and contrived blind alleys to drain our energy and people power.

Cold reality: we are being killed in our billions, without a shot being fired, because we victims refuse to defend ourselves.

We believe in our doctors because 80 years of radio, TV and movie magic have persuaded us that doctors and nurses are noble, self-sacrificing and good. Cold evidence shows they have been killing us slowly, deliberately, and lucratively for more then eighty years.

We believe our senior politicians because the mainstream media and celebrities unanimously say that we should. Any dissenters are banned from this media. Cold evidence shows the entire public media is owned by the Elite and that the politicians are liars and traitors.

Peaceful protest is promoted very subtly by the MSM and by paid or manipulated provocateurs, either by positive proclamation in some quarters, or by journalists very obviously pretending to not see the large crowds which, psychologically, implies the legitimacy of peaceful protests in the first place.

A little violence is permitted by the police to ensure drama, and to provide excitement and a solid whiff of danger. Actually, the video footage of police slamming a women’s head on the tram tracks and then pepper-spraying her directly in the eyes, probably doubled attendance at the next rally.

We need to understand that the Elite have planned these events and responses for several decades and have employed the worlds best psychologists and crowd motivators since 1967.

Non-violent Peaceful Protest IS the ultimate weapon.

Cold evidence says “Kill or be killed”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


“The United States aids Ukraine and her people,” Adam Schiff declared in January 2020, “so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”

Schiff made this statement during the opening of Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, where the Democratic Party’s bid to ensure unimpeded US weapons sales to Ukraine was presented, and widely accepted, as a valiant defense of US democracy and national security.

Two years later, the US use of Ukraine to “fight Russia over there” has reached its logical end-game: illegally, murderously, and catastrophically, Russia has invaded Ukraine to end the fight.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a violation of the UN Charter. Without UN authorization, states are allowed to use armed force only in cases of self-defense or to prevent an imminent attack. Although the US has used Ukraine as a proxy in its fight against Russian-backed Ukrainian rebels in the Donbas, that conflict is still within Ukraine’s sovereign borders. Even if a case could be made that Russia has the right to defend besieged ethnic Russians, that argument is undercut by Russia’s decision to attack far deeper into Ukrainian territory. If defending the Donbas was Russia’s aim, then it could have pushed harder for an international peacekeeping force, or any number of non-military, diplomatic options.

Although Russia’s invasion cannot be excused, it also cannot be understood, and resolved, without acknowledging that the war in Ukraine did not start last month.

Putin has carried out a major escalation of a conflict that has raged for eight years, at the cost of more than 14,000 lives. It began with a US-backed, far-right-led 2014 coup that ousted Ukraine’s democratically elected government in Kiev. In its place came a regime chosen not by the Ukrainian people, but by Washington.

The coup government encouraged assaults on Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population, who took up arms to defend themselves with Moscow’s support. Rather than pressure its client in Kiev to implement a negotiated settlement under the 2015 Minsk Accords, the US has instead poured in weapons and military advisers to assist Ukraine’s fascist-infused armed forces in the proxy war that it helped initiate. While now hailing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a national hero, the US has sided with far-right Ukrainian nationalists over the peace platform that Zelensky was elected on in 2019.

The US policy of using Ukraine as cannon fodder has accompanied a bid to incorporate it into NATO. Compounding the dangers of a hostile military alliance on Russia’s borders, the US has also methodically dismantled the Cold War-era arms control treaties that limited the arsenals of the world’s two top nuclear powers.

Since 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that US policies in Ukraine and other former Soviet states were crossing Russian red lines, and would force a Russian reaction.

After years of US-driven escalation, Putin’s warnings have been realized in the form of an illegal invasion that has placed the world in one of its most dangerous moments since the Second World War.

“Ukraine is the biggest prize”

In the United States, the Russian invasion is widely portrayed as a campaign by Putin to colonize Ukraine and subvert its effort to join the European Union. If that is indeed Putin’s goal now, then he is doing so only after a years-long effort, led by the US, to force the deeply divided country into the Western orbit. By its own accounting, the US has spent $5 billion on this crusade since 1991, complemented with tens of millions more from the European Union.

The US agenda was made plain in September 2013, when Carl Gershman, head of the CIA-tied National Endowment for Democracy, declared that “Ukraine is the biggest prize.” If Ukraine could be pulled into the US-led order, Gershman explained, “Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In short, in Washington’s eyes, regime change in Kiev could redound to Moscow as well.

An opportunity to claim the prize arrived two months later with the outbreak of Ukraine’s Maidan protests. The Maidan is commonly described in the US as a “democratic revolution.” That is a fair term for its initial weeks, when tens of thousands of Ukrainians gathered in Kiev’s Maidan square to protest rampant government corruption and to support European integration. But these protests were soon co-opted by Ukraine’s far-right forces, who turned a people’s movement into a violent campaign for regime change. Maidan culminated in what George Friedman, head of the US intelligence-tied firm Stratfor, reportedly described as “the most blatant coup in history.”

The spark for the Maidan protests was a decision by President Viktor Yanukovych to back out of a trade deal offered by the European Union. The conventional narrative is that Yanukovych was bullied by his chief patron in Moscow.

In reality, Yanukovych was hoping to develop ties to Europe, and “cajoled and bullied anyone who pushed for Ukraine to have closer ties to Russia,” Reuters reported at the time. But the Ukrainian president got cold feet once he read the EU deal’s fine print. Ukraine would not only have to curb its deep cultural and economic ties to Russia, but accept harsh austerity measures such as “increasing the retirement age and freezing pensions and wages.” Far from improving the lives of average Ukrainians, these demands only would have ensured deprivation and Yanukovych’s political demise.

Russia capitalized on Yanukovych’s jitters by offering a more generous package of $15 billion and threatening to withhold payments if the EU’s terms were accepted. Contrary to subsequent Western narratives, Russia did not demand “a commitment to join the [Russian-led] customs union or any other evident quid pro quo,” according to the New York Times.

Unlike its Western counterparts, Russia also did not demand that Ukraine abandon its European ambitions. Yanukovich, the Times reported in December 2013, “has insisted that Ukraine would ultimately move toward Europe and even consider signing the accords at a later date.” But there was one obstacle: “a senior European Union official has said those discussions have been cut off.”

By that point, rather than help broker a compromise, the US had swung its weight behind far-right opposition figures who had taken command of the Maidan.

As far-right groups occupied government buildings across Ukraine, Washington’s bipartisan Cold Warriors swept in to claim the prize. Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy visited the central protest encampment in Kiev and stood beside Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda party. Tyahnybok had once urged his supporters to fight the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia running Ukraine.”

“Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better,” McCain promised the crowd. Giving away the game, Murphy told CNN that the Senators’ mission was to “bring about a peaceful transition here.”

The Senators were joined in Kiev by senior State Department official Victoria Nuland, who now occupies a similar position under Biden. On February 4th, an intercepted phone call, presumably recorded and released by Russian or Ukrainian intelligence, exposed Nuland’s plan for bringing the “transition” about. Speaking to Geoffrey Pyatt, the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Nuland laid out how the US would back a new Ukrainian government, fronted by Maidan leaders and handpicked by Washington. The State Department responded to the leak by dismissing it as “Russian tradecraft.”

 

Although Nuland had cavorted, along with McCain and Murphy, with Tyahnybok in Maidan square, the fascist leader was deemed unsuitable for office. The anti-Semitic Russophobe, Nuland worried, would be a “problem”, and better “on the outside.”

Also discussed was former boxer and opposition figure Vitaly Klitschko, but he was quickly ruled out. “I don’t think Klitsch should go into government,” Nuland said. “I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.” One reason was Klitschko’s proximity to the European Union. Despite McCain’s warm words for the EU before the Maidan crowd, the Europeans had annoyed Washington by supporting a compromise proposal that would leave Yanukovych in power. As Nuland put it to Pyatt: “Fuck the EU.”

The two US officials settled on technocrat Arseniy Yatsenyuk. “Yats is the guy,” Nuland decreed. The only outstanding matter was securing the blessing of the then-Vice President, Joe Biden and his then-senior advisor, Jake Sullivan, “for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick.”

The deets were realized days later. On February 20th, snipers fatally shot dozens of protesters in Maidan square. The massacre was blamed on Yanukovych’s forces, setting off a new round of violence and threats on Yanukovych’s life. In another intercepted phone call that emerged weeks later, Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet told EU foreign secretary Catherine Ashton that he suspected pro-Maidan forces of culpability. In Kiev, Paet reported, “there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new [opposition]  coalition.”

The University of Ottawa’s Ivan Katchanovski, who has conducted exhaustive research on the massacre, concurs with Paet’s initial suspicion. The attack, he concludes, was “perpetrated principally by members of the Maidan opposition, specifically its far-right elements.”

On February 21st, a European-brokered comprise agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition called for the formation of a new coalition government and early elections. Yanukovich’s security forces immediately withdrew from the Maidan area. But the encampment’s far-right base had no interest in compromise. “We don’t want to see Yanukovych in power,” Maidan squadron leader Vladimir Parasyuk declared. “… And unless this morning you come up with a statement demanding that he steps down, then we will take arms and go, I swear.” Yanukovich, no longer protected by his armed forces and under heavy threat, got the message and fled to Russia.

A new government was quickly formed, despite lacking the sufficient parliamentary majority. This violation of Ukrainian law was of little consequence: with the Nuland-anointed Yatsenyuk named Ukraine’s new Prime Minister, the United States got their “guy.”

The centrality of fascist elements to the Maidan coup was recently trumpeted by one of its key figures. At a public event in Kiev last month, Yevhen Karas of the neo-Nazi C14 gang proclaimed that “Maidan was a victory for nationalist forces.” Dismissing what he called the “LGBT and foreign embassies” who “say ‘there were not many Nazis at Maidan,'” Karas offered a correction: “If not for those eight percent [of neo-Nazis] the effectiveness [of the Maidan coup] would have dropped by 90 percent.”

Without his far-right allies, Karas added, “that whole thing would have turned into a gay parade.” He did not mention the critical backing of Washington bureaucrats, who deserve equal credit for avoiding the parade and ensuring a coup instead.

Overcoming “the main obstacle”

By backing a far-right coup in Kiev, the US overcame the inconvenient hurdle of Ukrainian popular opinion.

Summarizing contemporaneous polls days before the Februrary 2014 coup,  political scientists Keith Darden and Lucan Way observed in the Washington Post that “none show a significant majority of the population supporting the protest movement and several show a majority opposed.” The most accurate survey “shows the population almost perfectly divided in its support for the protest: 48 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed.” Despite being the target of the Maidan protests and deeply corrupt, Yanukovych “is still apparently the most popular political figure in the country,” they added.

The Ukrainian population’s division over the Maidan protests also extended to the issue that helped spark it: Yanukovych’s rejection of a trade deal with the European Union. According to Darden and Way, “there is little evidence that a clear majority of Ukrainians support integration into the European Union,” with most polls showing “around 40-45 percent support for European integration as compared to about 30 to 40 percent support for the [Russian-led] Customs Union – a plurality for Europe but hardly a clear mandate.”

The same could be said for membership in NATO. “The main obstacle” to Ukraine’s ascension to the alliance, F. Stephen Larrabee, a former Soviet specialist on the U.S. National Security Council wrote in 2011, “is not Russian opposition… but low public support for membership in Ukraine itself.” Ukrainian support for joining NATO “is much lower in Ukraine in comparison to other states in Eastern Europe,” he added, at just 22-25 percent overall.

A Gallup poll released in March 2014 found that “[m]ore Ukrainians saw NATO as a threat than as offering protection.” Although that trend has reversed since, Ukrainian support for NATO has increased to barely above 50% in polls that exclude the 3.8 million residents of rebel-held Donetsk and Luhansk.

Ukraine’s unworthy victims

While hailed by the US as an expression of Ukraine’s democratic aspirations, the post-coup Ukrainian government was dominated by the right-wing forces that had brought it to power. At least five key cabinet posts went to members of the far-right Svoboda and another right-wing party, Right Sector, including the national security, defense, and legal ministries. Andriy Parubiy, the far-right co-founder of Svoboda’s origin party, was appointed the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council. During the Maidan protests, Parubiy had served as the Maidan encampment’s “commandant” and head of its security.

In the fall of 2014, the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion was formally incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard, making post-Maidan Ukraine “the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces,” the Ukrainian-American journalist Lev Golinkin later observed.

Yatsenyuk, the Nuland-chosen technocrat, meanwhile presided over what NPR dubbed Ukraine’s “Spring Of Austerity” and what the prime minister himself described as a “kamikaze mission“, imposing the pension and heating subsidy cuts that the ousted Yanukovych had resisted.

Members of the Azov battalion.

While placating the “IMF Austerity Regime,” the coup government also set its sights on Ukraine’s ethnic Russian population, a major base of Yanukovych’s support. One of the post-coup parliament’s first votes was to rescind a law, long bitterly opposed by the far-right, granting regions the authority to declare a second official language.

The coup government’s anti-Russian sentiment culminated in a gruesome massacre in the city of Odessa. On May 2nd, a right-wing mob assaulted an anti-Maidan emplacement there, forcing the protesters into a nearby trade union building. Trapped inside, the anti-Maidan protesters were burned alive. Those trying to escape the flames were brutally assaulted. The official state toll is 48 dead, but the actual number may be far higher. No credible investigation has ever been conducted. That might be related to the presence of Parubiy, who had traveled to Odessa to confront the anti-Maidan camp, with hundreds of Right Sector members in tow.

The Odessa massacre helped accelerate the then-growing insurgency in the Donbas region, the eastern Ukrainian region dominated by ethnic Russians. Unwilling to live under a US-installed coup government led by far-right nationalists, rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk took up arms in the spring of 2014 with Russia’s limited support.

The US-backed government responded with both economic warfare and a Nazi-infused “Anti-Terrorist Operation.” The US-backed Yatsenyuk, by then well-versed in Washington-friendly neoliberal austerity, decreed that all residents of rebel-held Donbas would lose their public sector payments and pensions. Among those fighting the rebels, the New York Times quietly acknowledged in July 2015, were the “openly neo-Nazi” Azov battalion, as well as “an assortment of right-wing and Islamic militias” summoned from Chechnya. According to Ukraine’s interior ministry, Azov was among the first battalions to receive US military training for the war.

The war in Donbas has since left over 14,000 dead. According to UN figures, 81% of the civilian casualties since 2018 have occurred on the rebel-held, pro-Russian side.

These Russian-speaking Ukrainians, however, are what Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman described in “Manufacturing Consent” as “unworthy victims”: foreign civilians killed with US support, and thus unworthy of our sympathy or even attention.

No matter how deeply entrenched in the United States political establishment and media, no amount of whitewashing surrounding the 2014 coup and its aftermath can negate the reality that for millions of people in the Donbas, the war in Ukraine did not start with Putin’s invasion last month. This includes the use of illegal cluster munitions, allegedly by both Russia today and the Ukrainian military in 2014, to much different global reactions.

Rather than end the proxy war that it helped start in Ukraine, the US has only fueled it over the last eight years with billions in weapons, a drive to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, an expansion of US offensive weapons around Russia, and a rejection of diplomatic solutions, as we will turn to in the second part of this report.

*

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

All images in this article are from Aaron Mate

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

The COVID-19 plandemic provided the perfect cover for all manner of “New Normal” changes that were always intended to become permanent. One change in particular has continued to go mostly under the radar – the increasing use of all-pervasive surveillance.

Unfortunately, this Orwellian, “Big Brother” global digital ID surveillance plan just became even more real.

The Digital Identity Working Group (DIWG) chaired by Australia’s Digital Transformation Agency—whose member countries also include Canada, Finland, Israel, New Zealand, Singapore, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank (through observer status)—initially met in 2020 to “share experiences and opportunities for the use of digital identity initiatives.”

The group’s goals are “to understand how digital identity is being used and the models that might enable mutual recognition and/or interoperability, to share respective governments’ experiences with digital identity including in the COVID-19 response, and to understand what is required to enable mutual recognition and/or interoperability between DIWG member countries.”

In a recently released DIWG report entitled “Digital Identity in response to COVID-19” the working group identified a set of 11 principles governments should utilize when building out frameworks to implement digital identity.

As the title of the report indicates, the havoc caused by COVID-19 and the efforts to recover are used as one of the main pretexts for accelerating the usage of digital ID across the globe. The report reinforces this conclusion, stating:

Digital identity has enabled member countries to respond to and recover from COVID-19, including to rapidly develop and deliver government information, services and support to verified people and businesses. In some countries Digital identity has also supported the rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations, enabling the secure sharing of information and verification of status across the population.

In many cases, COVID-19 has in fact accelerated the use of digital identity, with access to digital services becoming critical as countries managed their response to the pandemic.

Advancing Digital Agency (Identity) through The World Economic Forum

Acting in concert with the DWIG report, The World Economic Forum has also released a report pushing the global ID agenda and directly admitting that vaccine passports serve as a form of digital identity.

The World Economic Forum’s goal is to get people to trust in the digital ID ecosystem, acknowledging that much work is needed to combat “mistrust” as indicated in the report.

The world is experiencing something of a mistrust pandemic when it comes to people’s engagement with the data ecosystem. This global “trust gap” or “trust deficit” is a barrier to economic growth, digital innovation and social cohesion.

Digital ID can lead to draconian surveillance systems

The report goes out of its way to extol the benefits of digital ID while offering ways to address the mistrust factor. Its conclusion is that the adoption of digital ID is the best way forward for humans to share data.

However, while governments, media, financial institutions, and the entire global control apparatus will be working overtime to get people to trust in digital ID ecosystems, those same establishments will also be instrumental in creating barriers for individuals who, in their view, should not be trusted for a myriad of reasons.

If you’ve recently attended a protest against the government, posted ‘misinformation’ about COVID-19 and/or vaccines, questioned the narrative about climate change, and/or donated funds to organizations unjustly labeled as “domestic terrorists,” you could be deemed “untrustworthy” and prevented from participating in society and exercising your rights.

A recent article by the RAIR Foundation helps clear the air on what the digital ID scheme may also be used for, stating:

Such a digital identity can be used, among other things, to access your health insurance treatments, monitor health devices and your phones, open a bank account and carry out financial transactions…

The WEF’s digital identity scheme is now laying the foundation for a global social credit system that will give them the power to control citizens and punish those they deem “untrustworthy.”

A conspiracy theory no more!

Vaccine passports were indeed the entry point for advancing digital identity by NGOs such as the Bill Gates & Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and United Nations backed ID2020, the World Bank’s ID4D initiative, and the World Economic Forum.

The so-called COVID-19 pandemic is proving to be a trojan horse for an agenda much broader than many once considered.

With the evidence being provided openly, there is little reason to doubt that humanity is being ushered into a new era of surveillance and control through digital ID systems. This effort is being pushed by governments, banks, multinational corporations, and global governance organizations like the World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, and the United Nations.

But digital IDs only represent one aspect of the digital revolution. As I wrote in “The Vaccine Passport Scheme Goes National One QR Code at a Time“,

A whole world is being created to enslave us in a perpetual digital panopticon including the metaverse, digital currency (CBDCs), mass surveillance, AI and biometrics, and body implants while blockchain technology records everything we do.

In a recent France Soir article, the author discusses the European Union’s digital ID plans and the plight of EU citizens who don’t want to participate in the system, stating:

Soon, you will be the proud owner of a European digital identity wallet, coupled with your vaccination pass, with your identity photo hidden in your QR code…

25% of the population in Europe does not own a smartphone. Those won’t be able to move soon, unless you get one. What if a person does not have a vaccination pass and refuses the electronic wallet? She will be nothing, will have no right to anything, and will not be able to cross any border, since she will have no identity.

The digital identity is sold as a service which will not be mandatory. “No more looking for your papers in your pockets. Instead, show off your E-wallet in your smartphone…”. Very subtle. Nobody will be obliged to, except that in fact, it will be obligatory, unless you live in your corner, withdrawn from everything, cultivating your endives.

In an article from American Banker entitled “The U.S. Pandemic Recovery is a Chance to Improve Digital ID,” authors Isabella Chase and Rick McDonell urged the U.S. to start making better use of digital ID systems, stating:

Digital IDs could also have supported our current recovery. For example, a digital ID system could standardize and simplify the process of scheduling a vaccination appointment, which currently varies according to state and provider. In addition, digital ID could streamline and secure individual COVID-19 vaccination records for easy verification, as well as provide backup records in the event of loss or destruction of the physical cards being issued by the CDC. Finally, “vaccine passports” or some version thereof could be achieved through the use of digital ID, at the same time ensuring the accuracy and centralization of records and preventing easily falsified physical ones.

The experience of COVID-19 is a case study in the potential of digital ID as an innovative way to cut down on financial crime and identify theft, and certainly to streamline administrative processes. While issues of privacy and proper use should certainly be debated and respected, the promise of digital ID in providing more efficiency and security makes it well worth the exploration. The sooner the U.S. embraces digital IDs, the better prepared we will be to weather the next national crisis — whatever it is and whenever it strikes.

The authors of this article have interesting backgrounds. Rick McDonell is the Executive Director of ACAMS, an organization for Anti-Financial Crime professionals. He has also worked for the United Nations as Chief of the UN Global Programme on Money Laundering. Much of McDonell’s work is focused on advising governments on ways to deal with illegal terrorist and organized crime financing. With the focus shifting to rooting out “domestic terrorism” in the U.S. and abroad, who will be the focus of organizations like ACAMS going forward?

Isabella Chase is a research fellow at the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at RUSI.

If you’re not familiar, RUSI is a British think tank with close ties to the British state and its military. Its patron is The Queen and the scandal-plagued former CIA Director General (Retd) David H. Petraeus serves as senior vice president. Why is a British think tank with military and CIA connections pressuring the U.S. to get on board with adoption of digital ID? Is it really about stopping financial crime and identity theft like RUSI would like us to believe?

Could it be that the push for digital ID will help aid governments and intelligence agencies put the squeeze on ordinary citizens labeled terrorists because they disagree with or protest against some government policy?

With Justin Trudeau implementing despotic control measures allowing Canadian financial institutions to seize the donations and freeze the assets of those financially supporting the Freedom Convoy, it is way past time to recognize the danger the digital (ID) revolution poses to humanity and actively build alternative economies and ecosystems to resist it.

Technological revolutions bring positive and negative change

The Industrial Revolution brought many technological and societal advances that served to improve life. However, it also brought many detriments including pollution and environmental harm, child labor exploitation, dangerous workplaces, poor nutrition, and horrible living conditions for many workers. It was the people at the top (the few) who mostly benefitted from the labor of the many. The same still holds true today centuries later.

The digital innovations currently taking place in tandem with globalist front man Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution also promises to bring innovations that will make life easier. Nonetheless, there is the potential for much harm with the advent and expansion of control mechanisms such as social credit, artificial intelligence, advanced surveillance cameras, facial recognition, CBDCs and digital wallets. While the current battle against vaccine passports and mandates are absolutely necessary, digital ID should also be added to this effort so that the masses are aware of the dangers it poses.

Due to public mistrust, the globalists are spending a lot of time and resources crafting “The Great Narrative” to get us on board with their digital control grid and other “Great Reset” plans. They ultimately need our consent and buy in to achieve their goals. Let’s not give them what they want!

*

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

Featured image is from Dreamstime

The Great Reset’s 5G Cyborg Ecosystem

March 8th, 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

The Great Reset is a globalist plan that is moving forward at lighting speed. The COVID-19 pandemic was part and parcel of that plan, but to really fulfill the technocrats’ ambitions, a war of some kind is likely needed

They need chaos, mass casualties and financial chaos in order to create the desperation necessary for people to give up their freedoms and give in to tyrannical control

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has for years promoted the implementation of digital identification, and ensuring that everyone on the planet has a legal, digital identity is part of the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals

There’s a big difference between identity and identification. Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7. These data can then be used against you

The WEF has clearly stated that our digital identity will determine “what products, services and information we can access — or conversely, what is closed off to us”

*

Whether people realize it or not,

The Great Reset is a globalist plan that is moving forward at lighting speed. The COVID-19 pandemic was part and parcel of that plan, as detailed in Klaus Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,”1 but to really fulfill the technocrats’ ambitions, a war of some kind is likely needed. As reported by Dr. Vernon Coleman with The Exposé:2

“Now that they’ve got most people cowering behind the sofa or under the bed because of the fake COVID threat, they have introduced two new threats to the menu: war and storms … they were always going to do this … To keep us on our toes some of the storms will be ferocious. Those will probably be the manufactured ones.

And there will be heat waves, heavy snow falls and probably a tsunami or two (easily created, as I previously explained, with an underwater explosion). You can’t kill billions with bad weather of course but you can push up the prices of food and energy and kill millions through wrecked economies, poverty and starvation.

The recent storms in the UK led to immediate closures of schools and railways (‘just in case a tree fell down and hurt someone’) and the halting of supermarket deliveries. All this was patently overkill to do more damage to society and the economy. We have to remember that population control is one of the purposes of everything that is happening.

Wars are coming too — as they threatened some time ago. We’re clearly heading for another long Cold War with Russia and China on one side and America and Europe on the other.

It is difficult to avoid the feeling that Schwab is behind the scenes pulling strings and if, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West does decide to intervene militarily, it will be because the conspirators want it to happen and see it as a way to further damage the global economy and cause a few million deaths.

Remember that ruining the global economy is an essential step on the route to the Great Reset. The rhetoric coming from Washington and London certainly suggest that both Biden and Johnson are desperate to exacerbate the situation, cause more terror, push up energy prices and terrify everyone.

Once you realize what their plan is it is easy to see what is going to happen next … Remember: the COVID fraud was just the beginning. The conspirators have only just started their campaign to take total control.”

Total Control Through Digital IDs

Sadly, he’s correct. There’s no doubt calamitous weather events and world war have been part of the plan from the start. They need chaos, mass casualties and financial chaos in order to create the desperation necessary for people to give up their freedoms and give in to tyrannical control.

But the stick is not the only tool in the technocrats’ toolbox. They also use carrots, and perceived convenience is an oft-used one. Case in point: digital IDs. The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the implementation of digital IDs, and ensuring that everyone on the planet has a legal, digital identity is part of the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.3

“Convenience” is a key incentive for digital IDs. With a central digital ID on your phone (and eventually an implanted chip), you’d be able to do everything from checking into a doctor’s office to securing a mortgage.

In an article4 arguing for digital IDs, the WEF also stresses that millions of people who flee their homelands due to war or persecution cannot secure refugee status due to the fact that they lost their identity documents in the confusion. Apparently, they want us to believe that no one would ever flee a situation without the cell phone holding their digital identity. Or perhaps they’re jumping straight to implants?

They also claim nearly a billion people have no legal identity and therefore cannot open a bank account, get a loan or vote. But is that really justification enough to foist digital IDs on everyone, whether you have a real need for it or not? No, it’s not about need. It’s not about convenience. It’s about them getting control over us.

Financial Transparency — Who’s It Really For?

In that same article,5 the WEF reviews a digital ID app with an ingenious “transparency engine.” The argument is that this feature would enable charities to “follow the money they send to projects.” This way, they can account for where all the donations went.

Anyone who has looked into the WEF’s plans for mankind knows that this example is pure baloney. A system of financial transparency is never going to be used to give regular folk insight into an organization’s financial dealings. It will be used to give the ruling technocracy insight into our financial transactions — yours and mine.

The Canadian Freedom Convoy and prime minister Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act offered a rare glimpse into the power they want over your finances. They want to be able to single out every single person that contributes to an anti-establishment cause, even if it’s just a few measly dollars, and seize everything you have in retribution. Trudeau had to invoke extraordinary emergency powers to do that.

In the future, the ruling cabal want to be able to do it automatically and continuously. Make no mistake, the digitization of your identity and finances means they’ll have the power to throttle your finances if you misbehave. In a worst-case scenario, they’ll have the power to turn you into a non-entity, locking you out of your identity credentials altogether.

I really cannot overstate the danger of digitizing and linking together all of your personal records. As noted by the WEF itself, our digital identity “determines what products, services and information we can access — or conversely, what is closed off to us.”6 Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know?

Understanding the Scope of ‘Digital Identity’

In an article on The Sociable, Tim Hinchliffe warns:7

“Your digital identity can be used against you in the event of a great reset … [W]hile digital identities show great promise towards improving the livelihoods of millions, they are also used by authoritarian governments to profile and police citizen behavior under a social credit system.8

The idea behind digital identities is simple enough. All the data collected from every online interaction you make with the private and public sectors goes into forming your digital identity. This data can include your personal:

  • Search history
  • Social media interactions
  • Online profiles
  • Device location
  • Medical records
  • Financial ledgers
  • Legal documents
  • And more

By connecting your every online/offline interaction, the WEF envisions your digital identity being linked to:

  • Every click, comment, and share you make on social media
  • Every financial transaction you record
  • Your location and where you travel
  • What you buy and sell
  • Your personal health data and medical records
  • The websites that you visit
  • Your participation in civic functions (i.e. voting, taxes, benefits, etc.)
  • How much energy you consume
  • And more

Thus, your digital identity becomes an account of your social behavior, which can be policed ... [T]here will be a class system where people are given access to privileged information, products, and/or services based on the data recorded in their digital identities.”

The graphic below, from the WEF, illustrates their idea of how your digital identity will interact with the world.

Every last thing you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.

If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or emotional support to.

digital identity

The Difference Between Identification and Digital Identity

Hinchliffe accurately notes that there’s a big difference between identity and identification. Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. As you can see from the short-lists above, it’s much, much more. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.

“Identity encompasses everything that makes you unique,” Hinchliffe notes,9 “and your identity is what the WEF is really interested in. Step out of line, and every social media interaction in which you partake, every penny you trade, and every move you make can be used against you.”

Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation and control of the global population. Writing for Coin Telegraph, hacker and tech executive Trent Lipinski also pointed out that:10

“With a few tweaks of code, blockchain can be corrupted by authoritarians to build social credit enslavement systems. If world governments legislate encryption technology for their own purposes and pervert consensus mechanisms for their own centralized enslavement systems, we will end up with digital currencies that can be used against the people of the world.”

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

People aren’t merely confused about what digital identity actually entails. Most also don’t understand the intended scope of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, another concept invented by Schwab and promoted through the WEF.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is really just another name for transhumanism. I suppose they decided it would be easier to fool people with that term than to call it what it actually is.

Schwab and his technocratic allies dream of turning mankind into cyborgs with limited or no capacity to free will. My guess is that for most, that sounds more like what nightmares are made of. The inability to comprehend or accept just how twisted and power hungry these individuals are, is a psychological hurdle we need to overcome.

Schwab himself has stated that “the Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.”11 Beyond your own “enhanced” 5G cloud-connected self, the WEF foresees a near future in which everyone’s digital identity is connected to each other through an Internet of Bodies (IoB).12,13

The Internet of Bodies

In its 2020 briefing document on the IoB,14 the WEF describes the IoB as an ecosystem of “an unprecedented number of sensors,” including emotional sensors, “attached to, implanted within, or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyze and even modify human bodies and behavior.”

See, I’m not the one predicting they might want to modify your behavior and control your psychological reality. THEY are the ones stating that this is what they intend to do. Every new technology, every new surveillance opportunity they bring forward is to further this aim.

“Now, who could possibly benefit from the massive consolidation of every intimate detail of your life?” Hinchliffe asks.15 “According to a recent RAND corporation report,16 the IoB ‘might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge […] Or it might enable a surveillance state of unprecedented intrusion and consequence.’

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has taken the notion of the IoB to create an Orwellian surveillance state that pegs the digital identities of its ‘netizens’ to a social crediting system.

From ‘deadbeat debtor’ contact tracing apps that alert citizens with a warning whenever they come within 500 meters of someone who is in debt17 to the DNA phenotyping18 of over 1 million Uyghurs sent to ‘re-education camps’19 — the CCP is a living example of some of the horrible ways in which digital identities can be exploited …

The great reset is not a mandate from the people — It is a manufactured ideology concocted by a group of un-elected globalists trying to sway ‘stakeholders’ into creating a new economy and social structure out of the destruction of the old … But should society’s fate be mandated from the Davos elite?”

We’ve Been Played Like Fiddles

The shocking reality is that the COVID pandemic was not an “act of God.” It was part of the plan, like everything else. In 2018 and 2019, this global cabal planned, practiced and coordinated their responses during pandemic tabletop exercises (Clade X and Event 201). The solutions concocted during these pandemic scenarios “were in lockstep with The Great Reset,” Hinchliffe notes.20

In other words, all of the pandemic countermeasures we’ve all lived through for the past two years had one goal, and it had nothing to do with saving lives. It had to do with furthering The Great Reset goals, which require top-down governance.

Schwab himself has bragged about grooming and installing political leaders across the world’s governments,21 which answers the question as to how and why so many leaders have willingly gone along with policies that are clearly destructive to their own economies and societies.

The only way this makes sense is by accepting that the technocratic cabal, which for decades has been secretly pulling levers behind the curtain like the Wizard of Oz, want economies to fail. They want them to fail so they can replace them with a new all-digital system where they have access to your wallet and can control your behavior through financial penalties for undesired behaviors.

They want small businesses out of the way, so their monopolies are all that’s left. They want mass deaths, because robots and artificial intelligence are taking over the bulk of currently available jobs. The plan is to institute a universal wage, so the fewer people there are, the better.

They want frightened, uneducated and socially inept children because they’re easier to mold into obedient nonthinkers who will accept things like emotional trackers and AI that tells you when to take a pill.

They don’t care about what you want, because to them you’re not even human. They’re human; you’re just a commodity, and they’ve figured out how to profit from every move you make, and then some.22

All this talk about the common good, fairness and equity, that’s just PR. Technocrats’ idea of fairness and equity is everyone being the same level of destitute. As declared by the WEF, “by 2030, you will own nothing.” Who then will own everything? They will.

Is a Cyber Attack Next?

In another more recent Sociable article,23 Hinchliffe highlights emerging cyber security risks and the WEF’s July 2022 Cyber Polygon24 event, which will focus on “raising global cyber resilience” in sectors that use cloud services, such as finance, retail, health care, transportation and more. According to Schwab, “lack of cybersecurity has become a clear and immediate danger to our society worldwide.” In 2020, he stated:25

“We need vaccines to immunize ourselves. The same is true for cyberattacks … We need to build IT infrastructures that have digital antibodies built-in inherently to protect themselves …

We all know, but still pay insufficient attention to, the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack, which would bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole … The COVID-19 crisis would be seen … as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyber attack.”

Based on how other exercises have magically manifested in the real world, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that a major cyberattack is being planned by the very same people who claim they want to prevent it.

But even if that doesn’t happen, one thing we can be completely sure of is that whatever cybersecurity measures they come up with will serve the technocratic agenda, which again, is to enslave humanity in a 5G cyborg ecosystem and elevate themselves to the status of gods, micromanaging the lives of every person through the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence.

Preventing it will require an unprecedented level of unity and solidarity among the people of the world. There are billions of us and perhaps only a few thousand of them, but their technological and financial control still makes this a David versus Goliath battle.

The difference between our real-world situation and the Biblical version is that no one David can win this fight by himself. We must unite and stand as one, like billions of ants forming a single body. We may not have the weapons they do, but we have the advantage of sheer numbers.

I believe the answer is to refuse any and all “solutions” coming from this global cabal, en masse, and to build our own parallel societies and industries — a “reset,” but one that we actually want and not the one they’ve planned for us. It won’t be easy, but the alternative is the destruction of humanity.

*

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

Notes

1 COVID-19: The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab (PDF)

2 The Expose’ February 28, 2022

3, 4, 5 World Economic Forum November 20, 2020

6 WEF Insight Report, Identity in a Digital World September 2018

7, 9, 11, 15, 20 The Sociable November 23, 2020

8 Business Insider October 29, 2018

10 Coin Telegraph April 12, 2020

12 Rand Corporation October 29, 2020

13 Rand Corporation IoB: Our Connected Future

14 WEF, Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies, July 2020

16 Rand Corporation, The Internet of Bodies

17 WEF The Global Risks Report 2019

18 The Sociable December 19, 2019

19 The Sociable December 6, 2019

21 Twitter James Melville January 26, 2022

22 PC Magazine April 27, 2020

23, 25 The Sociable February 16, 2022

24 Cyber Polygon 2022

Featured image is from The Sociable

All Global Research articles 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.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


Working with Russian academics and institutions.  The attack upon Ukraine by Russia. These are two features playing out heavily in university discussions.  As typifies such chitchat, nuance features rather less than cant and sanctimony. As writer and lecturer Paolo Nori of Milano-Bicocca University stated after discovering that his course on Fyodor Dostoevsky would be cancelled in response to the war, “Not only is it a fault to be a living Russian in Italy today, but also to be a dead Russian.”  (Dostoevsky has since been reprieved; the course will now run.)

Throughout history, academic cooperation between universities and academic institutions, despite the political differences of states, has taken place.  Even at the height of the Cold War, exchanges across several intellectual fields were regular occurrences.  The cynic could see these as culture wars in the service of propaganda, but work was still done, projects started and completed.

The times have tilted, and now universities, notably in Western states, find themselves rushing with virtuous glee to divesting and banning contacts and links with the Russian academy.  Russian President Vladimir Putin is deemed a monster of unsurpassed dimension; the Russian attack on Ukraine emptied of historical rationale or basis.  There is simply no room for academic debate, in of itself a risible irony.

In Freedom’s Land, some US institutions have snipped and severed cooperation.  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has ended its long-standing association with the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Skoltech.  The reasoning strikes an odd note: we will exclude you and ostracise you out of respect for your achievements.  “We take it with deep regret,” MIT explained in a statement, “because of our great respect for the Russian people and our profound appreciation for the contributions of the many extraordinary Russian colleagues we have worked with.”

The university also makes it clear that the “step is a rejection of the actions of the Russian government in Ukraine.”  It’s all well and good to reject those actions, but how logical is it to then make those profoundly respected Russian colleagues suffer exclusion?

Behind every virtuous condemnation is the encumbrance of self-interest.  MIT may have severed ties with Skoltech, but that did not mean that MIT principal investigators, or students, would be affected.  “The Institute is in close communication with the PIs to offer guidance and to make sure that the students involved can complete their research and academic work without interruption.”

Russian students have also been singled out for special mistreatment, notably by Californian Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“I think closing [the Russian] embassy in the United States, kicking every Russian student out of the United States, those should all be on the table, and Putin needs to know that every day that he is in Ukraine, there are more severe options that could come.”

To his credit, President Samuel Stanley, Michigan State University’s president, has sought to distinguish between individual and political decisions made by governments.  The distinction is trite, but the Ukraine War has made it exceptional.  “In times of crises and conflict,” he writes in a public letter, “it is important that we decouple individuals from adverse actions of their home countries and governments.”  Emphasis should instead be placed on unity in “supporting one another with dignity, empathy and mutual respect.”

In Australia, a country with few ties to Russian or Ukrainian institutions, universities have been issuing statements of condemnation against, not merely the Russian state but Russian institutions and figures.  The last thing on the minds of these academic bureaucrats is adopting something along Stanley’s lines.

The Australian National University has gone one step further, having officially announced the suspension of all ties and activities with Russian institutions on March 3.

“We identify with those brave Russian academics and students who oppose President Putin’s unprovoked aggression.”  Curiously enough, the decision was made as the Russian attack “threatens the peace, freedom and democracy on which freedom of inquiry and academic collaboration is based.”

Proceeding to show no inclination to follow those cherished principles of free inquiry, the authors of the statement explicitly note that only those Russian academics and students who opposed Putin’s “unprovoked aggression” would be taken seriously.  For Ukraine, the support was unqualified, whatever its actions.  “We stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people in their defence of sovereignty and freedom and offer our support for the universities of Ukraine.”

The ANU statement has little time for ethnic Russians, preferring to acknowledge “that this is a very difficult time for our Ukrainian staff and students and for those who have family members, friends and colleagues in Ukraine.”

The statement from La Trobe University is not much more nuanced either, though it openly promotes the work of one academic, Robert Horvath, given the task of demystifying Russian aggression and chewing over Putin’s numbered days.  (Horvath’s referenced opinion, it should be said, distinguishes between Putin the ruler and Russia itself, something his university is less inclined to do.)

Having been approached by “a number of staff” as to whether La Trobe had “any active connections with Russian institutions”, management expressed a deep sigh of relief.  “We can confirm that La Trobe does not have any formal education partnerships or partnerships with Russian research institutions.”

The university’s investment portfolio was also fairly liberated of Russian investment, a mere $20,000 in value.  “We are liaising with our Investment Fund about divestment options for this exposure.”

Singling out Russia has a note of self-indulgence to it.  In the case of Australian universities in particular, outrage expressed against Russia seems at odds with, say, the relationships with Chinese institutions.  The reasons, in the end, are financial rather than principled: excoriating the Russian Bear only harms intellectual merit, not the budget.  The same cannot be said about students and academics from the Middle Kingdom.

To that end Vice Chancellors and members of academic boards have been less forthright in their condemnation of Chinese foreign policy and the country’s human rights record.  Money often wins out in the moral dilemma, a point that activist Drew Pavlou found to his cost at the University of Queensland.  Suspended on disciplinary grounds, Pavlou was adamant about the reason.

“It’s a calculated move to silence me.  It’s because the University of Queensland wants to do everything possible to avoid offending its Chinese allies.”

In discriminating on the political and ideological standing of academics and students, a slippery slope presents itself.  Putting all your institution’s eggs into one basket and cause is never a good thing, however meretriciously popular and virtuous it might be at the time.  But the Academy, and the modern university, work in contradictory, self-defeating ways.  Wars do not merely make truth a casualty but kill off intellectual inquiry.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 ArchDaily

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

CAMPAGNE PUB POUR LA CAMPAGNE DE MACRON :SI JE PEUX AIDER…

Video:

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: 2339…. Publicity for President Macron’s “Election Campaign”. Crimes against Humanity

NATO’s Key Role in the UK

March 8th, 2022 by Matt Kennard

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

Britain hosts central Nato functions including its little-known Maritime Command in northwest London and hundreds of foreign Nato military personnel are deployed across three sites in the country.

As tensions grow between Nato and Russia over Ukraine, Declassified takes a look at the UK’s role in the organisation that Vladimir Putin has blamed for his illegal war.

Some 574 foreign personnel from 29 countries are deployed with Nato across three sites in Britain.

A quarter of them, or 150 personnel, are American with the next highest deployment from Germany with 65.

Turkey, whose armed forces are occupying northern Syria, has 35 military personnel located in Britain with Nato.

Three nations outside the Alliance – Sweden, Austria and Finland – have personnel deployed with Nato at its intelligence centre in Cambridgeshire.

Support for joining Nato in Sweden and Finland – which has a 830-mile border with Russia – is at a historic high after the invasion of Ukraine.

Three personnel from Hungary, whose far-right prime minister Viktor Orbán is an ally of Putin, are also deployed with Nato in Britain.

Meanwhile, the UK has 1,004 military personnel deployed with Nato around the world, including 150 within Britain.

The biggest overseas UK deployment is 238 personnel in Belgium, where Nato is headquartered. Britain also has 192 military personnel deployed with Nato in Italy and 159 in Germany.

The majority of the foreign Nato personnel in the UK are stationed at Northwood Headquarters, a military base in north-west London, which is home to the Alliance’s Maritime Command (Marcom), the central command of all its sea operations.

Although little-known outside military circles, it hosts 342 foreign Nato personnel, including 54 Americans and 52 Germans.

Marcom’s British commander Keith Blout is Nato’s principal maritime adviser and has operational command of its standing naval forces.

Vice Admiral Blout joined the Royal Navy in 1983 and was the Iraqi Maritime Task Group Commander during the invasion in 2003. He was awarded an operational Legion of Merit by President Trump in 2016.

Nato’s Land Command is based in Izmir, Turkey while its Air Command is located in Ramstein, Germany.

Leafy suburb

Nato’s presence at Northwood Headquarters dates back to 1953, four years after the creation of the organisation. When I walk through its gates leading from the street, I’m told quickly there are no photos allowed.

While I wait for an interview that is not forthcoming in the visitor centre, various people come in to enquire about parking space inside the base. “It’s completely full,” the official tells them. “Must be something going on in the world,” jokes one.

The gates leading into the base proper are heavily fortified. A British soldier with a rifle stands in front and there is a perceptible tension in the air. As I walk around outside, the soldier’s eyes, and I assume the ubiquitous CCTV cameras, follow my steps.

The area around the base, however, could not be more different. Northwood is just another quiet, leafy suburb of northwest London, located on the outer reaches of the Metropolitan Line. Many people I stop on the central shopping street are not even aware of the big Nato base up the road.

Rod, a 65-year-old who moved to the area five years ago, does know about it but adds, “I don’t think it is a big part of the local community, they are as cautious as everybody else, they go about their business, those that have reason to connect with them do connect.”

“You very rarely see soldiers around,” he adds, before telling me that foreign soldiers “drive like lunatics, especially Italians”.

But he is happy it is there. “It’s the only thing that stands between us and Putin,” he tells me. “It’s the only thing that stops us and other countries in Europe being overrun by a kleptomaniac who is mad.”

Aerial view of Northwood Headquarters, the Nato base in a northwest London suburb. (Image: Google Maps

He has little time for locals who worry about if it makes them a threat. “Anyone who goes around questioning whether it’s safe, we don’t want it here, it might make us a bit of a target, well too bloody right, you have to stand up for what you believe in.”

Another local, Mike, 34, is having a coffee outside Costa with a friend. “I do find it scary,” he says, “we’d probably be the first to be nuked, although I’m sure our defences would intercept them before they got anywhere near here.”

But he doesn’t think his concerns are shared by other locals. “I don’t think a lot of people know the base is there actually, I’ve spoken to a few people, I work in Tesco just round the corner, and I don’t think a lot of people are aware, it’s not highlighted…I haven’t heard other people being scared, I’ve just been talking about it with my wife, we both know it’s there, we’re both local”.

His friend, another local, chimes in that she didn’t know about it before I’d asked the question just now. Mikes adds: “You don’t see soldiers very often.”

Mike, who has lived in the area for a decade, says: “It’s not well known about at all even locally, they keep it very low-key, there’s no signs, you see some signs saying Northwood headquarters, that’s the only signs you see.”

He continues: “There’s a big American community, right behind the base, it’s not a military site, it’s just houses where they live.”

Mike doesn’t believe we are “under threat at the moment, but if there’s any retaliation to Russia then I think yeah he’s prepared to use nuclear weapons, I think he’s lost the plot.” Does he feel protected by having the base there or the opposite? “The opposite,” he shoots back.

“A jewel within the Nato intel system”

There are 32 other foreign Nato soldiers based at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton in rural Somerset.

Since 2013, it has been the location for Nato’s Joint Electronic Warfare Core Staff (JEWCS) which “offers specialised expertise on how to react to a hostile electromagnetic environment”. It also provides electronic warfare “capabilities” for Nato operations.

Another 28 foreign Nato personnel are based within the organisation’s Centralised Targeting Cell (CTC) at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire. The CTC “provides real-world intelligence support to targeting” for Nato operations and exercises.

RAF Molesworth also hosts the Nato Intelligence Fusion Centre (NIFC) which includes 167 foreign Nato personnel. The centre – which was activated in 2006 with the US as its “framework nation” – provides “timely, relevant, and accurate intelligence in order to support planning and execution of Nato operations”.

US under-secretary of defense for intelligence Ronald Moultrie has said: “Without a doubt, the NIFC is the Nato center of gravity for multinational intelligence collaboration in producing high-impact intelligence for Nato operations.”

Meanwhile, Nato’s maritime commander has called the NIFC “a jewel within the Nato intel system.”

As well as foreign Nato personnel, the British Army’s own 1st Signal Brigade is under the operational command of Nato’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps.

Based out of Imjin Barracks in Gloucestershire, the high readiness unit specialises in providing information communications systems and logistical support. The brigade is also supported by a Ghurka battalion.

Another UK Army unit permanently assigned to Nato is 280 Signal Squadron, which is based at Blandford Camp in Dorset. Its role is to install and control strategic communication and information systems for Nato deployments.

UK government policy towards Nato is coordinated by the Euro-Atlantic Security Policy Unit, a joint Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office unit established in 2016. The UK currently has 34 people working on engagement with Nato, while the policy team at the UK’s joint delegation to Nato numbers around 50.

*

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

Featured image: Entrance to Northwood Headquarters in northwest London, the location of Nato’s Maritime Command. (Photo: Matt Kennard / DCUK)

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that large portions of data about the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) are not being published because the world might “misinterpret” them. And Dr. Robert Malone is warning that this amounts to fraud.

It has been almost two full years since the plandemic was first launched, and only a “tiny fraction” of the data collected by the CDC has been released for public consumption.

It was The New York Times, of all sources, that ran a big story on this, revealing that much of the withheld information could have been used by state and local officials to get the virus under control.

“The CDC is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization,” said Samuel Scarpino, the managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute.

“The steps that it takes to get something like this released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the CDC.”

Translated by Dr. Malone, what Scarpino is basically saying is that the CDC has been lying to the public about the Fauci Flu. (Related: Donald Trump also lied betrayed Americans by engaging in “vaccine” racketeering.)

“Basically, a non-governmental spokesperson for the ‘official’ public health scientific community is throwing Rochelle Walensky under the bus, and saying that the politicians forced us to commit scientific fraud by withholding key data,” Dr. Malone writes.

“The Global Summit Doctors and other brave medical practitioners who have stood up to the lies and tyranny – who have been harassed, jobs lost, medical licenses lost, smeared and libeled are right. The data are being withheld.”

How many lives have been lost because of the CDC’s lies?

The Global Summit Doctors, by the way, have been sounding the alarm about all this for quite some time, only to be labeled as “conspiracy theorists” by the establishment.

It turns out that these folks were righter than right, and chances are there are still many more revelations to come that will fully deconstruct the myth that the CDC, or any other government agency for that matter, is working in the best interests of the general public.

“The CDC is using cumulative data from the beginning of the vaccine roll-out in early 2021 to prop up the lie that these vaccines are effective against Omicron,” Dr. Malone explains. “The CDC is clearly hiding the data about safety.”

Dr. Malone says that if the CDC had released proper, age-stratified data for covid, it would be clear as day that Trump’s Operation Warp Speed injections are “not necessary” for most Americans.

“If the vaccine risk ratio of those vaccinated and hospitalized were published for Omicron – it would be clear that the vaccine benefit is not observed,” he adds.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also complicit, as it still has not revealed what the efficacy rate is for “booster” shots in children. This is in spite of the fact that the FDA promised to do this.

“They have not released the safety data,” Dr. Malone says. “They have withheld the safety data on the vaccines for children and adults. This must stop. We are deep into outright Scientific Fraud territory.”

Ben Armstrong from The New American released a video where he offers his own take on the situation as well.

We have been manipulated from the VERY start of this pandemic,” Dr. Malone further adds. “The government has been deciding what has been written, removed, censored by media and the big tech giants. This is propaganda.”

*

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

Featured image is from Vaccines.news

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. Robert Malone: The CDC Hid COVID Data and Committed Massive Scientific Fraud
  • Tags: ,

Stop the Crazy War in Ukraine

March 8th, 2022 by Eric Margolis

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


The brazenly biased western media is giving us the impression that the Ukraine fighting is some sort of sports competition. Russia’s media, now shamefully silenced in the west by the banning of Russia Today and Sputnik News, portrays the so far modest war in Ukraine as a renewed struggle against WWII fascism. Both views are totally wrong.

In reality, Moscow has been complaining about the West’s meddling in Ukraine for over 14 years. Russian forces are now waging a slow-motion offensive against parts of Ukraine and, so far, trying to keep down casualties. Compare this strategy to the utter devastation inflicted by Russia (with some US help) on secessionist Chechnya in 1990. Compare this to the wide-scale US destruction of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Palestine. Where was CNN when these threadbare nations were being bombed back into the Stone Age? Or Yemen, poorest of Mideast nations, which is being turned to rubble by US and British bombing?

At least $4 billion of mostly US and British-made arms poured into Ukraine before Russia invaded – and continue to do so now. Some western leaders actually seemed to believe that Moscow would do nothing in response to their intervention in Ukraine.

Imagine that Florida’s crackpot Republicans declared independence from the United States and began importing Russian or Chinese war material?

But far crazier than this has been growing calls by Ukraine’s leadership and many US legislators for old MiG-29 fighters stored in Poland to be refurbished and handed over to Ukrainian pilots for use against Russian targets. It seems America is ready to fight to the last Ukrainian.

This is crazy business. The minute Polish-supplied MiG’s go into action against Russian forces in Ukraine we will go from a minor regional conflict to a real war. Russia will riposte with strikes by their very accurate Iskander missiles against Polish air bases, government centers and logistic hubs. The outgunned Poles will call for military help from Washington – in an election year in which the deflated Democrats will need every ethnic Polish vote in the Midwest.

In any event, air wars have no neat boundaries. The politically powerful US Air Force will demand permission to strike Russian air bases, Black Sea ports and army bases in Crimea. US naval forces in the Black Sea will be choice targets.

US bases in Romania and Bulgaria will quickly join Moscow’s target list. Add NATO bases in Scandinavia. Russian forces are merely a taxi ride from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

NATO’s eastern bulwark is in reality a house of cards. Fortunately, Moscow is too weak to re-invade the whole Eastern front. Moscow spends only one tenth as much on its military as does the US. Stalin’s once seemingly endless armies are now enfeebled. Yet they must defend a mammoth nation of 11 times zones stretching from the Baltic shores to North Korea. Before invading Ukraine, Moscow actually had to bring military units from Vladivostok on the Pacific which is a key potential target for attacks by the US Navy.

The best, fastest way to end the Ukrainian civil war is to partition off its Russian-speaking eastern regions, quench its surging nationalism, and promise Russia it will not join NATO or any other foreign alliance for 20 years. And tell CNN to refocus its hysteria on surging crime in New York City and Chicago.

So far, one of the few American politicians to get this right is Donald Trump.

*

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

Featured image is from South Front

Women’s Day, March 8, 2023

Incisive and carefully documented article by Abayomi Azikiwe, first published in 2017

By the 1880s the post-slavery institutionalization of national oppression and economic exploitation of people of African descent was well underway in the United States.

Although a series of presidential orders, constitutional amendments and legislative measures enacted during 1862-1875 sought to breakdown the legal basis for the enslavement of African people, these actions were restricted by the entrenched interests of both the militarily defeated Southern planters and the emerging Northern industrialists, the two factions of the American ruling class which fought bitterly between 1861-65 for dominance over the economic system which would determine the future of society for the remaining decades of the 19th century.

President Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated at the conclusion of the Civil War in April 1865, had no definitive plan for a post-slavery reconstruction of republican democracy as it related to African people. The Emancipation Proclamation was essentially a war document designed to undermine the political and economic basis of the South and its secessionist aims designed to preserve slavery as a system of exploitation, oppression and social containment.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1865 declared that involuntary servitude was prohibited unless carried out against people who are incarcerated. Nonetheless, state laws passed by the planter class in the readmitted Confederate states were designed to reinstitute slavery just the same through the mass criminalization and imprisonment of African labor power.

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed by Congress ostensibly to grant Africans the rights of citizenship through the application of due process, equal treatment under the legal system and access to public facilities. Later in 1870, the 15th Amendment was drafted and passed to enshrine the right to vote for African men as well as to hold public office.

In a general sense the process of the reversal of the gains of Federal Reconstruction began in the aftermath of the 1876 elections where a split within the electorate created the necessity for the Hayes-Tilden Compromise. The Republican Party candidate Rutherford B. Hayes was allowed to take the presidential office in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South.

Consequently, a process of re-enslavement in fact continued throughout the 1880s to the beginning of the 20th century. Africans resisted the imposition of the black codes and other pseudo-legalistic forms of racial dominance. In response the whites established work camps through penal administration and extra-legal methods such as economic sanctions and lynching.

The Philosophical and Educational Contributions of African American Women

It has been reported that Anna Julia Haywood was born into slavery on August 10, 1858 in Raleigh, North Carolina. Her mother, Hannah Stanley Haywood, was an African woman. The identity of her father was never clear due to the legacy of slavery and the exploitation of African women. Many white slave owners, male members of their families and employees routinely sexually assaulted and exploited African women. The paternity of these offspring was often denied by the perpetrators. These children of African women were subjected to the same degree of discrimination and repression as others who were not of mixed ancestry.

The mother of Anna J. Haywood was said to have been illiterate and therefore encouraged learning for her daughter. By the age of nine, Haywood was attending the St. Augustine’s College, an institution designed for former enslaved Africans. She studied in the fields of math, Greek and philosophy. Overcoming gender barriers, she persisted in excelling in the curriculum exclusively designed for males.

Haywood academic achievements landed her a position as a teacher at the school. She would later marry another instructor named George Cooper, a teacher of Greek and the second African American in North Carolina to be ordained as an Episcopal minister. Haywood took a leave of absence from the education profession for two years until her husband died suddenly.

Returning to her academic pursuits, she would study at Oberlin College in Ohio earning a bachelor’s degree in mathematics in 1884. Three years later in 1887, Cooper completed a master’s degree and returned to teaching math, Greek, Latin and science. She also became a renowned public speaker.

It was in 1892 that Cooper would produce her seminal work entitled “A Voice from the South: By a Black Woman of the South.” The book is considered a milestone in African women’s social and political philosophy.

Undergirding the thesis laid out in the text is the belief that African American women are most capable of achieving higher levels of education. In addition, the education of women and their involvement in public life would make a monumental contribution to not only African American communities but U.S. society as a whole. The harnessing and unleashing of the enlightened power of women would transform historical processes leading to greater awareness of human potentialities.

A chapter in this book entitled “Higher Education of Women”, asserts

“Now I claim that it is the prevalence of the Higher Education among women, the making it a common everyday affair for women to reason and think and express their thought, the training and stimulus which enable and encourage women to administer to the world the bread it needs as well as the sugar it cries for; in short it is the transmitting the potential forces of her soul into dynamic factors that has given symmetry and completeness to the world’s agencies. So only could it be consummated that Mercy, the lesson she teaches, and Truth, the task man has set himself, should meet together: that righteousness, or rightness, man’s ideal,–and peace, its necessary ‘other half,’ should kiss each other.” (Cooper, p. 57)

Nonetheless, the woman question in the U.S. is linked with the problems of racism and national oppression. The African American woman faces discrimination on the basis of national origin as well as gender and social class.

Cooper surmises in “The Voice from the South” on the issue of racial oppression:

“We would not deprecate the fact, then, that America has a Race Problem. It is guaranty of the perpetuity and progress of her institutions, and insures the breadth of her culture and the symmetry of her development. More than all, let us not disparage the factor which the Negro is appointed to contribute to that problem. America needs the Negro for ballast if for nothing else. His tropical warmth and spontaneous emotionalism may form no unseemly counterpart to the cold and calculating Anglo-Saxon. And then his instinct for law and order, his inborn respect for authority, his inaptitude for rioting and anarchy, his gentleness and cheerfulness as a laborer, and his deep-rooted faith in God will prove indispensable and invaluable elements in a nation menaced as America is by anarchy, socialism, communism, and skepticism poured in with all the jail birds from the continents of Europe and Asia. I believe with our own Dr. Crummell that ‘the Almighty does not preserve, rescue, and build up a lowly people merely for ignoble ends.’ And the historian of American civilization will yet congratulate this country that she has had a Race Problem and that descendants of the black race furnished one of its largest factors.” (pp. 173-4)

Laying the groundwork for broader intervention in the international situation, Cooper later addressed the World Congress of Representative Women in May 1893. The event was held in conjunction with the World Columbian Exposition (the Chicago World Fair). There were 81 meetings held on the conditions of women spoken to by 500 women from 27 different countries.

This World’s Congress of Representative Women was organized, funded and publicized through the women’s branch of the World’s Congress Auxiliary. This section of the Chicago gathering was directed by the President of the Women’s Auxiliary Bertha Honoré Palmer, the wife of wealthy Chicago retailer Potter Palmer. The men’s section of the Auxiliary ran seventeen departments and convened over 100 panels including discussions related to political, social and technical affairs. The women’s division organized one phase of the event. Out of all the congresses activities held by men at the World’s Columbian Exposition, the World’s Congress of Representative Women attained the largest attendance.

A number of leading African American women presented papers at the Congress of Representative Women including Hallie Quinn Brown, who was born in Pittsburg in 1849 to free African parents. She earned a bachelor’s degree at Wilberforce University in Ohio. Brown later went on to teach and administer at Allen University in South Carolina and Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. She would become a professor at Wilberforce.

Brown was a leading force in the founding of the National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs (NACWC). The organization grew out of a merger of other similar groups concerned with women’s suffrage, an end to lynching and the end of racial oppression.

Other African American women presenters were Fannie Barrier Williams, born in 1855 in New York State. Barrier Williams earned a bachelor’s degree from Brockport College, a division of the State University. Despite her educational achievements for the period, she was subjected to severe racial discrimination.

Barrier Williams was an advocate for the social and political advancement of African American people through community activism, professional achievement and the acquisition of the vote for women. She would marry S. Laing Williams, an attorney, and they later settled in the city of Chicago.

At the World Congress of Representative Women in Chicago, Williams presented a paper entitled “The Intellectual Progress of the Colored Women of the United States Since the Emancipation Proclamation.” She also delivered a paper to the World Parliament of Religions entitled “What Can Religion Further Do to Advance the condition of the American Negro?”

In the address to the World Parliament of Religions, she decried the segregation of churches and spoke on the ability of sacred institutions to bring about change within American society.

She was a co-founder of the National League of Colored Women, which eventually became the National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs (NACWC).

Fanny Jackson Coppin also spoke at the gathering. She was born into slavery in 1837 in Washington, D.C. and later attended Oberlin College where she became an educator. Later she would be employed as a teacher in Philadelphia where she instructed in Greek, Latin and mathematics.

Another African American woman who spoke at the 1893 World Congress was Sarah Jane Woodson Early. She was born as a free African in 1825 in Ohio where her parents had settled after being liberated from slavery. She was educated at Oberlin College and later taught at Wilberforce, becoming the first African person to teach at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU).

Woodson Early’s paper delivered at the Chicago Congress was entitled “The Organized Efforts of the Colored Women of the South to Improve Their Condition.” In previous years Early held the position as national superintendent (1888–1892) of the African American section of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). She delivered over 100 lectures in five states. The public speaker authored a biographical sketch of her husband’s life focusing on his liberation from enslavement making a contribution to a number of such narratives published after the conclusion of the Civil War.

Finally, in relationship to the World Congress of Representative Women, a paper presented by Frances E.W. Harper entitled “Woman’s Political Future”, was one of the most notable. Born in 1825 in Baltimore, Harper was a published poet even during the era of antebellum slavery. She was born a free African but pursued a career of advocacy for the abolition of involuntary servitude and women’s suffrage.

Her speech was indicative of some within the women’s movement including African Americans who also spoke in favor of the need for literacy as a prerequisite to access to the ballot. She was as well an official in the WCTU. The notion of literacy and voting rights would become controversial during the proceeding decades of the 20th century since this was one mechanism utilized to deny the vote to millions of African Americans in the South.

The Reason Why: Interventions by Ida B. Wells and the Role of Oppositional Politics

Although many of the references to educational achievement, economic self-reliance, sobriety, and religious adherence, suggests that the influence of western bourgeois values informed the thinking and organizational approaches to the leading African American women intellectuals and activists, however what must be taken into consideration is the contradiction of the overall social conditions created by the failure of Reconstruction during the previous decades.

A profit-driven system of institutional racism and national oppression required the super-exploitation of the African people. They were systematically denied access to education, adequate wages, quality housing and opportunities within the labor market. The criminalization of the rural and urban communities across the U.S. represented through law-enforcement key aspects of the repressive mechanism which served the capitalist system.

Knowing and acknowledging that there would be in all likelihood no assistance from the federal government and the corporations in regard to alleviating the social conditions of the masses of workers and farmers, African Americans out of necessity were compelled to create their own institutions to foster social reproduction and to ensure survival. Consequently, there was a strong emphasis on self-improvement through education, personal discipline and the adoption of what was perceived societal norms during this period in history.

Nonetheless, the anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells would expose the fallacy of the myths of the “criminally-driven over-sexed” Black man who was a threat to the “sanctity of white womanhood.” When Wells wrote in an editorial for her paper the Free Speech and Headlight that in many cases white women sought social relations with African American men she was subjected to threats and the destruction of her offices in Memphis in 1893.

Born in Holly Springs, Mississippi in 1862 as an enslaved African child, Wells parents instilled in her a sense of pride and yearning for education. Her parents died in the late 1870s during the yellow fever epidemic which hit northern Mississippi and Southwest Tennessee.

Wells went to Memphis to live with relatives and became a school teacher in the Shelby County school system. She would file a lawsuit against the Chesapeake, Ohio Railroad Company in 1884 for discrimination after being ejected from a train in Woodstock, Tennessee because she refused to move out of the lady’s coach. Prevailing in the lower courts and winning a judgement, the railroad line appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court which ruled in favor of Chesapeake, Ohio, overturning the settlement won earlier by Wells.

In later years Wells became well known as a public school teacher and newspaper editor. She was eventually relieved of her duties with the school system after criticizing the inferior education provided to African American students.

Wells had protested the lynching of three African American men in Memphis in 1892 whom were guilty of only defending themselves against a lawless white racist mob. A subsequent boycott of the street car services, white-owned businesses and a mass exodus of Black people from Memphis to Oklahoma, served to create the conditions as well for Wells to be driven out of the city.

Wells intervened in opposing the terms under which the Columbian Exposition was held in Chicago. African American organizations, churches and newspapers had called for a boycott of the World’s Fair in 1893. The community was demanding positions on the board of directors and planning committees designing the project. These legitimate requests were rejected by the ruling class interests involved in the project. Eventually some concessions were made although many remained dissatisfied and refused to attend.

Prior to the beginning of the Chicago World’s Fair, a document was edited and published by Wells with the majority contributions written by her along with other sections by Frederick Douglass, Ferdinand L. Barnett and I. Garland Penn. This attack on the World’s Fair was released as a pamphlet entitled “The Reason Why: The Colored American is not in the World’s Columbian Exposition, the Afro-American’s Contribution to Columbian Literature.”

In the preface to The Reason Why, Wells notes that: “Columbia has bidden the civilized world to join with her in celebrating the four-hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America, and the invitation has been accepted. At Jackson Park are shown exhibits of her natural resources, and her progress in the arts and sciences, which would best illustrate her moral greatness has been ignored. The exhibit of the progress made by a race in 25 years of freedom as against 250 years of slavery, would have been the greatest tribute to the greatness and progressiveness of American institutions which could have been shown the world. The colored people of this great Republic number eight millions – more than one-tenth the whole population of the United States. They were among the earliest settlers of this continent, landing at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619 in a slave ship, before the Puritans, who landed at Plymouth in 1620.

They have contributed a large share to American prosperity and civilization. The labor of one-half of this country has always been, and is still being done through them. The first credit this country had in its trade with foreign nations was created by productions resulting from their labor. The wealth created by their industry has made it possible for them to make the most of their progress in education, art, science, industry and invention.”

Wells continues saying:

“Those visiting the World’s Columbian Exposition who know these facts, especially foreigners will naturally ask: Why are not the colored people, who constitute so large an element of the American population, and who have contributed so much to American greatness, more visibly Present and better represented in this World’s Exposition? Why are they not taking part in this glorious celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of their country? Are they so dull and stupid as to feel no interest in this great event? As far as possible, this exhibition has been published.”

Throughout the pages of this pamphlet, documented proof of the exclusion, exploitation and repression of the African American people are laid out for examination. Wells had returned from a speaking tour of England, Wales and Scotland in 1893 while the World’s Fair was already underway. It appears in the existing evidence that Wells did not address the participants of the Columbian Exposition. However, through the publication of the document her voice was heard loud and clear.

In highlighting the dangerous situation facing the African American people, Wells recounted many extra-judicial mob killings throughout the U.S. She writes on the March 1892 atrocities against the three men which were never punished by the courts.

Taken directly from chapter four entitled “Lynch Law”, Wells says: “A lynching equally as cold-blooded took place in Memphis, Tennessee, March, 1892. Three young colored men in an altercation at their place of business, fired on white men in self-defense. They were imprisoned for three days, then taken out by the mob and horribly shot to death. Thomas Moss, Will Stewart and Calvin McDowell, were energetic business men who had built up a flourishing grocery business. Their business had prospered and that of a rival white grocer named Barrett had declined. Barrett led the attack on their grocery which resulted in the wounding of three white men. For this cause were three innocent men barbarously lynched, and their families left without protectors. Memphis is one of the leading cities of Tennessee, a town of seventy-five thousand inhabitants! No effort whatever was made to punish the murderers of these three men.

It counted for nothing that the victims of this outrage were three of the best known young men of a population of thirty thousand colored people of Memphis. They were the officers of the company which conducted the grocery: Moss being the President, Stewart the Secretary of the Company and McDowell the Manager. Moss was in the Civil Service of the United States as a carrier, and all three were men of splendid reputation for honesty, integrity and sobriety. But their murderers, though well-known, have never been counted, were not even troubled with a preliminary examination.”

Douglass although submitting an article for The Reason Why, was in attendance and delivered an address. Within those aspects of the Exposition which focused on the affairs of African people some administrative control was relinquished. The formerly self-emancipated enslaved African turned abolitionist and propagandist in opposition to slavery as early as the 1840s, Douglass, was placed as the administrator over the Colored American Day.

Despite the concessions related to Douglass, an article on this opposition to the Columbian Exposition written by Christopher Robert Reed of Roosevelt University in 1999 emphasizes the role of Wells and others recounting: “Nonetheless, some prominent African Americans declined to appear, such as the renowned coloratura soprano, Sissieretta Jones, known as the Black Patti. Whether it was a matter of contractual misunderstanding or support for the boycott, she nonetheless canceled her appearance. Ida B. Wells stayed away from the celebration but retroactively reversed her assessment both of the propriety of staging the event and of its value to racial progress. Originally motivated by a whimsical impulse, it appeared she responded to favorable white newspaper accounts to the event, especially in the Inter Ocean, by later seeking out Douglass at the Haytian Pavilion. There, she apologized to the “grand old man” for placing her youthful exuberance before the qualities of racial leadership he had displayed in deciding to participate. African Methodist Episcopal Bishops Benjamin Arnett and Henry McNeal Turner absented themselves from the event while two of the organizing committee’s vice presidents also avoided the event. Former U. S. Representative John Mercer Langston skipped the event after having urged Chicago audiences previously that they should follow his lead.”

The Chicago Congress on Africa in 1893

During the course of the time in which the Columbia Exposition was being held, there was another historical gathering which took place known as the Chicago Congress on Africa. This gathering is referred to by some as the First Pan-African Conference or Congress in world history. The event took place in several areas of the city of Chicago including venues associated with the Exposition and others which were not.

It was during this period that the rise of colonialism in Africa was intensifying at a rapid rate. Just nine years before the Berlin Conference was held in Germany which divided the continent up as political spheres of economic influence by Europe and the U.S.

The impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade from the 15th through the second half of the 19th centuries had set the stage for the rise of colonialism in Africa, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. However, there was a long time commitment among African Americans to either repatriate to the continent or to play some role in its reconstruction from slavery and colonialism.

This was reflected in the mass outpouring surrounding the Chicago Congress on Africa. Reed illustrates:

“From August 14, 1893, to August 21, 1893 probably the largest number of African American participants in a world’s fair event assembled as part of the Congress on Africa, or as it was sometimes referred to, the Congress on African Ethnology, or the Congress on the Negro. Its eight-day length included a citywide Sunday session that entered the sanctuaries and pulpits of scores of churches, so thousands of interested church congregants listened to information on the status of the global African population. Identified fully for what it was, the Congress on Africa combined the intellectual with the ideological, religious, philosophical and scientific to formulate an agenda facilitating, in effect, a dualistic American African public policy on the status of continental and Diaspora Africans.”

Well known political figures such as Edward Wilmot Blyden, a repatriated African born in the Caribbean and living in Liberia, along with Booker T. Washington of Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, had been anticipated to attend and present papers, however neither appeared at the gathering. Nevertheless, there were papers delivered on “The African in America”; “Liberia as a Factor in the Progress of the Negro Race”; and a very challenging presentation entitled “What Do American Negroes Owe to Their Kin Beyond the Sea.”

Bishop Henry McNeal Turner of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church was joined with Bishop Alexander Walters of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AMEZ) and Alexander Crummell of the Episcopal Church. Turner during the Chicago Congress advanced the notions of the African origins of humanity and civilization.

He also strongly advocated for the repatriation of Africans to the continent as a means of exercising self-determination and nation-building. Turner had stated several months prior to the Congress that France was enhancing its territorial ambitions towards Africa, particularly Liberia, being a major factor in the colonization of the continent.

This Congress provided the impetus for another Pan-African Conference held in Atlanta, Georgia two years later in 1895. This gathering was sponsored by the Steward Missionary Foundation for Africa of the Gammon Theological Seminary. This meeting was attended by John Henry Smyth, who was the minister resident and consul general to Liberia.

In his paper presented to the Atlanta conference, Smyth emphasized that:

“European contact has brought in its train not merely the sacrifice, amid unspeakable horrors, of the lives and liberties of twenty million Negroes for the American market alone, but political disintegration, social anarchy, moral and physical debasements.”

Two years after the Atlanta meeting, the African Association (AA) was formed in Britain on September 24, 1897 led by Barrister Henry Sylvester Williams, who was born in Trinidad. Minkah Makalani of Rutgers University wrote of the AA noting:

“[T]he Trinidadian barrister Henry Sylvester Williams began thinking about a political movement organized around a series of conferences that would draw representatives of the ‘African race from all the parts of the world.’ In September 1897, Williams established the African Association (AA) to ‘encourage a feeling of unity [and] facilitate friendly intercourse among Africans,’ and ‘promote and protect the interests of all subjects claiming African descent, wholly or in part, in British Colonies and other place, especially in Africa.’ Based in London, the AA published studies, news reports, and appeals to ‘Imperial and local governments.’ The AA’s leadership came from throughout the African diaspora: Rev. H. Mason Joseph of Antigua served as chairman; T. J. Thompson of Sierra Leone was deputy chairman, while the South African woman A. V. Kinloch was treasurer. As honorary secretary, Williams quickly directed the African Association into politics. In October of that year, he submitted a petition to Joseph Chamberlain, secretary of state for the colonies, to include a clause in the Rhodesian constitution to protect native Africans’ interests, respect their customs, create industrial schools, and teach “a simple and true Christianity.” News of the African Association’s lobbying British government and members of parliament on behalf of Africans spread throughout the continent and served as the basis for enthusiastic response from Africans toward the organization.”

Alice Kinloch and Addie B. Hutton: Pan-African Congresses From 1900-1927

Inns of Court law students Henry Sylvester Williams of Trinidad and Thomas John Thompson of Sierra Leone are often recognized as the principal organizers of the Pan-African Conference held in London during July 1900. This conference, which is also characterized as the First Pan-African Congress, was attended by Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, the Harvard graduate in history who wrote his Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard in 1896 on the Suppression of the African Slave Trade.

However, the formation of the African Association (AA) which organized the Pan-African Conference of July 1900, was encouraged by the work of a South African woman, Alice V. Kinloch, originally from Natal. It is possible that Kinloch traveled to Britain in 1895 with her mixed race husband Edmund, the offspring of a Scottish man and his Zulu wife. Edmund Kinloch had worked in the mining industry in South Africa.

In 1897, Kinloch met H.R. Fox Bourne, the Secretary of the Aborigines Rights Protection Society (ARPS) and was invited to deliver a lecture on the conditions of African workers in the mining industry in South Africa. A series of lectures were given in early May 1897 and attended by a large audiences’ at the Central Hall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the Friends’ Meeting House in York, and in Manchester. (David Killingray, South African Historical Journal, Vol. 64, Issue 3, Aug. 2012)

The theme for these discussions was “The Ill treatment of the Natives throughout South Africa, but principally on the Compound System as Obtains throughout the Mining Districts.” Mrs. Kinloch addressed a meeting in Newcastle on May 3, in York on May 4, and the following day in Manchester.

At the Newcastle-upon-Tyne gathering a resolution was passed emphasizing: “that this meeting having heard the statements of the present position from Mrs. Kinloch and Mr. Fox Bourne, calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to take such action as shall effectually stop the cruel and violent measures by which the native races in South Africa and elsewhere are being deprived of their lands and liberty.” Later the same year, Kinloch was invited by Jane Cobden Onwin to address the Writer’s Club in London, where her address, “Are South African Diamonds Worth their Cost?,” was eventually published as a pamphlet by the Labour Press in Manchester under the authorship of A.V. Alexander, her maiden name.

Williams in his correspondence to Harriette Colenso, written in June 1899, he conveys that “The Association is the result of Mrs. Kinloch’s work in England and the feeling that as British subjects we ought to be heard in our own affairs.” After the convening of the Pan-African Conference in 1900, the following year, Williams returned to Trinidad and Emmanuel Lazare, who introduced Williams at a public meeting in Port of Spain, recounted Kinloch’s pivotal role in the founding of the AA.

In an article published in the Quaker weekly, Alice Kinloch acknowledged that

“with some men of my race in this country, I have formed a society for the benefit of our people in Africa … I think the time has come for us to bear some of our responsibilities, and in so doing we will help the Aborigines’ Protection Society. I am trying to educate people in this country in regard to the iniquitous laws made for blacks in South Africa.”

Alice and Edmund Kinloch returned to South Africa in February 1898 and therefore were not present for the Pan-African Conference of 1900. Coming out of the London gathering was a further consolidation of the AA, which changed its name to the Pan-African Association (PAA). The organization published a short-lived journal called The Pan-African.

Two women who did present papers at the 1900 Pan-African Conference were Anna Julia Cooper whose topic was “The Negro Problem in America.” Another woman, Anna H. Jones of Missouri, was a leader in the State chapter of the NACWC. She delivered a paper on “The Preservation of Racial Equality.”

Williams returned to Britain to complete his examinations and was qualified as a lawyer. He practiced in the Cape Colony of South Africa during 1903-1905, becoming the first person of African descent under the colonial system to be admitted to the bar. Having taken a position against the racist colonial system, Williams was eventually banned from practicing law in South Africa and went back to live in Britain where he became involved in electoral politics.

He died in1911 in Trinidad at the relatively young age of 42. Williams’ death would place a damper on the development of the Pan-African Movement. Nevertheless as result of the rise of industrialization and the mass migration it fostered, African people were dislocated and dispersed into many other areas of the world.

The advent of World War I would spark a renewed sense of national consciousness and internationalism. In 1919, following the conclusion of the War and the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Versailles, DuBois and others reactivated the Pan-African struggle through the convening of the Pan-African Congress in Paris.

Addie Waites Hunton was a central figure in the development of the Pan-African Movement during this period. She was born in 1866 in Norfolk, Virginia to Jesse and Adeline Waites.

Waites earned a high school diploma at the Boston Latin School and in 1889 became the first African American woman to graduate from Spencerian College of Commerce in Philadelphia.

She would marry William Alpheus Hunton, Sr. in 1893. Hunton was a pioneer in the Young Men’s Christian Association’s (YMCA) work among Africans in the U.S.

The family moved to Atlanta, Georgia after their marriage, where Addie worked as a secretary at Clark College. Later in the aftermath of the 1906 race terror leveled against the African American community, the Huntons relocated to New York City. Between the years of 1906-1910, Addie Hunton worked as a staff organizer for the NACWC. In addition, she was a proponent of women’s suffrage advocating in the campaign for the ratification of the 19th amendment which granted the right to vote to white women. Hunton urged leaders in the white women’s movement to also support the abolition of disenfranchisement of African people as a whole in the U.S.

During the U.S. involvement in World War I, which came late towards the end of the imperialist conflagration, Hunt along with Kathryn Johnson, served on behalf of the YMCA in Paris, assisting the hundreds of thousands of African American troops deployed there. Hunton and Johnson published a book about their observations and experiences in France entitled “Two Colored Women With the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) released in 1920.

This book provides first-hand accounts of the horrendous conditions that the African American troops were subjected to during their terms of service in France. There was widespread discrimination by the U.S. armed forces where Black soldiers were routinely denied food, medical treatment and access to public accommodations.

Hunton attended the Pan-African Congress organized by W.E.B. Du Bois in Paris. The event has been labelled the Second Congress by historians. Du Bois requested the intervention of a Senegalese parliamentarian for the French assembly Blaise Diagne in order for the gathering to be held.

According to Du Bois:

“Diagne secured the consent of Clemenceau to our holding a Pan-African Congress, but we then encountered the opposition of most of the countries in the world to allowing delegates to attend. Few could come from Africa; passports were refused to American Negroes and English whites. The Congress therefore, which met in 1919, was confined to those representatives of African groups who happened to be stationed in Paris for various reasons. This Congress represented Africa partially. Of the fifty-seven delegates from fifteen countries, nine were from African countries with twelve delegates. Of the remaining delegates, sixteen were from the United States and twenty-one from the West Indies.” (Andrew G. Paschal, Editor, A W.E.B. Du Bois Reader, 1971, p. 242)

In addition to the participation of Addie W. Hunton, another African American woman, Ida Gibbs Hunt, the daughter of a U.S. diplomat who had been stationed in Madagascar, delivered a paper at the 1919 Congress. Ida Alexander Gibbs was born November 16, 1862 in Victoria, British Columbia in Canada.

Gibbs later attended and earned both bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Oberlin College in Ohio in 1884. She became an instructor at the M Street High School in Washington, D.C. Gibbs retired from teaching after marrying career diplomat William Henry Hunt in 1904.

Although she traveled with her husband in his diplomatic assignments, she continued the activism in the areas of civil rights, women’s affairs and Pan-Africanism. An entry on the Black Past website notes: “In 1905, she joined a handful of black women in founding the first Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) in Washington, D.C. for African Americans. She participated in the Niagara Movement, the Femmes de France, the Bethel Literary Society, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Washington Welfare Association, the Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom, and the Red Cross.” (http://www.blackpast.org/aah/hunt-ida-alexander-gibbs-1862-1957)

This same biography continues saying:

“While traveling abroad with her husband, Ida Gibbs Hunt published various articles and wrote reviews on literary and cultural themes. She also wrote and gave speeches in support of peace, women’s suffrage, and civil rights for African Americans. She was able to promote her ideals internationally, an influence no doubt from her husband and father who had been diplomats. Ida Hunt was the assistant secretary for the Second Pan-African Congress in Paris in 1919. She delivered a paper entitled “The Coloured Races and the League of Nations” at the Third Pan-African Congress in London in 1923 and co-chaired the Conference’s Executive Committee with W.E.B. DuBois. Ida Gibbs Hunt died in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 19, 1957.”

1919 was a tumultuous year in the U.S. as it relates to race relations. A series of race riots occurred with the largest and most deadly being in Chicago, Illinois. African American troops who had served in France were not about to suffer the same indignations as their ancestors. Out of the 1919 disturbances came a plethora of political, cultural and literary outpourings popularly known as the Harlem Renaissance.

Marcus Garvey, the Jamaican-born Pan-African propagandist and organizer, established his headquarters in New York City after coming to the U.S. in 1916. By 1920, his organization, the Universal Negro Improvement Association and the African Communities League (UNIA-ACL) had gained the membership and support of millions throughout the U.S. the Caribbean and Central America.

In 1921, Du Bois sought to organize another Pan-African Congress, known as the second, through a succession of meetings in London, Brussels and Paris. The editor of the Crisis Magazine of the NAACP, worked to build a broader representation for the movement. He would invite people from various geo-political regions of the world to the meetings that did convene in England, Belgium and France during August and September of that year.

At the meeting there were 113 delegates who attended, forty-one of which originated from the African continent, thirty-five from the U.S., twenty-four living in Europe and seven more with Caribbean nationalities. Much emphasis was placed on condemning the atrocities committed by the Belgian colonial authorities in Congo where millions were slaughtered during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

By 1923, Addie W. Hunton had focused her attention on the world peace movement seeing a direct link between the ending of imperialist war and national liberation of the colonial territories as well as the African American people. A secretariat was established in Paris in the aftermath of the 1921 Congress which gained limited success. By 1923, the funding for the Pan-African Movement was largely carried out by the International Women’s Circle for Peace and Foreign Relations which made it possible for Du Bois to travel to London and Lisbon for the holding of the Third Pan-African Congress.

Du Bois sought to hold another Pan-African Congress, considered the fourth, in 1925. However, the venture gained insufficient support for it to be realized. The Circle for Peace and Foreign Relations took up the cause in 1925 pledging to raise the funds for the convening of the Fourth Congress in New York City in August 1927.

Du Bois was forced to admit in 1955 that: “In 1927, American Negro women revived the Congress idea and a fourth Pan-African Congress was held in New York. Thirteen countries were represented, but direct African participation lagged. There were two hundred eight delegates from twenty-two American states and ten foreign countries. Africa was sparsely represented by representatives from the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria, Chief Amoah II of the Gold Coast, and Anthropologist like Herskovits, then at Columbia, and Mensching of Germany and John Vandercook were on the program.” (Du Bois taken from Pan-Africanism: A Mission in My Life, 1955)

In an article published by the New York Amsterdam News on August 23, it reported: “For the afternoon the Congress considered African Missions, with Coralie Franklin Cook in the chair. Helen Curtis gave the principal address, in which the missionary opportunities were stressed. She believes that the responsibility of Africa’s redemption rests with the Negro race in America. She pleaded that hard economic opportunities and climatic conditions as arresting agents of the native’s progress. She thought that the churches carrying on missionary labors ought to be diligent in sending supplies and money promptly and ought to pay the workers’ living wage.”

The Congress was convened on August 21, 1927 and lasted until the August 24. There was an impressive list of members, hosts and speakers for the event.

Proceedings were held in several churches throughout the city. Thousands were in attendance over the course of four days. Although there were 208 official delegates, mass participation at the venues were estimated at 5,000 people. This was the largest of such Pan-African gathering since the New York UNIA-ACL Convention of 1920 and the Chicago Congress on Africa held in 1893.

Delegates to the Fourth Pan-African Congress passed resolutions and made demands on the imperialist powers. The gathering reaffirmed the manifestos of the previously held Congresses.

The Congress once again upheld the rights of Africans to land, universal suffrage, and quality education. Delegates called for all Africans to be recognized “as civilized men despite differences of birth, race or color.” The participants rejected the U.S. occupation of Haiti as well as the continuing white minority rule in South Africa. They demanded genuine liberation and sovereignty for Egypt, emphasizing that imperialism was incompatible with democracy.

There was support given to the League Against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression which had held a conference in Belgium earlier that year in February. The resolution was motivated by Richard B. Moore, then a lead organizer in the Communist Party in the U.S. The League Against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression was aligned with the Communist International based in Moscow of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and was headed by German Communist Willi Muzenberg.

Conclusion

It would be another eighteen years before the Fifth Pan-African Congress was held in Manchester, England in October 1945. This event ushered in a new phase of anti-colonial militancy leading to the advances in the national independence movements of the late 1940s through the 1970s.

Nonetheless, interest in continental affairs among African Americans and Caribbean Africans would continue during the 1930s, particularly as a result of the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935. Both Communist and Nationalist organizations in the U.S. advocated against the role of Italy in Abyssinia leading to a rebellion in Harlem.

In Britain, C.L.R. James along with George Padmore and Amy Ashwood Garvey, would establish the International African Service Bureau (IASB) in the late 1930s. In the U.S., the Council on African Affairs (CAA) was formed by Paul Robeson, W.E.B. Du Bois and Max Yergan in 1937. Later, William Alpheus Hunton, Jr., the son of Addie W. Hunton, became the executive secretary of the CAA in 1943, working full time for African liberation until the mid-1950s when the CAA was dissolved due to government repression. Hunton would spend several months in prison for refusing to turn over documents to the government seeking to prove that the organization was a front for the Communist Party.

Hunton, who held a Ph.D from New York University, resigned from his academic career at Howard University to devote his complete attention to African solidarity work beginning in 1943. Prompted by the Rand Miners’ strike of 1946, thousands of people were mobilized for a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York in support of the African workers.

In 1957, he published his classic work, “Decision in Africa: Sources of the Current Conflict”, which prefigured the academic work of Walter Rodney of Guyana, whose “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, published in 1972 in Tanzania, had a tremendous impact on the overall perspectives of African revolutionaries in relationship to imperialism.

Hunton left the U.S. in 1960 to settle in Guinea-Conakry under the leadership of President Ahmed Sekou Toure, the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG). Later he would move to Ghana under the leadership of President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of the Convention People’s Party (CPP). He joined W.E.B. Du Bois, who had become a citizen of the country, in establishing the Encyclopedia Africana Project in 1962. Hunton left Ghana after the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and U.S. State Department engineered coup against the CPP government in February 1966. He died in Zambia in 1970.

Women played an instrumental role in both the formation of the Pan-African Movement from the late 19th century through the national liberation struggles of the middle to late 20th century. In Ghana, South Africa, Egypt, Guinea, Algeria, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other states, women were at the forefront of the independence efforts in the areas of mass mobilization, political education, armed struggle and national reconstruction.

In the U.S., it was the activities of women such as Mamie Till Mobley, Rosa L. Parks, Jo Ann Robinson, Ella Baker, Diane Nash, Fannie Lou Hamer, Septima Clark, Gloria Richardson, among many others, who provided the social impetus for the reemergence of the Civil Rights and Black Power struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. Since the 1960s and 1970s, consciousness related to the essential role of women in popular movements and intellectual culture has grown immensely.

This review of the philosophical and political contributions of women as it relates to the organizational origins of Pan-Africanism from the 1890s to the conclusion of the 1920s provides a glimpse of the significance of these issues. Much more work is needed by scholars, journalists and activists in uncovering and exposing this important history to wider audiences including emerging generations of revolutionaries within the western industrialized states and the broader world.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Women’s Day 2023: Post Slavery Feminist Thought and the Pan-African Struggle (1892-1927): From Anna J. Cooper to Addie W. Hunton

Is Putin the New Coronavirus?

March 8th, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

 

President Biden’s “maskless” State of the Union signifies the near-end of the COVID tyranny we have lived under for the past two years. Fortunately for Congress, the President, and the Federal Reserve, the Ukraine-Russia conflict is replacing COVID as a ready-made excuse for their failures and a justification for expanding their power.

Even before politicians began declaring the end of the pandemic, polls showed that rising prices were the people’s top concern – particularly the increase in gas prices. Since Russia is one of the world’s leading energy producers, sanctions imposed on Russia, as well as Germany’s decision (made under pressure from the US) to shut down the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, provide a convenient excuse for rising gas prices. This is the case even though the US, citing the “instability” in world energy markets created by the Russian-Ukraine conflict, has yet to officially ban imports of Russian oil.

The Federal Reserve has been planning several interest rate increases this year, even though some fear that rate increases could decrease growth and increase unemployment. The Russian crisis allows the Fed to either postpone rate increases or blame Russia for any unemployment that accompanies the rate increases. Either way, the Fed can use the crisis to deflect attention away from its responsibility for our economic problems. As of now, it appears the Fed will go through with at least a modest rate increase this month, but because of the Ukraine crisis, the increase will be smaller than previously expected.The Ukraine crisis also provides an excuse for Congress to do what Congress does best: increase federal spending. President Biden has requested Congress provide an additional $10 billion in emergency military aid to Ukraine. Congress will likely quickly approve the President’s request. This will not likely be the last time Congress rushes billions of “emergency” money to Ukraine.

It is also certain that lobbyists for the military-industrial-complex are already “explaining” to a very receptive Capitol Hill audience why the Ukraine crisis justifies increasing the military budget to “counter the threats” from Russia, China, and whoever else can serve as a convenient boogeyman. It is unlikely there will be much resistance in Congress to a further increase, even though the US already spends more than the combined defense budgets of the next nine biggest spending countries.

Over the past two years, many leading Internet companies did the government’s bidding by “de-platforming” anyone who expressed skepticism of vaccines or promoted alternative treatments — even when they presented evidence to support their claims. These companies are once again helping the government by de-platforming those who question, or are suspected of questioning, the official narrative regarding Ukraine. Yet these companies’ concerns with “fake news” have not led them to stop people from sharing widely debunked stories supporting the US-backed Ukrainian government.

The lockdown and mandates did more harm than the coronavirus itself. They were based on lies promoted by the government and its allies in the “private” sector. Yet too many Americans refuse to even question the US government’s claims regarding the Ukraine crisis or question whether Russia is really responsible for our economic problems as opposed to a spendthrift Congress, successive spendthrift Presidents, and an out-of-control Federal Reserve. The only way to stop authoritarians from using crises like these to grow their power is to make enough people understand a simple truth: authoritarian politicians will always lie to the people to protect and increase their own power.

*

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

Featured image is from Pixabay

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


The USA Today reported that a photo that went viral about a high-rise in the Ukraine being hit by Russian bombing turned out to be a high-rise from the Gaza Strip, demolished by the Israeli Air Force in May 2021. A few days before that, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister complained to the Israeli ambassador in Kiev that “you’re treating us like Gaza”; he was furious that Israel did not condemn the Russian invasion and was only interested in evicting Israeli citizens from the state (Haaretz, February 17, 2022). It was a mixture of reference to the Ukrainian evacuation of Ukrainian spouses of Palestinian men from the Gaza Strip in May 2021, as well as a reminder to Israel of the Ukrainian president’s full support for Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip in that month (I will return to that support towards the end of this piece).

Israel’s assaults on Gaza should, indeed, be mentioned and considered when evaluating the present crisis in the Ukraine. It is not a coincidence that photos are being confused – there are not many high-rises that were toppled in the Ukraine, but there is an abundance of ruined high-rises in the Gaza Strip. However, it is not only the hypocrisy about Palestine that emerges when we consider the Ukraine crisis in a wider context; it is the overall Western double standards that should be scrutinized, without, for one moment, being indifferent to news and images coming to us from the war zone in the Ukraine: traumatized children, streams of refugees, sights of buildings ruined by bombing and the looming danger that this is only the beginning of a human catastrophe at the heart of Europe.

At the same time, those of us experiencing, reporting and digesting the human catastrophes in Palestine cannot escape the hypocrisy of the West and we can point to it without belittling, for a moment, our human solidarity and empathy with victims of any war. We need to do this, since the moral dishonesty underwriting the deceitful agenda set by the Western political elites and media will once more allow them to hide their own racism and impunity as it will continue to provide immunity for Israel and its oppression of the Palestinians. I detected four false assumptions which are at the heart of the Western elite’s engagement with the Ukraine crisis, so far, and have framed them as four lessons.

Lesson One: White Refugees are Welcome; Others Less So

The unprecedented collective EU decision to open up its borders to the Ukrainian refugees, followed by a more guarded policy by Britain, cannot go unnoticed in comparison to the closure of most of the European gates to the refugees coming from the Arab world and Africa since 2015.  The clear racist prioritization, distinguishing between life seekers on the basis of color, religion and ethnicity is abhorrent, but unlikely to change very soon. Some European leaders are not even ashamed to broadcast their racism publicly as does the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Kiril Petkov:

“These [the Ukrainian refugees] are not the refugees we are used to … these people are Europeans. These people are intelligent, they are educated people. … This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists…”

He is not alone. The Western media talks about “our kind of refugees” all the time, and this racism is manifested clearly on the border crossings between the Ukraine and its European neighbours. This racist attitude, with strong Islamophobic undertones, is not going to change, since the European leadership is still denying the multi-ethnic and multicultural fabric of societies all over the continent. A human reality created by years of European colonialism and imperialism that the current European governments deny and ignore and, at the same time, these governments pursue immigration policies that are based on the very same racism that permeated the colonialism and imperialism of the past.

Lesson Two: You Can Invade Iraq but not the Ukraine

The Western media’s unwillingness to contextualize the Russian decision to invade within a wider – and obvious – analysis of how the rules of the international game changed in 2003 is quite bewildering. It is difficult to find any analysis that points to the fact that the US and Britain violated international law on a state’s sovereignty when their armies, with a coalition of Western countries, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.  Occupying a whole country for the sake of political ends was not invented in this century by Vladimir Putin; it was introduced as a justified tool of policy by the West.

Lesson Three: Sometimes Neo-Nazism Can Be Tolerated

The analysis also fails to highlight some of Putin’s valid points about the Ukraine; which by no means justify the invasion, but need our attention even during the invasion.  Up to the present crisis, the progressive Western media outlets, such as The Nation, the Guardian, the Washington Post etc., warned us about the growing power of neo-Nazi groups in the Ukraine that could impact the future of Europe and beyond. The same outlets today dismiss the significance of neo-Nazism in the Ukraine.

The Nation on February 22, 2019 reported:

“Today, increasing reports of far-right violence, ultra nationalism and erosion of basic freedoms are giving the lie to the West’s initial euphoria. There are neo-Nazi pogroms against the Roma, rampant attacks on feminists and LGBT groups, book bans, and state-sponsored glorification of Nazi collaborators.”

Two years earlier, the Washington Post (June 15, 2017) warned, very perceptively, that a Ukrainian clash with Russia should not allow us to forget about the power of neo-Nazism in the Ukraine:

“As Ukraine’s fight against Russian-supported separatists continues, Kiev faces another threat to its long-term sovereignty: powerful right-wing ultra-nationalist groups. These groups are not shy about using violence to achieve their goals, which are certainly at odds with the tolerant Western-oriented democracy Kiev ostensibly seeks to become.”

However, today, the Washington Post adopts a dismissive attitude and calls such a description as a “false accusation”:

“Operating in Ukraine are several nationalist paramilitary groups, such as the Azov movement and Right Sector, that espouse neo-Nazi ideology. While high-profile, they appear to have little public support. Only one far-right party, Svoboda, is represented in Ukraine’s parliament, and only holds one seat.”

The previous warnings of an outlet such as The Hill (November 9, 2017), the largest independent news site in the USA, are forgotten:

“There are, indeed, neo-Nazi formations in Ukraine. This has been overwhelmingly confirmed by nearly every major Western outlet. The fact that analysts are able to dismiss it as propaganda disseminated by Moscow is profoundly disturbing. It is especially disturbing given the current surge of neo-Nazis and white supremacists across the globe.”

Lesson Four: Hitting High-rises is only a War Crime in Europe

The Ukrainian establishment does not only have a connection with these neo-Nazi groups and armies, it is also disturbingly and embarrassingly pro-Israeli.  One of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s first acts was to withdraw the Ukraine from the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People – the only international tribunal that makes sure the Nakba is not denied or forgotten.

The decision was initiated by the Ukrainian President; he had no sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian refugees, nor did he consider them to be victims of any crime. In his interviews after the last barbaric Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip in May 2021, he stated that the only tragedy in Gaza was the one suffered by the Israelis.  If this is so, than it is only the Russians who suffer in the Ukraine.

But Zelensky is not alone. When it comes to Palestine, the hypocrisy reaches a new level. One empty high-rise hit in the Ukraine dominated the news and prompted deep analysis about human brutality, Putin and inhumanity. These bombings should be condemned, of course, but it seems that those leading the condemnation among world leaders were silent when Israel flattened the town of Jenin in 2000, the Al-Dahaya neighborhood in Beirut in 2006 and the city of Gaza in one brutal wave after the other, over the past fifteen years. No sanctions, whatsoever, were even discussed, let alone imposed, on Israel for its war crimes in 1948 and ever since. In fact, in most of the Western countries which are leading the sanctions against Russia today, even mentioning the possibility of imposing sanctions against Israel is illegal and framed as anti-Semitic.

Even when genuine human solidarity in the West is justly expressed with the Ukraine, we cannot overlook its racist context and Europe-centric bias. The massive solidarity of the West is reserved for whoever is willing to join its bloc and sphere of influence. This official empathy is nowhere to be found when similar, and worse, violence is directed against non-Europeans, in general, and towards the Palestinians, in particular.

We can navigate as conscientious persons between our responses to calamities and our responsibility to point out hypocrisy that in many ways paved the way for such catastrophes. Legitimizing internationally the invasion of sovereign countries and licensing the continued colonization and oppression of others, such as Palestine and its people, will lead to more tragedies, such as the Ukrainian one, in the future, and everywhere on our planet.

*

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

Ilan Pappé is a professor at the University of Exeter. He was formerly a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Haifa. He is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, The Modern Middle East, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, and Ten Myths about Israel. Pappé is described as one of Israel’s ‘New Historians’ who, since the release of pertinent British and Israeli government documents in the early 1980s, have been rewriting the history of Israel’s creation in 1948. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Featured image: Israeli warplanes attacked hundreds of towers and civilian ‘targets’ in the Gaza Strip. (Photo: Mahmoud Ajjour, The Palestine Chronicle)

Video: More War… on Ukrainians, on Palestinians

March 8th, 2022 by If Americans Knew

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

The singing in this video is by Eliska Sykorova, a Czech singer-songwriter based in Prague. She first posted this song on her YouTube channel, entitled “Stop the war!

The song was written by Ed McCurdy in 1950 – more information here.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

The Pfizer Vaccine Only Has 1,291 Side Effects!

By Emerald Robinson, March 07, 2022

The FDA was forced by a judge to release clinical data on the COVID vaccines back in January and so 55,000 pages of documents were just released. The FDA had originally wanted to hide the data for 75 years and release it in 2096 because, of course, the FDA is basically engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

“Preemptive Nuclear War”: A Third World War Spells the End of Humanity as We Know It.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 07, 2022

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.

Reflections on War, Injections, and Terror at This Crossroads in History

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, March 07, 2022

While experts in “perception management” are using the media to lure the public into single-minded condemnation of Russia, our attention is being drawn away from stunning revelations coming to light in our midst.

Not by Bread Alone, but Mainly by Platitudes. “National Borders”

By Dr. T. P. Wilkinson, March 07, 2022

Unlike many who seem to believe that freedom of movement (since 2020 extinguished in the EU) must mean an end to national borders, I have only felt that borders should be recognised as the product of political will and history.

United States Plans to Step Up Its Economic War Against China

By Dr. Leon Tressell, March 07, 2022

The attempt by the United States to confront, contain and undermine the economies of both Russia and China continues unabated. Having instituted an economic war against Russia through its sanctions the US is also seeking to step up its offensive against China’s economy.

A Concrete Solution to the Ukrainian Crisis and an End to the Threat of World War

By Emanuel Pastreich, March 07, 2022

The sudden media frenzy over the move of Russia’s military into the Ukraine in defense of Donetsk and Lugansk, the Donbass region featuring a largely Russian-speaking population, is deeply disorienting for us. We already know from the last few years, and from the last twenty years, that journalism, globally, is dead and that little of the information that we receive is reliable.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and International Law. Prof. Francis Boyle

By Prof. Francis A. Boyle and Dennis Bernstein, March 07, 2022

Now, that was not put into writing, but under basic principles of international law that I teach to my students, oral commitments made by high level government officials such as Secretary of States, Prime Ministers, etc., are binding under international law. So, the Soviets had a binding commitment from the United States and several of these other European states that NATO would not move to the east.

Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, March 07, 2022

The facts surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s origin just keep getting stranger and more disturbing as time goes on. From the start, most of the evidence seemed to point to the virus being a lab creation that somehow escaped the confines of the laboratory. We really don’t have much of anything to suggest otherwise.

Report of Toddler’s Death Disappears from VAERS and CDC Has No Records as to Why!

By Informed Consent Action Network, March 07, 2022

The report described an extremely disturbing incident wherein a two-year-old boy “began bleeding out of the mouth, eyes, nose and ears within six hours” of his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on November 18, 2021, and died later that night.

Russia Crisis Sends U.S. Officials to Venezuela to Meet with Maduro

By Michael Wilner and Antonio Maria Delgado, March 07, 2022

Top U.S. officials traveled to Caracas over the weekend to gauge whether the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro might be willing to distance itself from Russia over the invasion of Ukraine, in exchange for an easing of U.S. sanctions on its oil sector.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Pfizer Vaccine Only Has 1,291 Side Effects!

The article by Prof Peter Dale Scott published on January 22, 2011, pointed to the shrinking of democracy and the military industrial complex which in recent developments characterizes US-NATO intervention in Ukraine as part of an unfolding global crisis.

***

I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”Senator Frank Church (1975)

 

In recent years I have become more and more concerned with the interactions between three important and alarming trends in recent American history. The first is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, even obsession, to involve itself in needless and pernicious wars. The second, closely related, is the progressive shrinking of public politics and the rule of law as they are subordinated, even domestically, to the requirements of covert U.S. operations abroad.

The third, also closely related, is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history and the global extension of American power, of what I have called deep events. These events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in media and internal government records.

One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all three deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1980s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially as “the Doomsday Project.” The implementation of COG plans on 9/11, or what I call Doomsday Power, was the culmination of three decades of such planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes designed for domination abroad.

Writing about these deep events as they occurred over the decades, I have been interested in the interrelations among them. It is now possible to show how each was related both to those preceding it, and those which followed.

I would like in this essay to go further and propose a framework to analyze the on-going forces underlying all of the most important deep events, and how they have contributed to the political ascendance of what used to be called the military-industrial complex.  I hope to describe certain impersonal governing laws that determine the socio-dynamics of all large-scale societies (often called empires) that deploy their surplus of power to expand beyond their own borders and force their will on other peoples. This process of expansion generates predictable trends of behavior in the institutions of all such societies, and also in the individuals competing for advancement in those institutions. In America it has converted the military-industrial complex from a threat at the margins of the established civil order, to a pervasive force dominating that order.

 

President Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1961 warned that “We must guard against the unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex.”

With this framework I hope to persuade readers that in some respects our recent history is simpler than it appears on the surface and in the media. Our society, by its very economic successes and consequent expansion, has been breeding impersonal forces both outside and within itself that are changing it from a bottom-up elective democracy into a top-down empire. And among these forces are those that produce deep events.

I am far from alone in seeing this degradation of America’s policies and political processes. A similar pattern, reflecting the degradation of earlier empires, was described at length by the late Chalmers Johnson:

The evidence is building up that in the decade following the end of the Cold War, the United States largely abandoned a reliance on diplomacy, economic aid, international law, and multilateral institutions in carrying out its foreign policies and resorted much of the time to bluster, military force, and financial manipulation.

But my analysis goes beyond that of Johnson, Kevin Phillips, Andrew Bacevich, and other analysts, in proposing that three major deep events – Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11 – were not just part of this degradation of American democracy, but played a significant role in shaping it.

As author Michael Lind has observed, there have for a long time been two prevailing and different political cultures in America, underlying political differences in the American public, and even dividing different sectors of the American government.  One culture is predominantly egalitarian and democratic, working for the legal consolidation of human rights both at home and abroad. The other, less recognized but with deep historical roots, prioritizes and teaches the use of repressive violence against both domestic and Third World populations to maintain “order.”

To some extent these two mindsets are found in all societies. They correspond to two opposing modes of power and governance that were defined by Hannah Arendt as “persuasion through arguments” versus “coercion by force.” Arendt, following Thucydides, traced these to the common Greek way of handling domestic affairs, which was persuasion (πείθειν) as well as the common way of handling foreign affairs, which was force and violence (βία).”

 

Hannah Arendt

Writing amid the protests and riots of the 1960s, Arendt feared that traditional authority was at risk, threatened (in her eyes) by the contemporary “loss of tradition and of religion.” A half century later, I would argue that a far greater danger to social equilibrium comes now from those on the right who invoke authority in the name of tradition and religion. With America’s huge expansion into the enterprise of covertly dominating and exploiting the rest of the world, the open processes of persuasion, which have been America’s traditional ideal for handling domestic affairs, have increasingly tilted towards top-down violence.

This tilt towards violent or repressive power is defended rhetorically as a means to preserve social stability, but in fact it threatens it. As Kevin Phillips and others have demonstrated, empires built on violent or repressive power tend to rise and then fall, often with surprising rapidity.  Underlying the discussion in this essay is the thesis that repressive power is unstable, creating dialectical forces both within and outside its system. Externally, repressive power helps create its own enemies, as happened with Britain (in India), France (in Indochina) and the Netherlands (in Indonesia).

The Socio-dynamics of Repressive Power in Large-scale Societies

But more dangerous and destabilizing has been the conversion of those empires themselves, into hubristic mechanisms of war. The fall of Periclean Athens, which inspired Thucydides’ reflections, is a case in point. Thucydides described how Athens was undone by the overreaching greed (pleonexia) of its unnecessary Sicilian expedition, a folly presaging America’s follies in Vietnam and Iraq. Thucydides attributed the rise of this folly in the rapid change in Athens after the death of Pericles, and in particular to the rise of a rapacious oligarchy.  Paul Kennedy, Kevin Phillips, and Chalmers Johnson have described the recreation of this process in the Roman, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and British empires.  Its recurrence again in recent American history corroborates that there is a self-propelling dynamic of power that becomes repressive.

It is useful to be reminded of the historical division between two cultures in America, which both underlay and predated the Civil War. But these two cultures have evolved and been reinforced by many factors. For example urbanization in America’s South and West worked for most of the 20th century to meld the two cultures, but after about 1980 the increasing disparity of wealth in America tended to separate them to an extent recalling the Gilded Age of the 19th century.

More importantly, postwar U.S. history has seen the institutions of domestic self-government steadily displaced by an array of new institutions, like the CIA and Pentagon, adapted first to the repressive dominance and control of foreign populations abroad, and now increasingly dominant domestically. The manipulative ethos of this repressive bureaucracy promotes and corrupts those who, in order to be promoted, internalize the culture of repressive dominance into a mindset.

The egalitarian mindset is widely shared among Americans. But Washington today is securely in the hands of the global repressive dominance mindset, and a deepening of the military-industrial complex into what in my most recent book I call the American war machine. This transformation of America represents a major change in our society. When Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex in 1961 it was still a minority element in our political economy. Today it finances and dominates both parties, and indeed is now also financing threats to both parties from the right, as well as dominating our international policy. As a result, liberal Republicans are as scarce in the Republican Party today as Goldwater Republicans were scarce in that party back in 1960.

That change has been achieved partly by money, but partly as a result of deep events like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, and 9/11. As a rule, each of these deep events is attributed by our government and media to marginal outsiders, like Lee Harvey Oswald, or the nineteen alleged plane hijackers.

I have long been skeptical of these “lone nut” explanations, but recently my skepticism has advanced to another level. My research over four decades points to the conclusion that each of these deep events

1) was carried out, at least in part, by individuals in and out of government who shared and sought to promote this repressive mindset;

2) enhanced the power of the repressive mindset within the U.S. government;

3) formed another stage in a continuous narrative whose result has been a transformation of America, into a social system dominated from above, rather than governed from below.

Please note that I am talking about the result of this continuous narrative, not about its purpose. In saying that these deep events have contributed collectively to a major change in American society, I am not attributing them all to a single manipulative “secret team.” Rather I see them as flowing from the workings of repressive power itself, which (as history has shown many times) transforms both societies with surplus power and also the individuals exercising that surplus power.

We are conditioned to think that the open institutions of American governance could not possibly provide a milieu for plots like 9/11 against public order. But since World War Two covert U.S. agencies like the CIA have helped create an alternative world where power is exercised with minimal oversight, often at odds with public agencies’ proclaimed policy objectives of law and order, and often in conjunction with lawless and even criminal foreign and domestic elements.

The expansion of this covert world has occurred principally in Asia. There covert U.S. decisions were made to build up drug-financed armies in Burma, Thailand, and Laos, in a series of aggressive actions that by the 1960s involved America in a hot Indochina War. This war, like the related wars that ensued later in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, was initiated by America for a mix of geostrategic and economic reasons, above all the desire to establish a dominant U.S. presence an important region of petroleum reserves.

 

Air America at Sam Thong, Laos, 1961

The country most deeply affected by the succession of Asian Wars has been America itself. Its expansive forces, backed by powerful interest groups, are now out of control, as our managers, like other empire managers before them, have “come to believe that there is nowhere within their domain – in our case, nowhere on earth – in which their presence is not crucial.”7

To illustrate this, loss of control, let us look for a moment at a milieu which I believe to have been an important factor in all of America’s major domestic deep events: the CIA’s ongoing interactions with the global drug connection.

Unaccountable Power: The CIA and the Return of the Global Drug Connection

Since World War Two the CIA has made systematic use of drug trafficking forces to increase its covert influence — first in Thailand and Burma, then in Laos and Vietnam, and most recently in Afghanistan.8 With America’s expansion overseas, we have seen more and more covert programs and agencies, all using drug traffickers to different and opposing ends.

In 2004 Time and USA Today ran major stories about two of the chief Afghan drug traffickers, Haji Juma Khan and Haji Bashir Noorzai, alleging that each was supporting al-Qaeda, and that Khan in particular “has helped al-Qaeda establish a smuggling network that is peddling Afghan heroin to buyers across the Middle East, Asia and Europe.”9 Later it was revealed that both traffickers were simultaneously CIA assets, and that Khan in particular was “paid a large amount of cash by the United States,” even while he was reportedly helping al-Qaeda to establish smuggling networks.10

There is no longer anything surprising in the news that large U.S. payments were made to a drug trafficker who was himself funding the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The arrangement is no more bizarre than the CIA’s performance during the U.S. “war on drugs” in Venezuela in the 1990s, when the CIA first set up an anti-drug unit in Venezuela, and then helped its chief, Gen. Ramon Guillén Davila, smuggle at least one ton of pure cocaine into Miami International Airport.11

It would be easy to conclude from these reports that the CIA and Pentagon intentionally use drugs to help finance the enemy networks that justify their overseas operations. Yet I doubt that such a cynical Machiavellian objective is ever consciously voiced by those responsible in Washington.

More likely, it is an inevitable consequence of the U.S. repressive style of conducting covert operations. Great emphasis is put on recruiting covert assets; and in unstable areas with weak governance, drug traffickers with their own ample funds and repressive networks are the most obvious candidates for recruitment by the CIA. The traffickers in turn are happy to become U.S. assets, because this status affords them at least a temporary immunity from U.S. prosecution.12

In a nutshell: I am describing a development that is not so much intentional, as a consequence of repressive dynamics. A related example would be the CIA’s recurring use of double agents, again for the reason just suggested. In the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, the chief planner was a double agent, Ali Mohammed, who surveyed the Embassy and reported to Osama bin Laden in 1993, just months after the FBI had ordered the Canadian RCMP to release him from detention.13 In the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008, the scene was initially surveyed for the attackers by a DEA double agent, David Headley (alias Daood Sayed Gilani) whom “U.S. authorities sent … to work for them in Pakistan…despite a warning that he sympathized with radical Islamic groups.”14

 

David Headley in court

The central point is that expansion beyond a nation’s borders engenders a pattern of repressive power with predictable results — results that transcend the conscious intentions of anyone within that repressive power system. Newly formed and ill-supervised agencies spawn contradictory policies abroad, the net effect of which is usually both expansive and deleterious – not just to the targeted nation but also to America.

This is especially true of covert agencies, whose practice of secrecy means that controversial policies proliferate without either coordination or review. Asia in particular has been since 1945 the chief area where the CIA has ignored or overridden the policy directives of the State Department. As I document in American War Machine, CIA interventions in Asia, especially those that escalated into the Laotian, Vietnam, and Afghan wars, fostered an ongoing global CIA drug connection, or what I have called elsewhere a dark quadrant of unaccountable power.

This drug connection, richly endowed with huge resources and its own resources of illegal violence, has a major stake in both American interventions and above all unwinnable wars to aggravate the conditions of regional lawlessness that are needed for drug trafficking. Thus it makes perfect sense that the global drug connection has, as I believe, been an ongoing factor in the creation of an overseas American empire that most U.S. citizens never asked for. More specifically, the dark quadrant has contributed to all the major deep events – including Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11, that have helped militarize America and overshadow its public institutions.

Doomsday Power and the Military Occupation of America

I have said that, underlying the surface of America’s major deep events, there has been a pattern of conflict between two mindsets – that of openness and that of repressive dominance – dating back to the Civil War and the Indian wars of the mid-nineteenth century (and before that to the American Revolution).15 But it would be wrong to conclude from this on-going pattern of conflict that there is nothing new in our current situation. On the contrary, America is in the midst of a new crisis arising from this very old antagonism.

Since World War Two, secrecy has been used to accumulate new covert bureaucratic powers under the guise of emergency planning for disasters, planning known inside and outside the government as the “Doomsday Project.” Known more recently (and misleadingly) as “Continuity of Government” (COG) planning, the Doomsday Project, under the guiding hands in the 1980s of Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and others, became the vehicle on 9/11 for a significant change of government. This package of extreme repressive power accumulated under the guise of the Doomsday Project can be referred to as Doomsday Power. In concrete terms, the repressive power developed to control the rest of the world is now, to an unprecedented extent, treating America itself as an occupied territory.

What I mean by “doomsday power” is the package of repressive mechanisms (which I have discussed elsewhere under their official name of “continuity of government” or COG plans), that was prepared over two decades by the elite COG planning group, and then implemented beginning on 9/11. The package includes 1) warrantless surveillance, 2) warrantless detention, (including unprecedented abridgments of the right to habeas corpus), and 3) unprecedented steps towards the militarization of domestic security enforcement and shrinking of the posse comitatus acts.

One recent development of Doomsday power, for example, has been the deployment since 2008 of a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team to be stationed permanently in the United States. A major part of its dedicated assignment is to be “called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”16 Many people seem to be unaware that Americans, together with this Brigade, have lived since 2002 under a U.S. Army Command called NORTHCOM.17 Yet if nothing is done to change the present course of events, historians may come some day to compare the stationing of this brigade in 2008 CE to the date, in 49 BCE, when Caesar, along with his legion, crossed the Rubicon.

And I believe that the forces that have worked for decades to create Doomsday power have, like the global drug connection, been involved in every one of the deep events, from Dallas to 9/11, that have helped bring us here.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. Peter Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Notes

1 Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt, 2000), 217. Cf. Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan/Henry Holt, 2004).

2 Michael Lind, Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics (New York: Basic Books, 2003), 143.

3 Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 93. Adapting Arendt’s distinction, Jonathan Schell made a Gandhian case in support of nonviolent persuasive or community power as a means of challenging top-down violent power and thus reforming the world. I developed this case myself in The Road to 9/11 (Jonathan Schell, The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People [New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2003], 227-31; Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, 249-66, 269).

4 Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (New York: Broadway Books, 2002), 171-200.

5 Carl A. Huffman, Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, philosopher, and mathematician king (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 207: “In Diodotus’ speech in the Mytilenian debate, wealth is particularly identified as producing arrogant “overreaching” (pleonexia –iii.45.4). Thus pleonexia seems to be associated with the abuse of power by either a tyrant or a wealthy oligarchy.”

6 Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1987); Phillips, Wealth and Democracy; Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire.

7 Johnson, Blowback, 221.

8 Scott, American War Machine, 63-142, 239-53. The Karzai regime in Afghanistan is only the latest of CIA client governments to struggle to maintain itself with support from drug traffickers. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, “Can the US Pacify the Drug-Addicted War in Afghanistan? Opium, the CIA and the Karzai Administration”, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, April 5, 2010; Ryan Grim, “Karzai Releasing Scores Of Drug Traffickers In Afghanistan, WikiLeaks Cables Show,” Huffington Post, December 31, 2010.

9 Tim McGurk, Time, August 2, 2004; cf. USA Today, October 26, 2004.

10 James Risen, New York Times, December 11, 2010. Both traffickers were ultimately arrested by DEA officials: Noorzai in 2005, and Khan in 2008. The U.S. probably came to prefer Khan over Noorzai, because he was more closely allied to Abdul Wali Karzai, another drug trafficker and CIA asset, as well as a central figure in the power apparatus of his brother Hamid Karzai, the U.S. client president of Afghanistan.

11 Time, November 29, 1993; Scott, American War Machine, 14-15; Tim Weiner, New York Times, November 23, 1996.

12 It is too early to report the ultimate fate of Noorzai and Khan after their arrest and indictment by the United States. But it is clear that Guillén Davila’s arrest and indictment never led to conviction or imprisonment. On the contrary, he appears to have continued to enjoy CIA favor in Venezuela.  (Scott, American War Conspiracy, 14-15).

13 Scott, Road to 9/11, 152-58.

14 “D.E.A. Deployed Mumbai Plotter Despite Warning,” New York Times, November 8, 2009; cf. Scott, American War Machine, 246-47. In another essay I will develop the thesis that what I call surplus repressive power – power developed exclusively by one society for the repressive dominance of others — is doomed, in this and other ways, to encourage the proliferation of its enemies. My point here is a more modest and general one. Maybe save the sentence for the later work?

15 Cf. Peter Dale Scott, “Atrocity and its Discontents: U.S. Double-Mindedness About Massacre,” in Adam Jones, ed. Genocide, War Crimes and the West: Ending the Culture of Impunity (London: Zed Press, 2004).

16 “Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1,” Army Times, September 30, 2008.

17 Scott, Road to 9/11, 241-42.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Doomsday Project, Deep Events, and the Shrinking of American Democracy. Prof. Peter Dale Scott

This article was first published in September 2014 following the launching of Obama’s bombing campaign against Syria and Iraq.

These are the US-NATO led wars which are upheld by the media as peace-keeping operations. Double standards with regard to the media’s coverage of the Ukraine crisis. 

***

Why does American policy abroad strengthens groups like ISIS.

Thirteen years ago [in relation to date of publication], a draft dodger from Texas stood on a pile of rubble in New York City and promised, “The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” Of course, the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center could not hear anybody, as their remains were buried in the rubble beneath Bush’s feet. And our government’s extraordinary relationship with one of the world’s last and most brutal absolute monarchies ensured that any accomplices still in the U.S. were quickly flown home to Saudi Arabia before the crime could be investigated. In 2003, Bush meekly complied with Al-Qaeda’s most concrete demand, that he withdraw U.S. forces from military bases in Saudi Arabia.

A month after September 11, Donald Rumsfeld stood at a podium in front of a $2 billion B-2 bomber at Whiteman AFB in Missouri and addressed the aircrews of the 509th Bomber Wing, before they took off across the world to wreak misdirected vengeance on the people of Afghanistan. Rumsfeld told them, “We have two choices. Either we change the way we live, or we must change the way they live. We choose the latter. And you are the ones who will help achieve that goal.”

Since then, the United States has launched more than 94,000 air strikes, mostly on Afghanistan and Iraq, but also on Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Rumsfeld’s plan has undoubtedly achieved his goal of changing the way people live in those countries, killing a million of them and reducing tens of millions more to lives of disability, disfigurement, dislocation, grief and poverty.

A sophisticated propaganda campaign has politically justified 13 years of systematic U.S. war crimes, exploiting the only too human failing that George Orwell examined in his 1945 essay, “Notes on Nationalism.” As Orwell wrote, “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” Orwell listed “torture, the use of hostagesforced labormass deportations,imprisonment without trialforgeryassassination, the bombing of civilians.” The U.S. has committed all these atrocities in the past 13 years, and Americans have responded exactly as the “nationalists” Orwell described.

But some of the horrors of the U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan found their way into the conscience of millions of newly war-wise Americans, and President Obama was elected on a “peace” platform and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. To the deep disappointment of his former supporters, Obama has overseen the largest military budget since WWII; an eight-fold increase in drone strikes; special forces operations in at least 134 countries, twice as many as under Bush; and a massive increase in the special forces night raids or “manhunts” originally launched by Rumsfeld in Iraq in 2003, which increased from 20 in Afghanistan in May 2009 to 1,000 per month by April 2011, killing the wrong people most of the time according to senior officers.

Like Eisenhower after Korea and other Presidents after Vietnam, Obama turned to methods of regime change and power projection that would avoid the political liabilities of sending young Americans to invade other countries.  But the innovations of Obama’s doctrine of covert and proxy war have only spread America’s post-9/11 empire of chaos farther and wider, from Ukraine to Libya to the seas around China. Covert wars are no secret to their victims, and the consequences can be just as dire. The U.S. dropped more tonnage of bombs in its secret war on Cambodia than it dropped on Japan in WWII. As Cambodia imploded in an orgy of genocide, the CIA’s director of operations explained that Khmer Rouge recruiting “has been most effective among refugees subjected to B-52 strikes.”

As Western politicians and media breathlessly follow the escalation of U.S. bombing in Iraq, they neglect to mention, or maybe haven’t even heard as Orwell suggested, that Obama has already launched more than 24,000 air strikes, mostly in Afghanistan, with the same results as in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Iraq, killing thousands of people and making implacable enemies of millions more. These air strikes are an integral component of Obama’s covert war doctrine, but they are only covert in the sense that they are unreported.

In Libya, the U.S. and its NATO allies launched 7,700 air strikes in a war that killed at least 25,000 people and plunged the country into endless chaos. NATO’s illusory and short-lived success in Libya led to airlifts of weapons and fighters to Turkey, where British special forces provided training and the CIA infiltrated fighters into Syria to try and duplicate the overthrow and butchering of Gaddafi.

The sobering experience of watching a CIA operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s lead to the crime of the new century in New York on September 11 should have led U.S. officials to reject new alliances with Islamist jihadis. But the Obama doctrine embraced the use of Islamist militias to destabilize Libya, providing them with weapons, equipment, training and air support. Leadership on the ground came from Qatar’s mercenary “special forces,” many of whom areveterans of the Pakistani military and its ISI intelligence agency, which works with the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These Qatari special forces are part of the Libyan template that was transposed onto Syria, where they embedded with the al-Nusra Front. They and/or their Turkish allies probably trained al-Nusra in the use of chemical weapons for the “false flag” attack that almost triggered another U.S. bombing campaign in 2013.

With U.S. support, Qatar spent $3 billion and flew 70 planeloads of weapons to Turkey to support its proxies in Syria, while its regional rival Saudi Arabia sent volunteers and convicts, and paid for weapons shipments from Croatia to Jordan. Wealthy Gulf Arabs paid up to $2,000 per day to hardened mercenaries from the Balkans and elsewhere. As first al-Nusra and then ISIS established themselves as the dominant rebel group, they absorbed the bulk of the fighters and weapons that the U.S. and its allies poured into the country.

The chaos that Obama’s doctrine of covert and proxy war has wreaked in Libya, Syria and Iraq should be a reminder of one of the obvious but unlearned lessons of September 11, that creating and arming groups of religious fanatics as proxies to fight secular enemies has huge potential for blowback and unintended consequences as they gain power and escape external control.  Once these forces were unleashed in Syria, where they had limited local support but powerful external backers, the stage was set for a long and bloody conflict.  But the U.S. and its allies, the U.K., France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were so committed that they schemed to undermine Kofi Annan’s 2012 peace plan and pledged ever more support, funding and weapons to the rebels as the conflict escalated into a full-blown civil war.

The current view of ISIS (or ISIL or IS) in Western media and political debate is distorted by a dangerous confluence of interests between Western propaganda and ISIS’ own public relations in playing up its strength and its atrocities. On the other hand, when the U.S. and its allies downplayed the role of ISIS in Syria and pretended to be funding and arming only “moderate” forces, this allowed ISIS to quietly gain strength and eliminate its rivals. So Western propaganda has effectively helped ISIS at every turn.

This reckless pattern in Western propaganda extends back to the origins of ISIS. When the original leader of its precursor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the “terrorist mastermind” Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was crowned as America’s new public enemy in Iraq in 2004, U.S. military intelligence officers explained his propaganda value to Adrian Blomfield of the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph as follows:

We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq… Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable to latch on to, and we got one.

After Zarqawi’s death in 2006, Al-Qaeda in Iraq was rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq, but it continued to fulfill the same function in U.S. propaganda, helping to paint the Iraqi Resistance as dangerous, bloodthirsty religious fanatics rather than people legitimately and bravely resisting the illegal invasion and occupation of their country. The Bush administration claimed that ISI was responsible for 15% of violent incidents in Iraq, but this was debunked by aCongressional Research Service investigation in 2007, which held ISI responsible for only 2% of violent incidents. Of course, all such analyses completely ignored the far greater violence of U.S. air-strikes, night-raids and other uses of excessive and indiscriminate force in Iraq, as well as the the root cause of all the violence, the U.S. invasion and occupation itself.

As the Western- and Arab royalist-backed proxy war took hold in Syria in 2012, the rump of ISI, which had been reduced to as few as 1,000 men under arms in Iraq, found a new lease on life. In March 2013, when rebels led by the al-Nusra Front captured Raqqa, a provincial capital with a population of 220,000, ISIS took control of the provincial and local government.  Raqqa was once the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate that stretched from North Africa to Central Asia in the ninth century, so it serves both a symbolic and practical role as the capital of ISIS’s new caliphate or Islamic State.

Now that ISIS is once again fighting in Iraq as well as Syria, we have come full circle and Western propaganda and ISIS itself have again found common cause in exaggerating its strength and highlighting its brutality. But its true role in Iraq and its relationship with other Resistance forces there is ambiguous. The gains of Resistance forces, now spearheaded by ISIS, are the result of a political crisis that has been brewing ever since the U.S. invasion. The sectarian Maliki government politically and economically marginalized the mainly Sunni Arab areas of northern and western Iraq, and its security forces have dealt with dissent and political demands from these areas with utter brutality.

Part of the U.S. response to resistance in Iraq was to recruit, train and direct Iraqi death squads, mostly from the Badr Brigades Shia militia. It unleashed these forces in a reign of terror in Baghdad in 2005 and 2006, torturing and killing tens of thousands of mainly Sunni Arab men and boys and ethnically cleansing most of the city. Deputy Interior Minister and Badr Brigade commander Adnan al-Asadi, who oversaw that campaign, remains in office today and has run the Interior Ministry while the formal position of Interior Minister has remained vacant for years on end. The forces he commands, originally called the Special Police, were rebranded the National Police after their al-Jadiriyah torture center was exposed in November 2005, and then rebranded again as the Federal Police, but these are the same forces that have terrorized Sunni Arabs and other minorities and dissidents in Iraq since the darkest days of the U.S. occupation.  The Interior Ministry has responded to the current crisis with a new upsurge in death squad activity.

During the Arab Spring in 2011, Iraqis took to the streets, held rallies and set up protest camps like their counterparts across the Arab world to protest their repressive, sectarian government. They were met by security forces sealing off public squares, arrests, beatings, torture, snipers firing from roof-tops and U.S. helicopters flying over to dump garbage on a protest camp in a square in Mosul.

A new round of protests broke out on December 21st 2012 after security forces raided the home of a popular Sunni politician, Finance Minister Rafi al-Issawi, and arrested his staff and bodyguards. Dr. al-Issawi was the director of Fallujah Hospital during the two U.S. Marine massacres in 2004 and a vocal opponent of Prime Minister Maliki, and he had already survived an assassination attempt a year earlier. Three weeks after the arrest of his bodyguards, he survived another bomb attack.

Within two weeks, protests shut down major highways near Fallujah and Ramadi, and spread to at least 13 other cities, from Nasiriyah in the south to Kirkuk in the north, while tribal delegations from all over the country traveled to Fallujah and Ramadi to support the main protests. Government security forces responded with typical brutality, opening fire on protesters in Mosul and Fallujah. On January 25, they killed seven protesters and wounded 70 in Fallujah. Tribal leaders in Anbar issued a joint declaration that they would launch jihad against government forces if the killers were not brought to justice, but protests remained mainly peaceful, even as government forces killed more protesters.

In March 2013, Dr. Issawi and Izz al-Din al-Dawla, the Minister of Agriculture, resigned from the government, and Bunyan al-Obeidi, a protest leader in Kirkuk, was killed by a government death squad. In April, after an Army officer was killed in Hawija, near Kirkuk, the government besieged Hawijaand at least 56 people were killed in armed clashes between the residents and government forces.  Peaceful protests gradually gave way to armed resistance across the north and west of Iraq. The government banned 10 satellite TV channels, including Al-Jazeera, to censor news of the uprising. In May 2013, the UN reported the highest monthly death toll in Iraq in 5 years, with hundreds of people killed. By the end of the year, the UN estimated that 7,818 civilians and over 1,000 Army and Interior Ministry troops had been killed.

On Dec. 28, 2013, government forces raided the home of Ahmed al-Alwani, a Member of Parliament from Ramadi, killing his brother and 5 of his guards. Two days later, the government sent in Federal Police commandos to destroy the Ramadi protest camp, and 10 protesters and three police commandos were killed. Forty Sunni members of Parliament resigned, and a general tribal uprising forced Army and Interior Ministry forces to withdraw from Fallujah and Ramadi.

Over the next few days, hundreds of ISIS fighters appeared in Fallujah, Ramadi and around Anbar province, and formed a sometimes uneasy alliance with other Iraqi resistance groups and tribal leaders. As in Syria, they have come to dominate and lead the uprising that has swept through western and northern Iraq in the past nine months. ISIS’ main allies have been secular ex-Baathist military officers, still under the umbrella of the Baath Party and formally headed by General Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, now aged 72; and tribal leaders led by Ali Hatem al-Suleiman of Anbar’s Dulaim tribe and the Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council. Douri eventually announced a split with ISIS in July 2014 after it launched an ethnic cleansing campaign against Christians in Mosul, but this has only led to a few localized clashes between ISIS and other resistance forces.

Suleiman has claimed that ISIS fighters make up only 5-7% of Resistance fighters in Iraq, and that the resistance could oust ISIS from regions it controls. But he has said it will not do so until government forces withdraw from northern and western Iraq and a political transition grants civil and political rights denied to the people of these regions. Another tribal leader from Anbar, Abu Muhammad al-Zubaai, echoed Suleiman’s claims in an interview two weeks ago. Zubaai told the BBC’s Jim Muir, “We don’t want guns from the Americans, we want a real political solution, which the U.S. should impose on those people it installed in the Green Zone. The IS problem would end. If they guarantee us this solution, we’ll guarantee to get rid of IS.”

Zubaai described a clash at Garma, near Fallujah, that killed 16 ISIS fighters, but added, “We had to choose between a comprehensive confrontation with IS, or ceding control of that area and keeping a low profile. We decided to stand down because we are not ready to fight IS in the current circumstances—who would we be fighting for?  On the daily bombing of Fallujah and other cities by the Iraqi air force, with heavy civilian casualties, Zubaai said, “Our biggest concern now is a political solution. A security solution will achieve nothing.  The bombing has to stop.”

These tribal leaders claim to represent 90% of Sunni-majority tribes in Iraq. They have tried to approach U.S. officials, but without any response. Zubaai sees the options facing the U.S. as a stark choice between solidly supporting a genuine political transition and fueling an out-of-control spiral of violence, “If things stay the same, a new generation will emerge, beyond the control of the U.S. or Iran or Syria-hundreds of thousands of young men will join up with IS.”

President Obama’s bombing campaign to support a repressive, sectarian government and Kurdish separatists will reduce more Iraqi cities to rubble, kill thousands more civilians and turn ISIS into the unstoppable monster that Zubaai predicts. But, as he says, the President still has another choice. He can provide full diplomatic and political support for a legitimate political transition in Iraq that would honor the civil and political rights of all Iraqis.  This could begin to solve the long-running political crisis caused by the U.S. invasion, which has led millions of Iraqis to see an alliance with ISIS as a lesser evil than submission to the brutal U.S.- and Iranian-backed regime in the Green Zone.

Like the crisis in Iraq, every part of the current crisis in U.S. foreign policy is amenable to serious diplomacy.  We are on the verge of a diplomatic solution to the phony crisis over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.  There is global consensus on ending the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with only the United States clinging to its effective support for a territorial expansion that the world will never recognize. The framework for a peace process in Syria was agreed on in Geneva on June 30, 2012, more than two years ago, but stalled as the U.S. and its allies reintroduced their precondition that President Assad must resign first. The coup regime in Ukraine and its Western backers may finally be ready to accept long-standing Russian proposalsfor a political and diplomatic resolution based on regional autonomy and international neutrality.  And ISIS’s allies in Iraq are offering to “get rid of” it in exchange only for the basic civil and political rights that the U.S. promised them when it invaded their country.

But as Robert Parry noted recently, there’s an “old woman who swallowed a fly” quality to neoconservative U.S. foreign policy.  The proposed solution to any U.S. foreign-policy failure is always some kind of escalation, invariably leading to an even more dangerous crisis.  Instead of developing more rational policy goals in response to their overreaching and failures, neoconservative policymakers instead keep doubling down to take on more powerful adversaries and risk even greater disasters.  Thus a failed CIA coup in 1996 and the impending collapse of the UN sanctions regime led to the invasion and destruction of Iraq; the U.S. defeat in Iraq led to targeting Syria and Iran; and Russia’s role in Syria led to a U.S.-led coup in Ukraine and a U.S.-Russian confrontation that has raised the specter of nuclear war: “There was an old lady who swallowed a horse. She died of course.”

The U.S. propaganda system presents Americans with a looking-glass view of the world, in which our “shining city on a hill” is a bastion of peace, democracy and prosperity, while the rest of the world is a dreadful mess riven by endless crises and insoluble problems. The dirty little secret that our propaganda system cannot mention is that the current crises are all deeply rooted in U.S. policy. At this point in our history, most of those roots lead back to the fateful decision to respond to a mass murder in New York City with 94,000 air strikes, an opportunistic global military expansion and a doubling of the military budget. So Zubaai’s plea for Iraq echoes through the larger crisis in U.S. foreign policy, “Our biggest concern now is a political solution. A security solution will achieve nothing. The bombing has to stop.”

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of “Blood On Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.” Davies also wrote the chapter on “Obama At War” for the book, “Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Since 9-11 America’s Insane Foreign Policy — Continued Under Obama — Has Killed a Million and Created ISIS

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

“The Controversies in Canada” will be the object of a followup article by Professor Anthony Hall

***

In late February the international news cycle moved between two very important focuses. One addressed controversies in Canada. The other continues to highlight events unfolding primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and the USA. While different in many ways, both stories have many-faceted worldwide implications.  

Both involve configurations of power and intrigue that overlap in crucial ways. Both involve conflicts with profound life-and-death implications. Both conflicts highlight that humanity and our civilizational inheritances are at a crossroads.

At this parting of the ways, the most well-travelled autobahn looming up ahead points towards tyrannies far more extreme than anything we have known in history so far.

Whatever highway we follow, it seems there is no escaping the onslaught of new forms of aggressive warfare that are fast pushing humanity into a jagged collision with high-tech weaponry capable of unprecedented destruction.  To say we are living in dangerous times is a gross understatement.

Will humanity be subjected to even greater extremes of outright militarization? Will we continue to be assaulted by a novel array of overt and covert tactics aimed at radically re-engineering society as well as the very genetic attributes of the human genome? Will human beings continue to be reconfigured to advance the conditions of our decline into submissive enslavement? Will we continue to be subject to litanies of media lies, strategies of behavior modification, and unregulated medical experiments aimed at merging our biological persons with aspects of digital technology?

See this and this.

Some common themes wind through the convoluted array of unregulated assaults that menace humanity’s very survival in anything like the God-given form we inherited from nature. Powerful enemy forces are exploiting for their own self-interested advantage, our credulousness, naivety, and susceptibility to programs of mind control. The goal of the master class, it seems, is to modify our behavior so we can be better integrated into a world of pervasive robotization.

Enslavement With the Help of Digital IDs Combined with Cashless Transactions

Right now in the Western countries’ onslaughts of psychological warfare are integral to the military showdown initiated in Eurasia.

While experts in “perception management” are using the media to lure the public into single-minded condemnation of Russia, our attention is being drawn away from stunning revelations coming to light in our midst.

The disclosures underway illuminate the role of COVID Officialdom in forcing on us through mandates and other coercive techniques, highly lethal and injurious medical procedures. These procedures have been purposely designed to induce pathogenic outcomes and depopulation agendas. Throughout Europe and North America, dramatic increases in all-cause rates of death are being reported especially by life insurance companies and funeral homes.

One result is that Pfizer and Moderna investors are “running for the exit.” Former BlackRock investment advisor, Edward Dowd, has sounded the alarm on Moderna and Pfizer “as sinking ships that investors need to abandon.”

See this.

The bad news for the vaccine companies and their notoriously negligent regulators is compounded by the fact that their indemnification is threatened.

The companies and their regulators can be sued if it can be demonstrated that they have lied about their products. Indeed, they have lied on an epic scale and continue to do so. The evidence is clear that the inadequately-tested medical injections advertised as “safe and effective” are no such thing. Now there are headlines proclaiming, “Pfizer and Moderna are modern versions of Enron.”

See this and this. 

As blanket coverage of the Ukrainian conflict dominates the media, the next stage in the insidious COVID con is being executed with blitzkrieg speed. The objective is to rush humanity into a privatized system of universalized and standardized Digital ID before most people have an opportunity to get informed on the fuller implications.

The growing contingent of people devoted to principled non-compliance to the myriad COVID frauds must resist allowing the COVID hucksters to advance their diabolical agenda. The COVID con men and women must be forced to back away from their attempt at making sweeping appropriations and instrumentalizations of yet more elements of our private information. We need to hold the line against slick kleptocrats seeking total control of everything through digital invasion and theft of the little that remains of our personal realms.

Included in the Digital ID con job is the creation of a new type of One World digital currency presently being rushed into existence by the private central banks holding membership in the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS). This process is being pushed ahead in partnership with the dystopian World Economic Forum (WEF).

Recently Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder, bragged that more than one-half of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Canadian cabinet is infiltrated with WEF insiders. Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, is one of them.

In fact Freeland is currently a prominent member of the WEF’s governing body of trustees. As shall become clear, Freeland is emblematic of the abundant conflicts-of-interest and round-the-clock lies that have come to characterize the Liberal Party during the time of Trudeau’s denigration of public office in Canada.

See this, this, this and this. 

A pervasive system of social credit scoring is taking shape with the rush to entrench in many jurisdictions a transnational system of Digital IDs. The other necessary element is our willingness to go along with the creation of a single digital currency. The new system requires the consolidation of a One World megabank that is meant as a key element in the so-called Great Reset.

The advancement of a system of total surveillance and total control requires the termination of all cash transactions. Hence our insistence on continuing the conduct of business through the circulation of cash must be an expression of our principled non-compliance.

The merger of Digital ID together with the replacement of cash transactions would give central authorities the ability to cut off our “freedoms,” including, for instance, even our capacity to buy food. The entrapment of people in digital enclosures would put the vast majority of humans in a virtual penitentiary of unmitigated top-down authority.

See this.

A Matter of Life or Death for Russia

The creation of a social credit dystopia is being pushed rapidly forward under the cover of wall-to-wall coverage devoted to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian troops are intervening with the goal of “demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine.”

It is also thought that Putin intends to dismantle about fifteen US biological warfare labs. The Pentagon sponsors of these “research facilities” for mass murder would have us believe they are engaged in a “Biologic Threat Reduction Program.”

In his memorable speech of 24 Feb., Putin claims that the Russian mission in Ukraine, “is not a plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory.” The Russian government asserts that its actions in Ukraine are necessary for the protection of the Russian Mother Country. Over many years Putin has been stressing the themes that the Russian Armed Forces are now acting upon.

The explanation of this military operation as an act of self-defense depends on a historical analysis highlighting the decades-long campaign to strangle Russia in a boa constrictor’s grip of NATO’s aggressive militarism. The core agreements enabling the end of the Cold War have been violated by the patterns of NATO’s expansion since 1991.

NATO has been ingesting former Soviet republics into a US-backed militarized zone of organized anti-Russia zealotry. As Putin warned again and again over recent years, the US goal of transforming Ukraine into yet another militarized enemy of Moscow established a “red line,” a “matter of life or death” for Russia.

See this.

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

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

Unlike many who seem to believe that freedom of movement (since 2020 extinguished in the EU) must mean an end to national borders, I have only felt that borders should be recognised as the product of political will and history. 

In the entrance to the museum at the Invalides in Paris there is a quote attributed to Charles de Gaulle,

“France was made with the sword.”

The idea that anywhere in Europe especially borders are natural or that they are defined by some innate qualities is absurd.[1]

However, following the principles first proposed in international law (by the British, speaking through their ventriloquist Woodrow Wilson) that nations were to be recognised based on ethnic or language “self-determination”, the only peoples permitted to exercise such political will were granted their “patent” by the British Empire after the Great War. This was consistent with British policy of dismembering all its competitors, e.g. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The October Revolution seemed to offer Britain and its US partner the opportunity to redesign the Russian Empire too.

In order to defeat those forces, a brutal war had to be waged and the system of soviet republics was created both to endow many non-Russian populations with elements of self-determination and to defend the territorial integrity of the Russian Revolution.[2]

We know that Ukraine emerged as a modern state in this context. War, civil war, and negotiation created a state out of the eastern remnants of Austria-Hungary, Poland and Russia. Such configurations have always benefitted British (today Anglo-American) imperial interests. Precisely those qualities were to promote the use of Ukraine against Russia, in the way Croatia has been used against Serbia but on a far greater scale.

British objectives have always been to use “cultural” weapons to create or maintain internally fragmented states which can be manipulated through federal structures dependent upon external arms and finance. All of the white dominions of the British Empire were created as federations ruled from above.[3]

There was clearly legitimate fear among those who supported nationalism in the US that the British would subvert the federal system to their advantage, especially during the Civil War. In fact they obtained this goal in 1913 and consolidated it by 1918 through the “Bank of England” model of public-private partnership.[4] But that is another story.

A major source of confusion in the debate about Ukraine and Russia’s incursion is the question of Ukrainian sovereignty, on which a wide range of people oppose Russia’s actions because it should not attack a sovereign state (naively drawing on the prohibitions of the UN Charter).

Moreover, the claim that Russia should not have violated Ukrainian sovereignty is based on the erroneous belief that Ukraine was invaded. This assertion is based on ignorance. Quite aside from the international-law issues posed by the sovereign claims of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR), and hence whether they could exert sovereign rights to conclude treaties and hence invite military aid, there is the long-standing original threat and active aggression of NATO in and through Ukraine’s governments.

The recognition of sovereignty does not outweigh the right of self-defense.[5] The fact that the Russian Federation has not engaged in military retaliation for multiple violations of its territory does not mean that it has waived or forfeited those territorial rights.[6]

That is the ultimate premise upon which most of the critique and attack on Russian military action has been based. There is a principle of English common law by which the convention of traversing private property can create a prescriptive easement – a right of way – which the titular owner of the property can no longer obstruct.[7] Title must be actively and conspicuously asserted to remain enforceable. This is augmented by the concept of adverse possession whereby a party may assert title to land occupied for a given period and have that title sustained against the original owner by virtue of that owner’s failure or neglect to challenge the possession. In other words, there is no such thing as absolute title: it must always be effectively asserted.

Common law, while not necessarily enshrined in statutes, can be seen as an expression of the underlying social and psychological conventions prevailing in a regime. Although a nation-state would not appear comparable with a private home or farm, the material beliefs held and practiced in daily life do shape the prejudices of those who debate politics and political concepts. That is what makes this kind of law “common” – as opposed to the details of statutes or treaties.

The Anglo-American view of sovereignty is implemented by people for whom such fluid ideas of property, title and boundaries are conventional. This can be seen throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in every aspect of international-law practice. Even the so-called international judiciary has been formed or deformed by such assumptions, with some contradictory concessions to continental jurisprudence. The extremes to which disputes in Britain and the US lead to litigation are also an indication of the operational instability of legal conventions and norms – and of the level of aggression in everyday violation of whatever norms may be created by statute or courts.

NATO often appears absurd because its continental European bureaucrats utter pronouncements wholly at odds with their own cultural and legal traditions in order to articulate the policies generated by their Anglo-American principals. On the other hand this is part of the Anglo-American sleight of hand– : framing their imperial designs in the alien terms of continental European politics. No amount of fealty or obsequy can conceal the fact that neither Stoltenberg nor Von der Leyen are natural “common law” politicians.[8] That is one reason their insincerity is so blatant.

They both try to present essentially Anglo-American imperial objectives as if they were continental peninsular. Their statements are incredulous and can be dismissed on their face. The real issue –– which they are employed to conceal –- is the anti-Russian policy of the Anglo-American Empire. To rectify the name of this policy and the actions derived from it would openly deny any pretense of sovereignty in occupied Germany and the vassal monarchies that comprise the core of NATO[9].

So to return to the debate about the war in Central Europe that began in 2014 and that has only now been taken seriously by the mass hypnotised in the West because of Russia’s military response in the Ukraine, the issues ought to be described in the way the antagonists actually see them and not using the distorted language of professional propagandists.

The world has been at war no later than when behind the pretext of a constructive “emergency of international concern” an asset of the Anglo-American international organisation cartel presented the fictive requirements for a global state of martial law.[10] Let us call it what it is. Martial law is imposed for a state of war. The enemy in this case was the world’s ordinary population– the 99% some would say. As I wrote two years ago, the WHO exercised implied authority to empower the Anglo-American Empire to commence a global counter-insurgency.[11] Like similar counter-insurgency wars fought by that Empire, the focus of operations has been the global drug-weapons-energy cartel. This cartel is managed by the espionage organisations and organised criminal gangs shielded by US-UK forces and those of their closest allies.[12]

Under these conditions of global counter-insurgency, the Anglo-American Empire has intensified its operations (war) against its historical enemies/competitors Russia and China. The guiding principle by which this war is fought in the saturation propaganda of the biggest psychological operation since the founding of the Roman Catholic Church can be stated simply: Use it or lose it. There are no human rights, civil rights or sovereign rights which the Anglo-American Empire is obliged to respect. The only rights anyone has are those that the person or nation actually exercises. That exercise must be “open and notorious” (the words comes from common law meaning generally known and as such undeniable).

Beginning in March 2020 most of the world’s citizenry was tricked and bullied into surrendering all their natural rights.[13] Now, two years later, they are finding just how difficult it is to counter adverse possession of all they surrendered under martial law. At the same time, “astute” observers have failed to take seriously the trespass of NATO and other forces of the Anglo-American Empire’s cartels. They have willfully ignored the conspicuous assertion of sovereign rights and privileges by Russia (and China). They have downplayed or ignored – when not apologising for – the violations committed since 1991 (at least).

The Russian Federation, pursuant to the decisions of its highest legislative and executive bodies, ordered deployment of military force to actively and conspicuously assert its sovereign rights against a government controlling a territory adjacent to it which has collaborated in attacks on its territory and people, violating those sovereign rights. Thus,consistent with the more general (as opposed to Anglo-American) concepts of international law, it is engaged in the right to self-defense. This claim is not diminished or forfeited either by failure to so act earlier or by the refusal of the opposing party to acknowledge violations committed.

The end of the military operations by forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine can only be considered in the context of a resolution (dare anyone say “end”) of the world war commenced by the Anglo-American Empire in 2020. Threats by agents and assets of that regime to continue guerrilla war against Russia in Ukraine only amplify the necessity of grasping the Russian actions in Ukraine as a response to Anglo-American aggression. Until the subjects of that Empire are capable of grasping that and accepting responsibility for that aggression (not only against Russia) and reasserting those human rights they forfeited to their criminal oligarchs two years ago, (not only) central Europe will remain a very messy place indeed.

*

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

Notes

[1] The cultural historian Morse Peckham was fond of saying that “man does not live by bread alone, but mainly by platitudes.” Historically Ukraine has been a “bread basket”. Germany has certainly been able to turn much of its arable land into fields of biomass because Western domination of the Ukrainian economy permits importation of cheap grain from Ukrainian fields. Many of the strategic goals of Unternehmen Barbarossa (the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union) lay in Ukraine: grain, oil, access to the Black Sea, etc. historically, the West has only paid lip service to Ukrainian sovereignty.

[2] In his address to the Russian people on 21 February 2022 (available in full on C-Span) Vladimir Putin credited Lenin with the creation of the Ukraine as a republic. He argued that this—as part of Lenin’s policy for the nationalities issue—was intended to assure Bolshevik control over Russia. Putin presents himself as an opponent of the Soviet Union hence he considers such a policy negative and a violation of Russian sovereignty. However Lenin was not immune to the problems of suppressing foreign intervention in the Russian civil war—of which the US was a part with troops in Russia until 1921. Lenin had to accommodate both the Wilsonian ideology and the threatened disintegration of Russia through foreign invasion. The Soviet Union would not have been the first federal state to factually deny the formal conditions of federation, e.g. the US Civil War.

[3] The “white dominions” were those constituents of the empire covered by the Statute of Westminster (1931): Australia, Canada, Irish Free State, Newfoundland (which was not yet part of Canada), New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa. Conspicuously absent was India. Along with India, the rest of the British Empire was not “self-governing”.

[4] The Federal Reserve Act (1913) was based on the Aldrich Plan conceived secretly at the so-called Jekyll Island conference (1910). The design of the Federal Reserve System was based on many key features of the Bank of England, a privately owned bank with monopoly powers over the country’s money. Coherence with the BoE model was assured by the participation of the Warburg and Morgan interests. Although the Aldrich Plan failed in Congress a modified version was adopted. The key element was the private control of the nation’s monetary system—as in the UK.

[5] The US circumvented the ostensible intent of the UN Charter to enshrine the prohibition of war (the 1928 ”Kellogg-Briand Pact”, General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) and establish the UN as the sole venue for international disputes, with the Security Council responsible for the use of force by including provisions that permitted so-called “collective security” arrangements. This sleight of hand was used to justify the creation of NATO outside the UN framework. NATO has commonly been portrayed as a defence against the Soviet-led “Warsaw Pact”. This too is propaganda. NATO was founded before the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union only initiated its own collective security agreement after US bombing of the Soviet Union while the US was waging war against Korea and China (1951-53).

[6] In Putin’s address to the Russian nation on 24 February 2022 (the full text of which was posted by Bloomberg) he detailed the NATO transgressions which Russia had endured since 1991. Many of these went unreported or underreported at the time. Rick Rozoff (Anti-Bellum) has been posting blow-by-blow reports of NATO actions all along Russia’s border for years—using NATO’

[7] The inception of a prescriptive easement can be prevented by appropriately defending the ownership rights. A well-known example is the closure of the central court of Rockefeller Plaza in New York City (where the ice rink is) for one day in the year to interrupt the period of otherwise continuous public access that would create such a prescriptive easement.

[8] Jens Stoltenberg is the Norwegian NATO general secretary. Ursula von der Leyen is the President of the European Commission, the junta that runs the European Union on behalf of its multi-national corporate cartels.

[9] While it is tempting to assume that NATO is comprised of democracies, the fact is that core members are monarchies, e.g. United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Norway, and Spain. Until 1974 NATO included outright dictatorships like Portugal, Spain, Greece and Turkey. Constitutionalism notwithstanding, monarchy has been an essential part of NATO’s political culture.

[10] The declaration of a „health emergency of international concern“ by the Gates-dominated, Rockefeller-founded World Health Organization in 2020 was only possible by regulatory manipulation and statutory deception perpetrated after the 2009 “Swine Flu pandemic”. The definition of “pandemic” was changed. This bureaucratic fraud has been discussed everywhere except by the general public which is still misled by official deceit. Thus it can be said that the “covid war” also started much earlier than officially admitted.

[11] In articles posted here at Global Research and  Dissident Voice: From Rags to Riches (2 April 2020) The First Circle (24 April 2020), Economic Epidemic (2 May 2020), The Fourth Circle (29 September 2020). See also The Military Origins of Public Health (4 November 2021) and The Real Anthony Fauci, reviewed there.

[12] Douglas Valentine, The CIA as Organised Crime, also reviewed by this author.

[13] George Carlin rendered a very sober summary of the problem of rights, as popularly understood in the West. “Rights and Privileges”

Featured image is from epthinktank.eu

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

The attempt by the United States to confront, contain and undermine the economies of both Russia and China continues unabated. Having instituted an economic war against Russia through its sanctions the US is also seeking to step up its offensive against China’s economy.

Over a year into his presidency Biden has not rolled back any of the punitive tariffs that Trump imposed on China’s economy which have contributed to rising prices for American consumers. Instead, the Biden regime is seeking to step its efforts to undermine China’s economic challenge to American hegemony over the global economy.

This comes a time when the United States trade deficit with China continues to reach all-time highs. In 2021 the US trade deficit with China surged from $124 billion in 2020 to $151 billion in 2021. This illustrates the continuing decline of the American economy.

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday 1 March Biden stated that he will seek to reduce inflation facing ordinary Americans:

“We will ‘buy American’ to make sure everything from the deck of an aircraft carrier to the steel on highway guardrails are made in America. But to compete for the best jobs of the future, we need to level the playing field with China and other competitors.”

Of course, he could help American consumers by eliminating the trade tariffs imposed on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods by President Trump. Instead, Biden is seeking to implement a raft of punitive measures that will seek to undermine Chinese trade and manufacturing. The outcome of these measures is probably going to intensify geo-political rivalries with China. This is at a time when the US is pushing relations with Russia to dangerous levels of hostility reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis.

American efforts to further undermine China include the probable use of Section 301 of the Trade Act which Allows American officials to impose punitive sanctions on trading partners whose policies violate trade law. According to the Wall Street Journal the United States is seeking to prevent China’s challenge to American dominance in high-tech industries such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, 5G and electric vehicles.

On Tuesday 1 March the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Released its annual report which stated quite unequivocally that China is still continuing to practice unfair trade practices which the United States must take action to counter. The report however did not give any specifics on how this is to be done.

“We are clear-eyed about China’s doubling down on its harmful trade and economic abuses,’’ which it claims have harmed American workers. There is no acknowledgement that American corporations voluntarily moved most of their manufacturing to China to benefit from the low paid but highly skilled workforce in China.

The report pulls no punches when it details China’s economic ‘crimes’:

“These detrimental actions include China’s tariffs and non-tariff barriers to restrict market access, government-sanctioned forced labour programs, overcapacity in numerous sectors, industrial policies utilizing unfair subsidies and favouring import substitution, and export subsidies (including through export financing). They also include coercive technology transfers, illicit acquisition and infringement of American intellectual property, censorship and other restrictions on the internet and digital economy, and a failure to provide treatment to American firms in numerous sectors comparable to the treatment Chinese firms receive in those sectors in the United States.’’

It goes onto make the rather ironic claim that the US is committed to clamping down on China’s use of forced labour in the province of Xinjiang as, ‘Americans and consumers around the world do not want products made with forced labour on store shelves….’’

This rank hypocrisy glosses over the widespread abuse of prison labour in the US by over 4,100 corporations. Over 63,000 inmates work in prison workshops being paid between $0.50 to 2 dollars. Meanwhile, tens of thousands more are sent out on work release programmes working for similar wages in dangerous conditions in agricultural facilities.

The continuing efforts by American imperialism to undermine China’s economic development are sign of weakness not strength. History shows time and again that empires in decline rarely leave the scene of history without a fight. Washington’s economic warfare against China is symptomatic of the continued decline of American capitalism, which has a multitude of structural weaknesses that it appears unable to address. One example of this being the failure of Biden’s Build Back Better infrastructure programme.

The current struggle between the US and China is reminiscent of the Punic Wars between the militaristic state of Rome and the trading state of Carthage. Geo economic and political rivalries turned former allies into deadly enemies.

We are seeing a similar scenario play out in the 21st century between China and the United States. In 1972 Nixon inaugurated a new era of positive relations with China as the US sought to isolate the Soviet Union. Now 40 years on and the US is hell bent on subjugating Beijing the way it was suppressed in the period known in China as the ‘Century of Humiliation’.

It remains to be seen whether the Beijing regime learns any lessons from past history. It can continue to seek cooperation with the US while America makes moves on the economic, military and political fronts to undermine and isolate it. Alternatively, it can take action to ensure that it does end up like Carthage.

*

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

Dr. Leon Tressell is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


In an interview just before his death in 2012, Günter Grass, who limned so poignantly the horrors of war in his novel The Tin Drum, spoke ominously about America’s interference in the Ukraine, remarking,

“There is war everywhere; we run the risk of committing the same mistakes as before. Without realizing it, we can get into a world war as if we were sleepwalking.”

The sudden media frenzy over the move of Russia’s military into the Ukraine in defense of Donetsk and Lugansk, the Donbass region featuring a largely Russian-speaking population, is deeply disorienting for us. We already know from the last few years, and from the last twenty years, that journalism, globally, is dead and that little of the information that we receive is reliable.

The number of Russians, or Ukrainians, reported killed might be as accurate as the number of people infected with COVID-19, a bogus disease. We may have to wait years to get to the bottom of this conflict.

We have little idea of what is happening in the Ukraine, but we can be sure that the new fluidity in geopolitics generated by it, the unprecedented escalation, threatens all.

We have been skillfully divided by the powerful, yet again. Some rush to condemn the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia as a horrific crime, holding protests in good faith around the country. They are concerned about Russian expansionism, Russian domination, and the global influence of a state system with President Vladimir Putin at the center.

Their concerns, although at times exaggerated, are not without basis.

Others, however, see the meddling of the United States in the Ukraine over the last twenty years, and especially the US-NATO covert orchestration of the overthrow of the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 as an illegal coup d’état. They condemn the horrific shelling of the Donbass region by the far-right, anti-Russian, government installed in Kiev. And they express concern over the funding by the United States, and other Europeans, of far right, explicitly Nazi and anti-ethnic Russian groups that have been responsible for most of the violence over the last eight years.

Their concerns are not without basis.

But arguing that Russia is expansionist when the United States has spread the tentacles of empire to every corner of the globe, is silly, is laughable.

Likewise, arguing that President Vladimir Putin offers a real opposition to American expansionism, that he presents a defense of the rule of law and a legitimate internationalism, is delusional.

But you, the American citizen, empowered by the Constitution and crippled by the multinational corporation, are forced to rely on news sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, or alternative news of the left and right, sources of varied quality that promote storylines meant to obscure the manner by which global financial institutions, a handful of the super-rich, are subjecting the United States economy to a controlled demolition with the intent of integrating the remaining shell-shocked fragments into a new global economy controlled by invisible forces.

Our media, with rare, rare exceptions, shies away from an investigation of deep structural contradictions, like the overproduction and false growth driven by hidden debt, that lead us to bounce back and forth between war with China and war with Russia so as to keep the billionaires in power.

All these media sources lied to you with a straight face about the 9.11 incident, about the COVID-19 scam, and they want you to forget about the trillions of dollars stolen by investment banks in 2020, and to avoid any consideration of how the super-rich are reducing our citizens to slavery.

Sadly, the media of Russia, or of China, is not much better, granted that it sometimes touches on topics that are forbidden in Washington.

What we can say today about the conflict in the Ukraine is that neither side, and there may be more than two sides involved, is aiming for incremental change or for a slight advantage.

The international community founded on the principles of the United Nations Charter, a community that had limped on, in spite of decadence and corruption, in spite of the radical concentration of wealth, in spite of the criminal privatization of government, and the reduction of education and journalism to tools for social control, that system has, at last, has died.

The international community has changed, changed utterly.

Make no mistake, the dumbing down of our citizens, the destruction of institutions of governance, education, and journalism during the COVID-19 operation, has opened the doors to a global battle, at home and abroad, unlike anything any of us have seen in our lifetimes.

This is most certainly not a Cold War ideological battle. The screaming headlines in the media about the “right” and the “left” refer power players who offer zero ideological analysis about the means of production and how power is perpetuated. The dialog on politics offers no serious ideological differences, but simply the antics of two parties in Washington D.C.: the whores and the pimps.

No, the current great unravelling resembles the days before the First World War when national governments that controlled multinational empires appealed to patriotism and created unity through a war effort, a war that was meant to generate profits and to divert attention away from social contradictions. Conflict, the bankers reasoned then and now, creates demand, increases the authority of the state, and gives reasons for suppressing open discussion.

Then as now, global finance had no commitment to a specific nation, and sought advantages in England, Germany, Russia and France by encouraging war.

The current two systems, represented at this moment by Washington and Moscow, are not competing for simple political influence.

Those gathered around Joseph Biden in the White House, those gathered around Boris Johnson at 10 Downing Street, and their followers in the corporate world, threaten military attacks and impose extreme sanctions such as closing airspace to Russian planes, and ending communications for Russians via mobile phones.

NATO and the United States, through recent actions that shut Russia out of the international monetary and logistical systems, are committed to completely dismantling Russia, and leaving behind only cultural rubble. The demands for a no fly zone in the Ukraine are demands for war with Russia, demands for nuclear war. When Senator Lindsey Graham demands that President Putin be assassinated, when the Russian general Andrei Sukhovetsky is killed, we are in a war that must be stopped.

But something else is going on here. These sanctions on Russia are suddenly announced in the media without any discussion of the process by which they were generated or description of who will implement them. The argument promoted is that an authoritarian Russia threatens democracies. But the actions of these democracies are rendering them as dictatorships.

As a result, global institutions like the Bretton Woods system, the United Nations, as well as IT corporations like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle, are being militarized as we speak now.

What they have been authorized to do to Russians today they will do to you tomorrow, and there will be no appeal precisely because the policies were formulated and implemented in secret.

Your bank account, your automobile, your every action, can be shut down by these hidden forces. The oppression of citizens in Canada, New Zealand and Austria was the front line of this war against the citizens of the Earth. Now something far worse is slouching towards Kiev to be born.

A shadow government lurks behind the titles “US Government,” “German government,” “NATO,” “World Bank,” or “United Nations” and it will be able to seize everything you possess, and to put you in jail, without any due process.

The Russians are planning their own response on the global stage, and they will work most likely with Iran, and perhaps with factions in China, and with the dissatisfied in Europe and in the United States.

The Russians will not tell us what they are planning, and our corrupt media will not explain what steps Russia will take to dismantle the United States.

But we can be sure that the mansions of government, finance and journalism in the United States have such weak foundations, and such rotten beams that there will be plenty of havoc the Russians can wreak.

How sad that we will devote such effort to tearing each other apart when we should be building global institutions for disarmament and nonproliferation, for the response to the climate catastrophe, and to end the rule of private finance, and technological tyranny, over the good citizens of the United States, of Russia, and of the rest of the world.

The sanctions on Russia are presented as devastating. But from the position of Russia, sanctions make necessary self-reliance and economic independence which is healthy. They reduce the poisonous touch of vampire financial institutions like BlackRock, Vanguard and Goldman Sachs, institutions that are sucking the lifeblood out of the United States.

What happened on February 19th? Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which she called out to all members of NATO (which she referred to as “the greatest military alliance the world has ever seen,” to join the United States in preparing to confront Russia on all fronts.

When Harris said that “national borders should not be changed by force,” when she promised “unprecedented economic costs,” when she called for NATO to “move forward with consequences,” she was issuing a declaration of war against Russia, perhaps a war by means other than tanks and fighter planes.

The Munich Security Conference, funded by NATO, by global finance and by military contractors drooling over the potential for war, had a thin veneer of legitimacy that allowed Harris to speak with confidence.

She represents perfectly the culture politics employed to mask the emergence of class warfare and to render the Democratic Party as a public relations firm devoted to convincing Americans that the fusion of corporate and government power is good because minorities play key roles.

Harris was touted in the mass media (a media that could not care less about the realities faced by working class people of all colors) as “breaking barriers” by being the first woman, the first Indian American and the first African American to rise to such a prominent position.

There is value in her rise to prominence, but if we look at her role as San Francisco district attorney, we see that she destroyed the lives of young people, mostly black, who were locked up as her service to private prison franchises.

Harris serves us the poison whipped up by the criminal class of bankers in a bright multicultural cup, with a touch of progressive rhetoric so that bitter taste is bearable.

President Vladimir Putin delivered his formal response to Harris, and more broadly to the United States and NATO, on February 21 at the Kremlin. His speech formed a notable contrast. Putin presented the historical context of the American and NATO interventions in the Ukraine in a lucid, and largely accurate manner. He gave more detail about policy than any American politician would do.

He upheld diplomacy, international institutions and the need for concrete dialog. He deserves credit for this effort.

But there were ominous signs as well.

Putin sat at a desk in the icy Kremlin, with its high ceilings and marble walls, addressing a small group of government elites. His poise was perfect, wearing a meticulously prepared jacket and tie and watching every detail of the process like an eagle.

Behind him hung two flags: the flag of the Russian Federation, and the flag of the Presidency of Russia. Putin’s personal flag features a double eagle grasping the symbols of state power and the image of Saint George slaying a dragon. It is a flag that represents the authority of the emperor to punish.

Putin resembles most Napoleon Bonaparte, a self-made emperor who was determined to bend the world to his will. Napoleon held up the Napoleonic code in 1800 that granted basic rights to all men, and he opposed the power of the Catholic church and of the nobility. But his gambit in Europe was a means of increasing his power and the power of the state.

Similarly, Putin has advocated for international treaties and diplomacy, for rational dialog between nations, while at the same time relying on a tight-knit group of billionaires who have no interest in the common man.

There has been a surge in puppy love for Putin around the world. But before we get carried away, let us check the facts.

Did Putin note that COVID-19 is a scam that enables the super-rich to take over the global economy? No, he presumed that both Russia and the United States are run by functional governments and suggested that a few meetings with American secretary of state Anthony Blinken could clear up the misunderstandings.

Although Putin has, to his credit, discussed the concentration of wealth and the privatization of government, still he is fine with the United Nation’s system being reduced to a toy for the superrich. He did not even hint at the rising power of multinational banks, the war on money, privacy, and autonomy over one’s body.

Let us remember that the Russia presented as an alternative is an active member of the World Economic Forum and has implemented many COVID-19 policies, if perhaps not as severely as other countries.

Putin’s speech was about blood ties, family ties, between Russia and the Ukraine. He spoke like a Czar and he laid blame for Russia’s problems at the feet of the Communist Party, the Bolsheviks.

Although the failures of Vladimir Lenin and the Russian Communist Party are well documented, Putin’s suggestion that the Communist Party was hopelessly out of touch with reality, that it signed a humiliating treaty with Germany for peace during World War I out of cowardice, was misleading.

Lenin and his followers wrestled with the issue of class and the concentration of wealth. They may have been misguided, but they, unlike Putin, were right on the money.

Lenin was an imperfect politician and thinker, but his understanding of class struggle and of the hidden crimes of global finance is directly applicable to the crisis we face today.

What do we need to do in response?

We are looking at a war in the Ukraine that is part of a larger world war, a war intended to transform human society into a prison, into a digital nightmare wherein unaccountable techno-tyrants can track, and punish at will, anyone for any reason. Silent weapons to destroy the body and the mind are employed in this quiet war waged by supercomputers. No one, no one, in the corporate media will ever tell you this truth.

The war has already started. It will be a war unlike any war we have encountered before. Most likely, many of the expensive weapons we have purchased will prove useless.

It is a basic rule of history that we are always preparing to fight the last war. The cavalry charges of the 19th century proved useless in the face of machine guns in the First World War, and the biplanes of the 1930s were no match for the fighter planes, aircraft carriers, and long-range bombers of the Second World War.

We have been preparing for some version of the Second World War for a long time. Even today, experts struggle to fit the Ukraine war in the box of the Second World War or the Cold War.

This war is like the Second World War in that is consists of axis and allied powers around the world engaged in a global struggle for absolute control.

This war is like the Civil War in that it pits brother against brother, and state against state–just as we witnessed in the COVID-19 campaigns.

This war is like the Vietnam War. The enemy is everywhere.

And, this war has new elements. The massive destruction, retention, and manipulation of information means that tens of thousands can be killed and most people would never know anything had ever happened.

The militarization of money, of medicine, of communications and of journalism and education present us with unprecedented challenges. Military experts are not able to grasp this new reality because they are caught up in the WEF’s Great Reset themselves. Many are more concerned about their retirement benefits than about the long-term security of our people.

We witness an interference pattern wherein the traditional imperial struggle of a world war is projected on an unprecedented form technological class warfare.

That means that we cannot rule out the possibility that the war in the Ukraine will ultimately be a “rich man’s game” meant to further the enslavement of the common man.

The richest man on Earth, Elon Musk agreed to requests from the Ukraine government to supply internet services via his Starlink satellites. What a humanitarian! Or is this war just a more effective way of pushing through the great reset, of taking possessions away from citizens and stripping them of the means of production? Will we all be forced, sooner or later, to use Musk’s Starlink for communications because of a war, if not because of a pandemic?

The sudden sanctions on Russia without due process or debate, parallel the seizure of the assets of Canadians for questioning government policy.

Money and assets form the next front in this war. Assess to money will become a privilege granted by the corporate state to those who follow the rules.

Our response to this crisis must have two sides: a security side and an economic side.

On the security side, we must create a global arms control and disarmament regime that is democratic and transparent in nature and that takes the power to promote war away from arms merchants and the banks that support them. The regulations must be without exceptions and must be global.

The competition to develop nuclear weapons, and other dangerous devices, has already started in earnest between Germany, Turkey, Iran, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Vietnam, Brazil and other nations. Ukraine was clearly being encouraged to take that path.

We must be firm in presenting an alternative to this nightmare that threatens humanity—nuclear war is far, far, more dangerous than any bogus pandemic.

The United States will be the first to commit to a serious disarmament program.

Such a commitment will show that the United States is following the Nonproliferation Treaty and will do more than anything else to change the mood around the world and to open a window for true diplomacy.

On the economic side, we must end now the rule of parasitic finance that is trying to destroy Russia, as it has destroyed many other nations, and as it is preparing to destroy the United States.

We must separate the military and intelligence permanently from finance and profit-driven efforts, and end the deadly privatization of security that has allowed multinational investment funds like BlackRock to seize control of the Earth’s economy using the authority of the military and techno-tyrants like Facebook and Amazon to buy up chunks of the intelligence system.

Critical to ending this drive for world war by a handful of psychopaths will be taking back control of money in the United States. Bogus currency and financial manipulation must end. Fake money generated by supercomputers and called “derivatives” should be considered worthless. And stock markets and futures markets must be places run as cooperatives by citizens in which ordinary people can build enterprises with their neighbors.

There is no room for an elite untouchable class of the rich.

If the multinational investment banks intend to seize our money, we must make it clear that the definition of money, and its valuation, is a right that belongs to the citizens, and not to multinational investment banks. If they deny us access to our money, or manipulate its value in any way, we will make our own currency tied to assets that we define as local communities.

We need real security. We need self-sufficiency in renewable energy and in food. We need to an end the death cult of free trade and growth, and undertake a massive scaling back of these eternal alliance relations.

NATO is a monster in search of a war, a progeny of overproduction and financial speculation. It must be dismantled and the United Nations Charter used as the foundation for shared security treaties that span the Earth and the deal with the threats to the climate, to the oceans, and to food with the seriousness we would adopt to respond to war.

Along the way, we must set up an international constitution of information to assure that all citizens are entitled to the truth and that massive distortions of information do not lead us into needless conflicts.

We must rush to the front line in this global battle, establishing binding treaties to end nuclear weapons and to end the creation of deadly robots and drones that can so easily misused. We also need binding treaties on the use of nano-technology as a weapon, and of biotechnology as a weapon—as we witnessed in the case of vaccines.

We will do so by creating, and by defending with our lives, a global commons that belongs to all of us and that is off limits to the billionaires. That global commons will include most of our oceans, forests, rivers and natural wildlands.

There is so much we can do to offer hope, rather than despair, life, rather than death, understanding, rather than ignorance, and truth, rather than lies. We must start a great transformation, not a Great Reset, that will sweep across our nation, and the Earth.

We stand firmly at this critical moment and we order the money changers and mercenaries that they cannot set loose these dogs of war.

*

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

This article was originally published on US Provisional Government.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Rise Up Times

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


As Americans continue to watch on in shock as the horrors of war in Europe stream across their screens, a familiar refrain reverberates throughout the media echo chamber: Something must be done! But when it comes to American foreign policy, that something is all too often a horror all its own.

Sanctions 

First on the usual list of things that must be done are sanctions. And indeed, Washington has already imposed new sanctions on Moscow, with calls seemingly growing each day to sanction more, more, more.

But do sanctions actually work? And are they really as much of an alternative to war as they might appear?

Speaking on sanctions with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, former assistant secretary of the treasury Juan Zarate argued this week that sanctions against Russia, despite their limitations, were still worth pursuing.

As Zarate explained,

“There are limits to what sanctions can do [but] this is a use of sanctions to deal with an aggression of unprecedented scale and scope from Russia when we aren’t going to put troops on the ground or fight ourselves.”

Inskeep then questioned, “So you don’t think the goal is regime change here, which is something that people talk about on social media. You think the goal is to do something, and this is the thing that is available to do. Do you think, though, that President Putin is likely to feel any pain?”

Zarate went on to answer that Putin “is immune from the effects of this. He is going to continue, obviously, to march forward in Ukraine. And the effects will be felt by the Russian economy, no doubt.”

To be clear, Zarate is admitting here that the sanctions won’t do anything to change Moscow’s behavior. They won’t do anything to stop the war in Ukraine, in other words. But what they most certainly will do is torpedo the Russian economy, a burden which will then be left to bear by ordinary Russians. It’s a strategy of collective punishment undertaken for no other reason than a feeling we simply must do something.

But what of the risks of such punitive and seemingly fruitless measures?

Inskeep continued: “We’re dealing here with a nuclear-armed nation, thousands of nuclear weapons, with a leader who’s turned out to be less predictable than people thought just a week or two ago. And now the U.S. is economically backing Russia into a corner. Is there a scenario where this goes too far?”

“Perhaps,” Zarate answered. “And Putin has warned this.”

Warned he has, as Putin reiterated just this weekend that Moscow sees sanctions as being “akin to a declaration of war.” So much for sanctions as some sort of alternative to war.

So to summarize, sanctions don’t do anything to change “bad behavior” while actually risking further escalation. Seems like pretty terrible policy. But, hey, something must be done.

Arms

Much like sanctions, the something that must be done in the form of supplying arms to our chosen allies is already a fait accompli in the present case. Since 2014, the U.S. has pumped at least $2.7 billion into Ukraine for “security assistance,” with yet greater amounts in more lethal arms now pledged.

Supplying arms as a means of satiating the ‘something must be done’ demand is typically sold to the public as a somewhat prudent measure. We give arms so others can defend themselves and ultimately fight our wars for us. It will be their blood, not ours.

We saw this most recently when the CIA funneled arms via Libya to Syrian “moderate rebels” fighting Assad. This rat line from Benghazi ultimately blew up on Washington with the 2012 consulate attack and the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The Benghazi attack would notably go on to play an outsized role in American political life, as Donald Trump and the Republicans used it repeatedly against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign, with ‘Benghazi’ becoming a rallying cry on the right.

Ironic, then, that Clinton would appear this week to advocate for the U.S. to arm yet more foreign fighters, this time in Ukraine. Ignoring her own intimate experience with the U.S. adventures in Libya and Syria, Clinton instead chose to draw an analogy to the U.S. arming of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s.

“It didn’t end well for the Russians,” Clinton summed up before noting that “there were other unintended consequences as we know.” Those unintended consequences we all know would be minor things like the Taliban, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, 9/11, etc.

But given all that, and given the role the Benghazi affair played in derailing her own political ambitions, Clinton remains steadfast in advocating for the arming of Ukrainians. As she remarked on the U.S. experience with the Mujahideen, “I think that is now the model people are looking toward.”

Unsurprisingly, the Washington Post reports that U.S. training and arming of Ukraine has been focused for months on building the means necessary to sustain a prolonged insurgency against Russian occupation. It’s the Mujahideen model at work. But as with any such insurgency, the arms now flooding Ukraine will inherently find their way to the most radical and extreme factions on the right, despite the inevitable claims of supplying only “moderate rebels.”

So it’s blowback be damned yet again. Something must be done.

No-Fly Zone

The Biden administration has so far been adamant that a NATO no-fly zone is off the table in Ukraine. But the war drums still beat loudly in Washington and Kyiv nonetheless.

The most prominent no-fly zone rallying point thus far has been the much-publicized Russian convoy on the outskirts of Kyiv. Such a ripe target for NATO bombardment, the no-fly zone advocates muse. As NBC News foreign affairs correspondent Richard Engel framed it on Twitter, “Perhaps the biggest risk-calculation/moral dilemma of the war so far. A massive Russian convoy is abt 30 miles from Kyiv. The US/NATO could likely destroy it. But that would be direct involvement against Russia and risk, everything. Does the West watch in silence as it rolls?”

This harkens back once more to Libya and the Western hysteria back in March 2011 over another convoy. Recall that with a column of Ghaddafi forces poised to strike at the heart of the uprising in Benghazi, the cries to do something reverberated throughout Western media. NATO didn’t “watch in silence” in 2011, but instead bombed the convoy, imposed a no-fly zone, killed scores of civilians, helped murder Ghaddafi himself, set-up a rat line to Syria, and then left Libya to descend into anarchy.

But the results of NATO’s war in Libya are what they are. Something had to be done.

Assassination

For the more lunatic fringe of the Washington establishment, why not just kill Putin?

This past week both Lindsay Graham and Sean Hannity floated the idea of assassinating Putin as something to do. As Graham sneered, “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.”

Such fantastical thinking. The criminal act of ordering the murder of a foreign head of state aside, political assassination is an often self-defeating policy. As Andrew Cockburn details in his book Kill Chain, assassinations don’t destroy political movements or ideologies, they instead tend to open the door for even more radical and hardline figures to assume power.

But once again, at least assassination is doing something.

Perhaps, though, it’s time Washington finally relented and for once stopped stoking the inferno. Perhaps it’s time to cease horrors begetting horrors. Perhaps that is ultimately the something that must be done.

*

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

Ben Schreiner is an American writer.

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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


Below is a transcript of the interview of Prof. Francis Boyle by Dennis Bernstein from Pacifica Radio.

*

Dennis: From Pacifica Radio in San Francisco, this is Flashpoints. I’m Dennis Bernstein. Today on the show, Russian forces seize control of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown site, risking triggering a dangerous nuclear explosion. And the danger still hovers over the expanding conflict. Also international legal scholar and author, Francis Boyle, paints us a bit of a different picture of Putin than the corporate press, which has now taken to calling Putin unstable, unhinged, another Hitler, a Stalin. All this, coming up, straight ahead on Flashpoints. Stay tuned.

And you’re listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio. My name is Dennis Bernstein. We broadcast every weekday from 5:00 to 6:00 over the Pacifica Radio Network. We broadcast out of the San Francisco Bay Area on KPFA and also, of course, welcome KPFK in the Los Angeles area. It is good to have you all with us today. There is so much going on and we have a lot to talk about.

First of all, this from the nation. War is a tragedy, a crime, and a defeat. The nation condemns the decision of Russian President, Vladimir Putin to abandon the path of diplomacy by attacking and undertaking a special military operation or operations in Ukraine. These actions violate international law and fuel a dangerous escalation of violence. We urge all parties to immediately cease hostilities to deescalate and seek a diplomatic solution to mitigate the risk of full-scale war and an unthinkable direct conflict between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

Now, our guest who is coming up to join us in just a minute, Francis Boyle, writes and wrote today or said today: Obviously a case can be made that Russian’s actions violate international law, but we need to look at the actual circumstances of the case. And joining us to do just that is Professor Francis Boyle who is Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois. And Professor Boyle, it’s been a while. It’s good to have you back with us.

So, I mean, it is a fact, nobody can deny that the United States bombed Iraq illegally under—in the first Bush and then they bombed Iraq illegally under the second Bush. Joe Biden made sure that illegal war happened based on false weaponry. And included in that operation against Iraq, we carried out an extreme attack on their infrastructure leading to the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps over a hundred thousand children. You might say, two wrongs don’t make a right or two rights don’t make a wrong.

Francis Boyle, what’s your perspective on the invasion? Clearly he’s invaded a civilian areas and great risks have been against human life.

Francis: Well, Dennis, thank you very much for having me on my best here listening audience. We really have to go back here to the agreements made by Jim Baker and Secretary General Gorbachev and the other European leaders at that time that if Gorbachev agreed to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not extend one inch farther to the east.

Now, that was not put into writing, but under basic principles of international law that I teach to my students, oral commitments made by high level government officials such as Secretary of States, Prime Ministers, etc., are binding under international law. So, the Soviets had a binding commitment from the United States and several of these other European states that NATO would not move to the east.

What happened then was Clinton came into power and under the influence of Strobe Talbott, his so-called Soviet expert, proceeded to expand NATO to the east. Right up to the borders of Russia where they are today. And Ukraine is part of that project.

Second then came the 2014 coup d’état that was paid for and sponsored and organized by the United States against the democratically elected government in Ukraine under Yanukovych and put into power a gang of Neo-Nazi thugs that are still there today. And proceeded to engage in ethnic cleansing and pogroms against Russian speakers in Ukraine.

As for this statement by the Nation, you know, that they should return to negotiations, in 2014 and 2015, Russia went along with the Minsk Accords and yet what happened was, the United States did absolutely nothing to encourage the Ukrainian government to negotiate in accordance with the Minsk Accords in good faith. The Minsk Accords could have resolved this problem but we did not want it to be resolved. We still wanted to maintain our Neo-Nazi military platform there in Russia to be used—sorry, in Ukraine, to be used against Russia.

So, basically, what happened was that Putin issued his ultimatum in December, starting what could only be called a Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse. Taking the same position on the US NATO military Nazi regime in Ukraine that JFK took towards the Soviet missiles in Cuba. And they tried to negotiate in good faith with the Bidenites for two months and got absolutely nowhere. Their demands were quite simple, their main demands, 1, NATO must not expand anymore. And 2, Ukraine must not join NATO. The Bidenites refused to give them any of those commitments, even though the United States government was bound to give them those commitments as far back as Jim Baker and Gorbachev.

So, I should point out that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that was 13 days. Here, it was two months. Putin gave us two months. And President Kennedy was fully prepared to invade Cuba if he had not been able to negotiate through back channels, the agreement was with Khrushchev to remove the Soviet missiles from Cuba which he was able to do and there was no invasion. By contrast here, Bidenites refused to negotiate on the critical points, so Putin treated this like Kennedy would’ve treated Cuba with the Soviet missiles still there and invaded.

It’s a terrible situation, but you have to understand that the front lines there at Donetsk, the front lines to this Neo-Nazi regime forces at Donetsk were 400—are 460 kilometers from Stalingrad, Volgograd.

Now, Dennis, I toured the front lines, World War II front lines at Leningrad, where the Germans starved a million Leningraders to death, including killing Putin’s brother. The front lines at Moscow that basically ended right where the trolley lines enter the city, where they ended and I have been to Stalingrad, now called Volgograd. The sheer genocidal savagery of the Germans took my breath away.

Now, that’s who was 460 kilometers away from Stalingrad. So, under these circumstances, I think Putin saw this as an existential threat to Russian and the Russians and he is acted the way he has. It’s regrettable that it’s come to this, but there were numerous ways to prevent it by the United States government and we provoked it.

Dennis: You are listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio, that’s the voice of Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Francis Boyle. Author of many good books, an expert on international law and on many things legal. We’re always happy to have him on the air.

Now, as you point out, Putin is no Gandhi, but it’s doubtful that any Russian leader would tolerate the—sort of the way in which NATO is moving in on Russia.

Francis: That’s correct, Dennis. As a matter of fact, I offered both Soviet politics and Russian history for my PhD oral exams at Harvard and passed and that qualified me to teach both Soviet politics and Russian history to Harvard undergraduates. So you know, I’ve studied, you know, their entire history here–

Dennis: Yes.

Francis: –from the get-go. Indeed, going back to Ukraine, when I—I was invited to lecture there and met a lot of their peace leaders, lawyers, government officials and even asked for a tour of the monastery where Nestor wrote his chronicles. Both the Russians and the Ukrainians there said, yes, this is the start of Kievan and Russian civilization.

So, I’m acutely aware of the history of both people here. I don’t see how Putin could’ve done anything differently because NATO would’ve continued to expand. We were already pumping in billions of dollars of weapons, equipment, supplies, trainers, to this Neo-Nazi regime that we installed.

And let me say, you know, Dennis, we both know that the United States government has covertly cooperated with Nazis going back to Operation Paper Clip. And you’re free to correct me if I’m wrong, but this was the first time, certainly in my lifetime, that we overtly and proudly cooperated with, armed, equipped, supplied and trained an overtly Neo-Nazi regime. And of course, you have no idea the Soviet Union suffered 27 million people dead and they’re just 460 kilometers from Stalingrad and I’ve been there. It’s—it just took my breath away to see what happened there.

Dennis: Can I just throw this thing in here, people say and I’ve heard this, how can you say Neo-Nazi, it’s led by a Jew? You know, is this Jew supporting a Neo-Nazi regime?

Francis: Well, he’s a figure head, but if you don’t take my word for it, you cited The Nation. Today, there is an article on The Nation documenting in detail, just hit their webpage, on the Nazi, Neo-Nazi control and domination in Ukraine. Right. It’s all there in The Nation today.

Dennis: Say a little bit more about—I mean, the dual standard, people say, oh you can’t—comparison kills and all that stuff, but the dual standard, just for instance, let’s take the US relationship with the Saudis. You know, they’ve demonstrated that they’re willing to kill you as journalists and shred them in an Embassy, yet you’ve got the United States government fueling in the air Saudi planes that are committing slaughters in Yemen and creating a famine.

Francis: It’s outright genocide.

Dennis: It’s hard for the United States to talk morality, isn’t it?

Francis: It’s outright genocide what the Saudis are doing to the Houthis in Yemen. And yes, we are arming, equipping, supplying and assisting the Saudis and basically, aiding and abetting their genocide against the Houthis in Yemen in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Let me return to Ukraine and what could be done now. I mean, this is a very dangerous situation. If, you know, President Biden, I listened to his press conference today, basically, announcing economic warfare against Russia. If he really wanted to solve this problem, and deescalate, first he could announce that NATO will not be expanding, period. That’s the end of it. You know, we are NATO. NATO does what we tell them to do. NATO will not be expanding. Second, he can definitely announce that Ukraine will not be joining NATO. Third, that they will go back in good faith to the—to try to negotiate under the Minsk Accords.

Biden said nothing like that today. He just escalated it. If you’re reading the news media, following the wire services today sending more and more military equipment, surrounding Russia on all sides, under the pretext, well he has to bolster the NATO states when Russia has not threatened any of these NATO states. They’re problem is Ukraine, because as they see it, Ukraine is an American/NATO dagger, pointed right at the heart of Mother Russia.

And so, they had to do something about it. It still can be deescalated now if Putin—sorry, if Biden wanted to do it. I don’t believe that is the agenda here on the Biden administration. Also, I would say to some extent, Biden and the Bidenites are wagging the dog here, because, as you know, they have not controlled this pandemic. The economy is in the toilet. And rather than dealing with the very serious problems we have here at home, he’s just wagging the dog all over again and saying, he wants to promote democracy in Ukraine.

How many times have we heard US military invasions of countries saying, well, we’re out there to promote democracy. I mean, Woodrow Wilson said that on the First World War and yet, as we know his Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryant quit and said, it’s all a lie, Wilson’s been scheming to get us into the First World War from the get-go.

So, you know, this could get out of hand over there if it’s not brought under control immediately, this could be a tinder box for—even Zelensky pointed out, it could become a pan-European war and it could be, yes.

Dennis: And you know, we’re about to get into this big time, but what happened today in terms of the Russians taking back Chernobyl and you know, like please, nobody light a match. That is such a risky moment in history. You’ve got the bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, they don’t even have any more room, we’re past midnight. And what’s going on there in Ukraine obviously is extremely dangerous for so many different reasons. But nukes are [crosstalk]

Francis: You know, I think they have twelve more nuclear reactors in Ukraine. I think the Russians were concerned that the Ukrainians, you know, Zelensky twice now threatened to get nuclear weapons. I think they were concerned that they might manufacture some type of dirty bomb there at Chernobyl, so they secured Chernobyl and you’re right, it was very dangerous. It could get worse.

Dennis: It’s its own dirty bomb waiting to happen. We all know that about nuclear power plants. We’re gonna have to leave it right there. Francis Boyle, I always appreciate having you on the show. You are Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois. Written wonderful books about the law, beautifully written. You’ve even written poetry about resistance. We appreciate you, Professor Boyle. We hope you’ll come back soon.

Francis: Well, thanks Dennis. And since the KPFA fund drive is on, I do hope everyone will pitch in something.

Dennis: All right. Thank you.

Francis: So they can all continue to hear progressive voices on this station. Thank you, Dennis.

Dennis: Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

Francis: Sure.

Dennis: You’re listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio. We’re gonna take a short musical break.

*

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

Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Among his many books is “Destroying World Order.”

Featured image is from South Front


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


Russian media alleged today that Ukraine was close to building a plutonium-based “dirty bomb” nuclear weapon. The TASS, RIA and Interfax news agencies quoted “a representative of a competent body” in Russia as saying Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons at the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant recently seized by Russian forces.

Shortly before the military intervention in Ukraine, Russian President Putin also noted in an address to the nation that Ukraine was using Soviet know-how to create its own nuclear weapons, and that this was tantamount to preparation for an attack on Russia.

Depicting a doomsday scenario in order to malign Russia’s calculated offensive in Ukraine to minimize collateral damage, mainstream reporting focused Friday, March 4, on the fire that broke out[1] at Zaporizhzhia plant, one of Europe’s largest nuclear power plants situated 550 km southeast of Kyiv. The fire has since been extinguished after the plant was captured by Russian troops and no radiation leakage has been detected.

The black-op of setting a building in the sprawling nuclear complex alight and then posting doctored video clips of Russian tanks shelling straight at the nuclear plant on social media, promptly verified as “authentic” by corporate media, was clearly the dirty work of covert saboteurs who’ve been advising and assisting Ukraine’s inept security forces and also taking active part in combat operations in some of the most hard-fought battles against Russia’s security forces north of Kyiv and at Kharkiv and Donbas.

Besides setting the building ablaze, neo-Nazi saboteurs and foreign mercenaries fighting alongside Ukraine’s security forces also reportedly stole large quantities of fissile material from Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia plants before the nuclear reactors were captured by Russian forces, and are working on rigging conventional explosives with fissile material to build dirty nukes in order to inflict maximum damage on Russian forces in combat zones.

Foreign mercenaries who have recently joined the fray in Ukraine after getting a nod of approval from the US national security agencies are especially skilled in building dirty nukes.

Total number of nuclear warheads across the world currently stands at roughly 13,000: Russia has 5977; NATO has 5943, including 5428 in the US, 290 in France and 225 in the United Kingdom; China has 350, Pakistan 165, India 160, Israel 90 and North Korea has 20 nuclear weapons, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

In addition, according to an Oct. 2017 Turkish parliament report[2], nuclear weapons belonging to the US were deployed in five NATO member states that did not themselves have developed nuclear programs. “There are nearly 150 US nuclear weapons in six air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey,” it added.

During the Cold War, the US placed nuclear weapons in NATO countries, including Turkey, as part of the organization’s nuclear sharing program. Some of the nuclear weapons placed in the 1960s are still deployed in Turkey.

Although five non-nuclear NATO members are officially acknowledged to host American nukes, NATO has in fact covertly deployed strategic armaments in Eastern Europe, too, specifically in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, aimed at Russia.

This was the foremost rationale the Kremlin was staunchly against the inclusion of Ukraine, straddling its western flank, into NATO and demanded written assurances against the transatlantic military alliance’s eastward expansion imperiling Russia’s regional security.

The safety of fifty American B-61 hydrogen bombs deployed at Incirlik airbase in Turkey became a matter of real concern during the foiled July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan government after the commander of the Incirlik airbase, General Bekir Ercan Van, along with nine other officers were arrested for supporting the coup; movement in and out of the base was denied, power supply was cut off and the security threat level was raised to the highest state of alert, according to a report[3] by Eric Schlosser for the New Yorker.

The Biden administration approved on Feb. 24 an additional 7,000 US troops[4] to be deployed to Germany, bringing the total number of American forces sent to Europe to 12,000 this month, including troops previously deployed to Poland, Bulgaria and Romania.

In Poland alone, the US military footprint now exceeds 10,000 troops as the majority of 12,000 troops sent to Europe last month went to Poland to join the 4,000 US troops already stationed there. The East European nation notorious for supporting the Nazis during the Second World War and committing a massacre of three million Jews has once again become a hub of covert warfare and providing lethal military assistance to Ukraine’s security forces and allied neo-Nazi militias.

It wouldn’t be surprising if Russia decides to invade Poland next after subduing Ukraine. According to a Politico report[5], the White House was weighing a three-way deal with Poland to get Soviet-era MiG fighter jets to Ukraine in return for the US providing Poland F-16s, despite stark warning by the Kremlin that any country attempting to impose no-fly zone over Ukraine would be treated as a belligerent in the war.

The US has already disbursed $240 million of the $350 million in military assistance Biden approved recently, mostly on buying surface-to-air missiles and antitank Javelins, though there would be no shortage of funds for turning Ukraine into one of the most militarized nations on the planet following military intervention by the New Cold War rival, as the Biden administration has already announced a much larger $10 billion “humanitarian” and military assistance package, subject to forthcoming approval by the US Congress, and Washington’s opulent West European clients would willingly contribute billions more to punish Russia’s transgression in Eastern Europe.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told RT[6] on Thursday, March 3: “There’s information that mercenaries from Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are being recruited to be transported to Donbass, and other nations, in order to destabilize Russia. We’re checking that.” That’s close to an official acknowledgement that besides neo-Nazis and foreign mercenaries, Islamic jihadists from the Balkans are also fighting in Ukraine’s proxy war.

Besides providing lethal drone warfare technology to Ukraine and closing Bosporus straits to warships, effectively blockading Russia’s Black Sea fleet and cutting it off from the Mediterranean fleet, Turkish President Erdogan has also reportedly introduced Syria’s battle-hardened militants, including the ISIS jihadists, to the Ukraine conflict.

During the neo-Ottoman Sultan’s official visit to Ukraine last month following the escalation of hostilities with Russia, selling and co-producing Turkish-made drones to Ukraine’s security forces was publicly discussed between the two delegations, but in secret negotiations between security officials of Turkey and Ukraine, Ankara also pledged to dispatch Syrian mercenaries to Ukraine.

Several contingents of Syrian militant groups had already left for Ukraine and were taking part in some of the most hard-fought battles against Russian security forces north of Kyiv and at Kharkiv and Donbas and the rest were on their way, according to informed sources.

One of the principal reasons the Russian armored corps has lost so many tanks and armored personnel carriers during the ten-day offensive is that Syrian mercenaries are especially skilled in using Javelin antitank weapons—which they dubbed “the Assad-tamer” during Syria’s decade-long conflict—as they were trained in the use of American-made TOW antitank munitions by Turkish security officials during the CIA’s Operation Timber Sycamore and the Pentagon’s $500 million train-and-equip programs to provide guerrilla warfare training and lethal weaponry to rebels battling the Syrian government at the training camps located at border regions of Turkey and Jordan.

Besides mounting several military incursions into northern Syria and illegally occupying northwestern enclaves Idlib and Afrin and several strategic areas east of Euphrates, Erdogan also sent thousands of Syrian jihadists, drones and military hardware in support of the Tripoli government against eastern Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar’s military campaign in western Libya lasting from April 2019 to June 2020. After defeating Haftar’s forces in Tripoli, Turkish proxies had set their sights on Sirte but a peace process involving international mediators has since begun.

Similarly, during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan that lasted from September to November 2020, Armenia’s ambassador to Moscow alleged that Turkey had sent thousands of fighters from northern Syria to Azerbaijan. Armenia also accused that Turkish military experts had fought alongside Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh, and that Turkey had provided drones and warplanes.

Turkish militarist policy of introducing Syrian mercenaries to the Ukraine war is the outcome of a long-running feud between two strongmen, Erdogan and Putin, who’ve previously crossed swords lending military support to opposing militant factions in Syria, Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Besides the inducement of monetary rewards, Islamic jihadists also have ideological reasons to fight Russian forces in Ukraine, as they were previously pounded by Russian forces in Chechnya, former Yugoslavia and lately in Syria. Thus, they have a score to settle with Russia in Ukraine.

When Russia deployed its forces and military hardware in support of the Syrian government in September 2015, the jihadist proxies of Washington and its regional clients were on the verge of driving a wedge between Damascus and the Alawite heartland of coastal Latakia, which could have led to the imminent downfall of the Bashar al-Assad government.

With the help of Russia’s air power, the Syrian government has since reclaimed most of Syria’s territory from the insurgents, excluding Idlib in the northwest occupied by the Turkish-backed militants and Deir al-Zor and the Kurdish-held areas in the east, thus inflicting a humiliating defeat on Washington and its regional allies.

The artificial distinction between ISIS jihadists and so-called “moderate militants” in Syria’s proxy war was more illusory than real. After the liberation of the ISIS-held territories in Mosul and Anbar in Iraq and Raqqa and Deir al-Zor in Syria in 2017 and the clearance operations at the Iraq-Syria border that lasted until 2019, the remnants of the militant group are on the run and the rest have already joined the ranks of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by al-Qaeda’s formidable Syrian franchise al-Nusra Front.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by al-Nusra Front Emir Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, controls most of the territory in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province with the tacit approval of Turkish security forces that have established numerous military outposts in the contested Syrian enclave bordering Turkey.

Both the self-styled caliphs of ISIS, al-Baghdadi who was killed in Oct. 2019 and his successor al-Qurayshi who was eliminated in the Feb. 3 raid, were hiding in Syria’s Idlib with the blessings of al-Nusra leadership and the Turkish security forces, which have trained and armed myriad groups of jihadists during Syria’s decade-long proxy war, and were scapegoated by the neo-Ottoman Sultan to extract geo-strategic concessions from Washington.

Reportedly, the contingents of Syrian mercenaries who have arrived in Ukraine to fight Russian security forces include a significant number of ISIS militants, as they are the most battle-hardened and ideologically driven and are known to deploy suicide bombings and VBIED attacks as weapons of choice, inflicting maximum casualties on adversaries.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Af-Pak and Middle East regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Russian forces seize huge Ukrainian nuclear plant, fire extinguished

[2] US has 150 nuclear weapons in five NATO countries

[3] The H Bombs in Turkey by Eric Schlosser

[4] An additional 7,000 US troops to be sent to Germany

[5] White House weighs deal with Poland to get fighter jets to Ukraine

[6] Jihadists from the Balkans are fighting in Ukraine, Lavrov


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.

Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation als Weltregierung

March 7th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

Im Schatten des Ukraine-Krieges bereitet die WHO – von der Öffentlichkeit unbemerkt – ein völkerrechtlich bindendes „internationales Abkommen zur Prävention und Bekämpfung von Pandemien“ vor. Die Verhandlungen in Genf haben bereits begonnen. Ursprünglich war die „Machtübername“ bereits für den 1. Mai 2022 geplant, d. h. alle 194 Mitgliedstaaten der WHO wären dann gezwungen, die von der WHO beschlossenen Maßnahmen wie Lockdowns oder allgemeine Impfpflicht umzusetzen.

Ein neues Memorandum vom Concilium Europa, vom 3. März 2022, hat den Prozess allerdings beträchtlich verzögert. Mittlerweile ist geplant, dass ein Arbeitspapier (working draft) für dieses neue WHO-„Weltherrschaftsabkommen“ am 1. August 2022 bereit sein sollte zu weiteren internen Verhandlungen. Siehe dies.

Offiziell begründet wird dieses von der WHO als notwendig erachtete Unterfangen laut „Rat der Europäischen Union“ mit dem vorgeschobenen Argument, dass die internationale Staatengemeinschaft noch besser auf mögliche künftige Pandemien und deren koordinierte Bekämpfung vorbereitet sein müsse (2). Ideengeber scheinen laut „Epochtimes“ vom 5. März sowohl die EU als auch private Akteure wie die Rockefeller Foundation und Bill Gates zu sein (3). Hinsichtlich der Pandemie-Erfahrungen der beiden vergangenen Jahre ein Hinweis darauf, was die Welt zu erwarten hat.

Grundlage des Abkommens ist Artikel 19 der WHO-Satzung. Dieser besagt, dass die WHO-Generalversammlung mit einer Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit für alle Mitgliedstaaten bindende Vereinbarungen beschließen kann. Nationalstaaten können dann nicht mehr souverän entscheiden, welche Maßnahmen zur Pandemiebekämpfung sie einführen wollen.

Die Abschaffung des Nationalstaates bedeutet gleichzeitig den Verlust der Grund- und Bürgerrechte. Davor warnte der renommierte deutsch-britische Soziologe, Publizist und Politiker Ralf Dahrendorf bereits vor vielen Jahren:

„Wer den Nationalstaat aufgibt, verliert damit die bisher einzige effektive Garantie seiner Grundrechte. Wer heute den Nationalstaat für entbehrlich hält, erklärt damit – sei es auch noch so unabsichtlich – die Bürgerrechte für entbehrlich.“ (4)

Bei einer solch weitreichenden Frage muss jedoch das Volk das letzte Wort haben: Allen wahlberechtigen Bürger eines Landes muss das Recht und die Möglichkeit eingeräumt werden, in einer Abstimmung (Referendum) ihre Meinung kund zu tun.

Vorschlag einer Expertin an alle Landesregierungen

Frau Dr. Stuckelberger, die seit über 20 Jahren für die WHO arbeitet, unterbreitete laut „greatreject.org“ folgenden Vorschlag: Jedes Land sollte einen öffentlichen Protestbrief an die WHO schicken. Die ‚Regierungen‘ sollten einen Brief verfassen, in dem sie erklären, dass die Bevölkerung nicht akzeptiert, dass die Unterschrift des Gesundheitsministers ohne ein Referendum über das Schicksal von Millionen von Menschen entscheiden kann. Es ist sehr wichtig, diesen Brief aus jedem Land an die WHO in Genf zu schicken. Die WHO fordert alle Länder auf, die Maßnahmen bis Mai 2022 umzusetzen [diese Forderung wurde in der Zwischenzeit auf 2024 herausgeschoben, siehe].

Bisher hätten nur die Russen ein solches Ablehnungsschreiben verschickt (5).

Internationales Recht lässt keine UN-Verordnung zu, die über der Konstitution einzelner Länder steht. Dies trifft auch auf die WHO – eine UN-Organisation – zu.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a retired rector, educationalist and graduate psychologist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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)

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

Noten

1. [Updated English version]
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

2. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

3. https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/ausland/globaler-pandemievertrag-der-who-kann-nationale-verfassungen-aushebeln-a3744145.html

4. https://weltwoche.ch/daily/im-schatten-des-uktaine-krieges-werkelt…ns-sollen-zum-neuen-instrument-der-internationalen-politik-werden/

5. https://greatreject.org/who-is-world-government-power-grab/

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation als Weltregierung

Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016

March 7th, 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

A study published February 21, 2022, in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016

The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells

According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research

According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion

In a February 24, 2022, interview, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel proposed the COVID-19 pandemic may have been the result of a lab leak

*

The facts surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s origin just keep getting stranger and more disturbing as time goes on. From the start, most of the evidence seemed to point to the virus being a lab creation that somehow escaped the confines of the laboratory. We really don’t have much of anything to suggest otherwise.

Now, a study1,2 published February 21, 2022, in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented3 by Moderna — in 2016.

Some believe this is a smoking gun, proving gain of function research is at the heart of this mystery. Of course, more research is needed to verify the findings, but if proven correct, it could be rather incriminating.

What Did Moderna Patent?

The genetic sequence patented4 by Moderna — and now found to be part of the SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein that gives the virus access into human cells — is a 19-nucleotide sequence of a human gene called MSH3, which is a DNA repair gene.5

Nucleotides code for specific amino acids. The MSH3 gene works with the part of your immune system responsible for combating cancer by repairing damaged cells. This pathway has been identified as a potential target for new cancer treatments.

As noted in the patent application, the gene sequence has been modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research. The first name listed on the patent is Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who has been Moderna’s chief executive officer since 2011.

What’s so curious here is that the scientists of the Frontiers in Virology paper searched all viral and bacterial databases looking for matches to the furin cleavage site patented by Moderna, and SARS-CoV-2 is the only pathogen that has this sequence. It’s an absolute match — 100% identical.

What are the chances of a naturally-occurring virus having a rarely encountered furin cleavage site that is genetically identical to an engineered and patented one? As noted by the authors:6

“The absence of CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG from any eukaryotic or viral genome in the BLAST database makes recombination in an intermediate host an unlikely explanation for its presence in SARS-CoV-2.”

In other words, the sequence being a natural zoonosis is extremely unlikely. According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.7 They also noted that “Recombination in an intermediate host is an unlikely explanation.” What’s more, it’s known that inserting a furin cleavage site on the spike protein of a virus will make it more infectious.

Moderna CEO Suggests Lab Leak Responsible for COVID-19

One hypothesis raised in the paper is that the matching code might have been introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 genome through infected human cells that express the MSH3 gene. The question, then, is how and when did that happen?

Interestingly, in a February 24, 2022, interview, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo questioned Bancel about the finding. He responded saying their scientists are looking into the claim, adding:

“That it came from a lab is possible. Humans make mistakes. It’s possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement or gene modification and then there was an accident where somebody was infected in the lab, which affected family and friends. It is possible. On the claim you just mentioned, scientists will look to know if it’s real or not.”

Why This Code?

Now, if SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, why would they use this particular code? As noted in the Frontiers of Virology paper, the MSH3 sequence in question has been shown to cause mismatch repair in DNA, and faulty repair of genetic damage can lead to a number of diseases, including cancer. But overexpression of MSH3 also plays a role in virology:

“Overexpression of MSH3 is known to interfere with mismatch repair … which holds virologic importance. Induction of DNA mismatch repair deficiency results in permissiveness of influenza A virus (IAV) infection of human respiratory cells and increased pathogenicity. Mismatch repair deficiency may extend shedding of SARS-CoV-2 …

A human-codon-optimized mRNA encoding a protein 100% homologous to human MSH3 could, during the course of viral research, inadvertently or intentionally induce mismatch repair deficiency in a human cell line, which would increase susceptibility to SARS-like viral infection.”

It’s interesting to note that Moderna did not have a single successful mRNA product brought to market before the COVID-19 pandemic allowed them to bypass normal regulatory requirements.

Now, all of a sudden, we’re to believe they managed to throw together a safe and effective mRNA injection against SARS-CoV-2, a virus that just so happens to contain one of its own patented components. What are the odds?

Did Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading promoter of mRNA technology as a replacement for traditional vaccines, have anything to do with Moderna’s sudden “success”? It certainly looks that way. After all, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), both funded and co-developed Moderna’s COVID-19 jab.

As explained by the NIH,8 the injection “combines Moderna’s mRNA delivery platform with the stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike immunogen (S-2P)9 developed by NIAID scientists.” In mid-November 2021, Moderna granted co-ownership of its COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” patent to the NIH to resolve a dispute involving the naming of the inventors.10

Can the COVID Jab Trigger Cancer?

Incidentally, since the release of the mRNA COVID jab, some doctors have raised concerns about the possibility of the injections to trigger cancer, largely due to its detrimental impact on your immune function.

For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein.11

So far, the link to cancer post-jab seems to be related to the downregulation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is involved in both infections and cancer. In an October 2021 article, Dr. Nicole Delépine, a French pediatric oncologist,12 discussed reports of exploding cancer cases post-jab:13

“Several months ago, we expressed at least “theoretical reservations” about vaccinating cancer patients or former patients who had been cured, because of the underlying mechanism of the gene injection on immunity.

Several geneticists had also expressed their concerns about the possible interference between active or dormant cancer cells and the activity of gene therapy on lymphocytes in particular. Months have passed, and the vaccine madness has amplified … [C]learly there seems to be three situations:

  • The appearance of a cancer rapidly after the injection (two weeks to a few months) and very progressive, in a person who was previously free of known carcinological pathologies.
  • The resumption of cancer in a patient who has been in complete remission for several months or years.
  • The rapid, even explosive, evolution of a cancer that is not yet controlled.

Beyond the testimonies that are pouring in from relatives and friends and on social networks, a Swiss newspaper has finally addressed the subject in a broader way. Here are some excerpts from their article and their references:

‘Can COVID vaccines cause cancer? In some cases, the answer seems to be yes … [It] has been shown that in up to 50% of vaccinees, COVID vaccines can induce temporary immunosuppression or immune dysregulation (lymphocytopenia) that can last for about a week or possibly longer.

Furthermore, COVID mRNA vaccines have shown to ‘reprogram’… adaptive and innate immune responses and, in particular, to downregulate the so-called TLR4 pathway, which is known to play an important role in the immune response to infections and cancer cells.

Thus, if there is already a tumor somewhere — known or unknown — or if there is a predisposition to a certain type of cancer, such a state of vaccine-induced immune suppression or immune dysregulation could potentially trigger sudden tumor growth and cancer within weeks of vaccination …’”

Dr. Ryan Cole, in August 2021, also reported14,15 seeing a significant increase in certain types of cancer, especially endometrial and uterine cancers, since the start of the mass injection campaign. Cole runs a large pathology laboratory in Idaho.

Other Key Components of SARS-CoV-2 Have Also Been Patented

Time will tell where this all leads, but clearly, SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to be the result of natural evolution. The evidence for it being man-made is simply overwhelming. So far, few in mainstream media have been willing to touch this story, for obvious reasons.

Finding a key gene sequence of the virus in a patent of one of the primary vaccine makers is inconvenient to say the least — and this is in addition to all the other patents relating to the virus.

As previously detailed16 by David Martin, Ph.D., SARS-CoV-2 appears to have been engineered in the 1990s, perfected in 1999 and patented in 2002. Evidence also shows that plans for mandatory vaccinations were hatched in 2015. That year, during an Academies of Science meeting, Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance stated:

“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCM’s [medical countermeasures] such as pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine.

A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of [the] process.”

According to Martin, “That’s admission of a felony, and the felony is domestic terrorism.” In a November 2021 Red Pill Expo speech,17 Martin reviewed the timeline of the COVID-19 jab, which began in 1990 with the first coronavirus vaccine patent for canines (dogs) filed by Pfizer.

That vaccine was an S-1 spike protein vaccine — just like the current Pfizer COVID shot, and according to Martin, that S-1 spike protein is a bioweapon, not a pathogen. Nine years later, in 1999, Fauci, as director of the NIAID, tasked the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill with the creation of “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.

The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells, filed April 19, 2002, (Patent No. 7279327), details the gene sequencing of the resulting virus, and how the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain and the S-1 spike protein were engineered and could be synthetically modified in the lab using readily available gene sequencing technologies.

Basically, computer code is turned into a manmade pathogen, or an intermediate pathogen. This technology was initially funded in order to harness the coronavirus as a vector for an HIV vaccine, but it clearly didn’t end there.

CDC Holds Patents on SARS Coronavirus

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also holds key patents, including an illegally obtained patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852), which Martin says is 99% identical to the sequence now identified as SARS-CoV-2.

That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521, which cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing. With these two patents, the CDC has complete scientific control, as it owns the provenance of both the virus and its detection.

According to Martin, there’s also evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving the CDC and Sequoia Pharmaceuticals. April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163).

So, the CDC filed a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment? This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses.18 Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.

But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.

So, there is zero possibility for anyone but an insider to have that information. This is clear evidence of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion, Martin notes. You cannot develop a treatment for something that you do not know exists.

Sanofi also owns a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued November 24, 2015.

Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.

According to Martin, there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. It’s unclear whether Moderna’s 2016 patent filing is part of that list.

*

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

Notes

1, 6 Frontiers in Virology February 21, 2022 DOI: 10.3389/fviro.2022.834808

2 The Vault Project February 25, 2022

3, 4 US Patent 9,587,003 B2 March 7, 2017

5 Briefings on Bioinformatics April 28, 2016; 18(3): 413-425

7 Daily Mail February 23, 2022

8 NIH November 16, 2020

9 NIAID February 19, 2020

10 CBS News November 15, 2021

11 IJVTPR May 10, 2021; 2(1): 38-79

12 AHRP Nicole Delepine Bio

13 Peckford42 October 25, 2021

14 Rumble Dr. Ryan Cole on the increase in unusual cancers in his practice

15 Rumble Dr. Ryan Cole COVID vaccine/cancer connection

16, 17 Before It’s News November 11, 2021

18 Crunchbase Sequoia Pharmaceuticals

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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

The US-led West quite clearly took Pakistan for granted and continued to condescendingly view the country as their ‘junior partner’ or even still as their ‘vassal state’, which is why so many of their envoys in Islamabad unsuccessfully demanded that it publicly condemn Russia despite that undermining the South Asian state’s national interests.

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan just proudly flexed his country’s strategic autonomy by condemning those Islamabad-based Western envoys that earlier demanded that he publicly condemn Russia for its special military operation in Ukraine. By rhetorically asking, “What do you think of us? Are we your slaves … that whatever you say, we will do? I want to ask the European Union ambassadors: Did you write such a letter to India?”, he broke the West’s post-colonial neo-imperial chains over Pakistan.

Pakistan abstained from the UNGA vote on Ukraine alongside around three dozen other non-Western countries, including India, both of whom are impressively pursuing the same policy of neutrality in the New Cold War despite being decades-long rivals. While India is well known for its prior policy of Non-Alignment and its post-Old Cold War one of Multi-Alignment, Pakistan hadn’t previously formulated its foreign policy in such a way, which speaks to PM Khan’s impact on reshaping its grand strategy.

Russian-Pakistani relations are mutually beneficial, aren’t aimed against any third parties, and jointly aim to fulfill their complementary grand strategies of integrating the Eurasian continent with a special focus on the Central Asian space between them. Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership (GEP) relies on Pakistan’s new policy of geo-economics in order to be successful and vice-versa. These former Old Cold War-era rivals have quickly become close partners due to their many bilateral and multilateral interests.

The US must be shocked by this since it’s always mistreated Pakistan as a “junior partner”, so much so that critics within that South Asian state became concerned that their country had at one time even transformed into America’s “vassal state”. PM Khan has been outspoken about prior administrations’ subservience to other states at the expense of their own’s interests, which explains why he immediately set to work to correct Pakistan’s foreign policy course as among his top priorities in office.

To be absolutely clear, “Closer Russian-Pakistani Relations Aren’t Aimed Against America Or India”, they’re aimed at mutually beneficial goals that run the gamut of jointly containing Afghan-emanating security threats and implementing PM Khan’s passionate anti-poverty policies, among many others. Third parties like the US-led West should applaud this ambitious vision but regrettably view everything through the outdated perspective of zero-sum politics.

They quite clearly took Pakistan for granted and continued to condescendingly view the country as their “junior partner” or even still as their “vassal state”, which is why so many of their envoys demanded that it publicly condemn Russia despite that undermining the South Asian state’s national interests as explained. By proudly standing up to them and defying the pressure put upon Pakistan, PM Khan showed that his country isn’t anyone’s puppet, which is comparable to a foreign policy revolution.

It’s also perfectly in line with the principles enshrined in Pakistan’s new National Security Policy (NSP), which was formulated in consultation with a broad array of experts over several years. PM Khan therefore isn’t acting unilaterally or in any “rogue” fashion like some of his critics at home and abroad might claim by refusing to have his country publicly condemn Russia, but is acting in full accordance with Pakistan’s NSP that represents its national interests as determined by its most capable experts.

Observers should pay close attention to the example that Pakistan is setting for other Global South states, particularly Muslim-majority ones and those that have a history of close ties with the US. PM Khan is showing everyone that it’s possible to defend one’s own national interests in the face of massive Western pressure, which is similar to what the UAE is also doing as well, along with Turkey and a few others. This trend that’s quickly taking over the “Ummah” suggests how much US influence is in decline.

America should never impose zero-sum policies on anyone, let alone its historical partners like Pakistan. There was a time where its unipolar hegemony was uncontested but that period is long over. Washington can no longer get whatever it wants from others whenever it wants. Pakistan’s brave stand in breaking off its post-colonial neo-imperial chains is a powerful flex of its strategic autonomy and will result in ultimately unleashing more of its geo-economic potential with time.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan Just Broke Free from the West’s Post-Colonial Neo-Imperial Chains
  • Tags:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

 

 

 

 

 

The Falkland Islands (referred to as Malvinas in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese) are once again generating tensions, and the Argentine authorities in Buenos Aires have been expressing their dissatisfaction with both the United Kingdom and neighboring Brazil.

Last Friday Argentina demanded the UK resume flights with stopovers in Río Gallegos (Argentina) – they were unilaterally interrupted in March 2020 due to the pandemic. They favored communication with the Malvinas archipelago, and allowed the relatives of those who died in the 1982 Falklands war to visit the graves of the Argentine soldiers in Darwin Cemetery.  A few weeks ago, the Argentine ambassador to Brazil, Daniel Scioli, also expressed his “concern” to the Foreign Ministry of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro about the significant increase in “military flights from the UK between Brazilian territory and the Malvinas Islands.”

The Brazilian government officially backs Buenos Aires’ claims over the island’s territory, but this gesture seems to be a kind of signal to the UK. It is unprecedented: even the Brazilian military dictatorship, which Bolsonaro admires, supported Argentina.

On January 5, the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement reaffirming that the Malvinas were “illegally occupied” on 3 January 1833 by British forces who “expelled the Argentine authorities legitimately established there”. On February 12 there was also an incident when Argentina denounced the passage of an American nuclear-powered submarine – the USS Greeneville – in the South Atlantic sea, near the Falklands. It counted with the support of a British airplane.

The main economic activities in the islands are fishing, tourism and sheep farming. Oil exploration, licensed by the Government of the archipelago, remains controversial as a result of maritime disputes with Argentina. The Falklands, based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending 370 km (200 nautical miles) from its coastal baselines – it overlaps with Argentina’s own EEZ. The islands’ government is a self-governing British Overseas Territory, with a Governor appointed by the British Queen.

In 1982 there was a ten-week undeclared war between London and Buenos Aires over the islands. It ended with Argentine surrender. At the time the Brazilian military government allowed Argentine airplanes to refuel in its territory and, although Brazil at the time was ruled by a military anti-communist regime, it even helped Soviet support operations for Argentina during the conflict.

Both Buenos Aires and London claim sovereignty over the Falklands. The latter does so based on the continuous British administration of the archipelago since 1833, while Buenos Aires claims it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina achieved its independence (in 1816). In 1833, England sent two naval vessels to the Malvinas. This event is interpreted by  the Argentine as a usurpation, while the British see it as a reassertion of sovereignty. The troops however left the area without formal government.

In the twentieth century, the Malvinas faced significant population decline, with many young residents seeking job opportunities overseas. And, in recent years, the population decline was reduced mostly thanks to immigrants from the UK, as well as from Saint Helena and Chile.

The official and predominant language in the archipelago is English, but Spanish is also employed and South American Gauchos (once a majority) have also influenced the local dialect and culture.

In February, Argentine President Alberto Fernández began an international tour to Russia, China and Barbados. In Russia, Fernández expressed Argentine desire to join the BRICS group and received support from Vladimir Putin. Days later, in China, the same topic was discussed with President Xi Jinping, who also signaled a favorable position regarding Argentine entry into the bloc. It is noteworthy that the path to possible inclusion in the BRICS has been Russia and China, and not neighboring Brazil. This is yet another signal of Brazilian-Argentine deteriorated bilateral relations, and the issue of the Malvinas also plays a part in this situation.

It would be wrong to frame the issue of the Falklands within Argentine nationalism or a mere dispute over fishing rights. The Malvinas issue is part of the geopolitics of the western portion of the South Atlantic Sea. Only two regional players occupy most of the continent’s Atlantic coast: Brazil and Argentina. Meanwhile, Washington and London control a chain of islands that are located in the center of the South Atlantic Ocean (between America and Africa), and these two powers also exercise naval control over this zone. Thus, the “Malvinas issue” is actually part of a larger dispute over a vast ocean full of resources. The Falkland Islands also have great geostrategic importance due to the connection they establish with Antarctica. Moreover, the Strait of Magellan and the Beagle and Drake channels enable Atlantic-Pacific interoceanic communication and are essential for monitoring global trade.

The Falklands War is a kind of geopolitical trauma in South America, with a South Atlantic mostly controlled by London, which is the local hegemon there –  it controls access to Antarctica and the Indian Ocean. The Sandwich Islands, as well as the islands of Saint Helena, Gouch, South Georgia, and others are all ruled by Queen Elizabeth. With the independence of Brazil, the islands of Martim Vaz and neighboring Trindade became Brazilian. In 1890, the British occupied Trindade, but abandoned it after a bilateral agreement mediated by Portugal. The return of Trindade to Brazil through diplomatic means avoided a serious problem, but such was not the case with the Malvinas.

The 1982 Falklands War short-circuited the Monroe Doctrine and the Brazilian own “National Security Doctrine”. The very concept of the “Blue Amazon”, the Brazilian exclusive economic zone, developed partly out of these events and they still resonate today. For example, in 2019, Brazilian Colonel Leandro Freitas Ribeiro argued (in his Naval War School dissertation) that the country needs a nuclear submarine to defend its Blue Amazon, based on the experience of the Malvinas war.

Brazil’s goal today is to develop the first nuclear submarine in the Southern Hemisphere. According to anEconomist October 2021 piece, the South American country could in fact achieve it before Australia, notwithstanding AUKUS. This would of course not please the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO). Brasilia and Moscow in fact advanced on their nuclear cooperation talks when Bolsonaro and Putin met in February. By 2010, Buenos Aires also had similar plans regarding the development of nuclear propulsion for its Navy’s vessels, and it even tried to participate in the Brazilian project, which did not happen. The 1982 war operates as a kind of a background to all these developments. Bolsonaro’s somewhat erratic foreign policy would in fact benefit a great deal from improving bilateral relations with Argentina within BRICS. A possible Lula electoral victory in October could boost the BRICS group again.

To sum it up, the Falkland Islands remain an important topic in the South American continent. They are part of a larger geopolitical dispute in the South Atlantic sea and we will be hearing a lot more about them.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,151,450 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 24,827 deaths and 200,331 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 25, 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,151,450 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 25, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 24,827 reports of deaths — an increase of 425 over the previous week — and 200,331 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,128 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 774,373 adverse events, including 11,312 deaths and 74,257 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 25, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 11,312 U.S. deaths reported as of Feb. 25, 18% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 552 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Feb. 25, including 325 million doses of Pfizer, 208 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

From the 2/25/22 release of VAERS data.

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 25, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

8,817 adverse events, including 200 rated as serious and 4 reported deaths.

The most recent death involves an 8-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2109625) from Mississippi who died 7 days after his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when he was found blue and lifeless at home.

He was taken to the hospital with a full code in process. A pulse was detected several times, but the boy ultimately died in the ICU. It was reported to the doctor who filed the report that the boy died from multisystem inflammatory syndrome. He did not have COVID.

  • 17 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
  • 32 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 25, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 13-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 2115839) from Wisconsin who was severely compromised and received two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Although the cause of death wasn’t clear, she appeared to have significant health issues, respiratory distress and heart problems.

  • 69 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 648 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 631 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 159 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 25, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

Pfizer vaccine only 12% effective in kids 5 to 11, study says

A study released Monday showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in 5- to 11-year-olds was only 12% after a seven-week period of observation. Yet, the authors of the study still recommended the vaccine for that age group, stating it was protective against severe disease.

They also proposed the recommended dose for 5- to 11-year-olds was too small, suggesting a higher dose might solve the problem.

Some scientists at the CDC and FDA pushed for the data to be made public before an FDA meeting, scheduled for Feb. 15, to review Pfizer’s application for Emergency Use Authorization of a three-dose regimen of its vaccine for infants and children 6 months to 5 years old — but the study’s findings were only made public this week.

The FDA on Feb. 11 abruptly postponed the meeting to review Pfizer’s application for infants and children under 5, stating Pfizer didn’t have enough data on the efficiency of a third dose for that age group.

In an article published March 1, Dr. Madhava Setty, senior science editor at The Defender, examined the data in the study and outlined two flaws in the authors’ conclusions: 1) that the vaccines prevent severe disease in this age group, and 2) that increasing the dose might be appropriate.

Judge clears way for Pfizer whistleblower lawsuit 

A whistleblower lawsuit alleging fraud during Pfizer’s COVID vaccine trials is moving forward, after a district court judge unsealed the complaint, including 400 pages of exhibits.

Brook Jackson in January 2021 sued Pfizer and two contractors that worked on its COVID vaccine clinical trials: Ventavia Research Group and ICON PLC.

Jackson worked for Ventavia for a brief period in 2020, before being fired after she filed a complaint with the FDA over alleged indiscretions she observed during the vaccine trials.

She also gave The BMJ a cache of internal company documents, photos and recordings highlighting alleged wrongdoing by Ventavia.

Jackson filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, under the False Claims Act.

The lawsuit includes several charges of fraud and retaliation on the part of both Ventavia and Pfizer. The complaint remained under seal until Feb. 10, when U.S. District Court Judge Michael Truncale ordered it unsealed.

Husband of woman who died from J&J shot speaks out

The husband of an Oregon woman who died last year from a blood-clotting disorder — two weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine — spoke out publicly this week about his wife’s death.

Stan Thomas told NBC News he’s fighting to ensure his wife’s sacrifice is not forgotten.

Monica Melkonian, 52, received her J&J shot at a vaccination clinic on April 7, 2021 —  the same day the CDC and FDA temporarily paused the vaccine to investigate reports of a rare blood-clotting disorder called vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

Melkonian’s most notable symptoms included a persistent headache and pain behind her left eye before she experienced a seizure, stroke and ultimately died from the condition.

To date, the U.S. has confirmed only nine deaths due to VITT caused by the J&J shot and 54 cases of blood clotting conditions among J&J recipients, despite thousands of cases reported to VAERS.

Booster shots causing more injuries than expected in Israel

More Israelis are experiencing injuries and reactions following COVID booster shots than the country’s passive reporting system shows, according to a survey conducted by the Israeli Ministry of Health (MOH).

The MOH conducted an active survey of booster shot recipients to collect data on adverse events associated with booster doses, then compared the survey data to the data available from the country’s passive reporting system. 

Out of 4,000 people who participated in the survey, results showed six of 2,049 respondents were admitted to the hospital following the booster shot, and a significant number of people reported worsening of their underlying health conditions.

Extrapolated to the millions of booster doses that have been administered, that’s 270,000 hospitalizations per 92 million booster doses administered in the U.S. and 13,000 hospitalizations per 4.5 million booster shots administered in Israel.

The MOH survey also found reports of allergic reactions, menstrual irregularities, neurological injuries, injection-site reactions and general adverse events.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 8,817 COVID Vaccine Injuries Reported to CDC Among Kids 5 to 11, as Study Shows Pfizer Vaccine Only 12% Effective in That Age Group
  • Tags: , , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a “comprehensive media campaign,” according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines. The government also relied on earned media featuring “influencers” from “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and “experts” like White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.

Though virtually all of these newsrooms produced stories covering the COVID-19 vaccines, the taxpayer dollars flowing to their companies were not disclosed to audiences in news reports, since common practice dictates that editorial teams operate independently of media advertising departments and news teams felt no need to make the disclosure, as some publications reached for comment explained.

The Biden administration engaged in a massive campaign to educate the public and promote vaccination as the best way to prevent serious illness or death from COVID-19.

Congress appropriated $1 billion in fiscal year 2021 for the secretary of health to spend on activities to “strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States.” Federal law authorizes HHS to act through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies to award contracts to public and private entities to “carry out a national, evidence-based campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for the prevention and control of diseases, combat misinformation about vaccines, and disseminate scientific and evidence-based vaccine-related information, with the goal of increasing rates of vaccination across all ages … to reduce and eliminate vaccine-preventable diseases.”

Anyone who has spent time reading the news, watching TV news coverage, or browsing social media in the past year has more than likely been exposed to the government’s advertising. HHS ads posted to YouTube have been viewed millions of times and commercials featuring celebrities like singer Sir Elton John and actor Sir Michael Caine have been the subject of news coverage, such as this feature from NBC News:

“Fear-based vaccine ads” from HHS featuring “survivor” stories from coronavirus patients who were hospitalized in intensive care units were covered by CNN and discussed on ABC’s “The View” when they were unveiled last October.

Though the federal government was paying each of these companies and others for pro-vaccine advertising while news reports covered the same vaccines, many editorial boards say they have firewall policies that prevent advertisers from influencing news coverage.

“Advertisers pay for space to share their messages, as was the case here, and those ads are clearly labeled as such,” explained Shani George, vice president of communications for the Washington Post, in a statement. “The newsroom is completely independent from the advertising department,” she said.

A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Times gave a similar statement, emphasizing that the “newsroom operates independently from advertising.”

TheBlaze reached out to several other publications that either declined to comment or did not respond before publication.

The COVID-19 Public Education Campaign by HHS also used earned media outreach — word of mouth marketing — with the goal of having “trusted messengers and influencers” speak to news organizations to “provide factual, timely information and steps people can take to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”

As a result of that effort, various government officials have frequently been quoted by reporters covering the COVID-19 pandemic, offering factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety. An October article from BuzzFeed News featuring the “essential facts” about who is eligible for a COVID-19 booster shot, for example, reported pro-vaccine statements from CDC director Rochelle Walensky, FDA official Peter Marks, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and University of California, San Francisco epidemiologist George Rutherford.

The article stressed how studies show “boosters work” and cited FDA data that suggests getting a booster shot “can reestablish strong protection against the virus.” BuzzFeed News advised everyone age 65 or older, people with health conditions that put them at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19, those like healthcare workers who are at risk from coming into contact with COVID-19 positive people for work, and anyone in areas with high virus transmission to get vaccine boosters, in accordance with guidance from the CDC.

Other publications, such as the Los Angeles Times, featured advice from experts on how readers could convince vaccine-hesitant people in their lives to change their minds. The Washington Post covered “the pro-vaccine messages people want to hear.” Newsmax has reported how the vaccines have “been demonstrated to be safe and effective” and “encouraged citizens, especially those at risk, to get immunized.”

HHS did not immediately respond when asked if the agency used taxpayer dollars to pay for people to be interviewed, or for a PR firm to place them in interviews with news outlets.

Since the COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson were given emergency approval for use in the United States last year, more than 215 million Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. An estimated 94.6 million people have also received at least one booster dose. About 65% of the U.S. population has now been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, including 75% of U.S. adults and 88.8% of seniors.

HHS has not yet revealed how much advertising money was spent on each media platform.

*

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

Featured image is from TheBlaze

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

Paul Nurse is no expert, he says. The geneticist and former president of the Royal Society is humble about the limits of his knowledge when it comes to covid-19, and yet on the hot topic of testing he does not hesitate to use his prominent voice.

“Under Matt Hancock, it was a shambles, frankly, given the strength and quality of UK biomedical science,” he says of the test and trace system. “They immediately turned only to private company solutions without recognising that that had to be set up from scratch when it was needed almost immediately. It is possible, but not something you can put together in weeks. I think they made a fundamental strategic error.”

What irks Nurse is that he and other research leaders with PCR testing expertise and infrastructure at their fingertips were ignored when UK science was chomping at the bit to help fight the virus.

“We have throughout the country many, many academic laboratories with both the facilities and the skilled staff to do these tests, and they were all sitting at home under furlough. [At the Francis Crick Institute, where I am director], we brought them back in and within three weeks we were doing around 10-15% of total test capacity in the country when we’d never done anything of the sort before.”

Nurse appealed to then health secretary Hancock to roll out what his institute was doing around the country. Within weeks, he claims, local laboratories could be providing a 24 hour turnaround testing service using pre-existing healthcare logistics.

“Here could have been a contribution to the complete chaos of the first round when people weren’t being tested—including healthcare professionals.

“We wrote to Hancock about it. Peter Ratcliffe, clinical physician and another Nobel laureate, wrote to him. We talked about it on the radio and television. We got no replies, then after three months we got a holding note from a civil servant. It beggars belief,” he says.

At the Crick, PCRs can be turned around very rapidly, usually within 8-9 hours.

“You just have to be good at logistics and be well organised, and also to have the testing facilities close to the people being tested so that it can work efficiently,” says Nurse.

The Crick’s efforts have kept them “surprisingly active” over the past two years. Nurse is proud of how the institute’s scientists have provided testing for 10 local hospitals and 150 care homes, set up within a week of the start of the pandemic.

Nurse fears that, if a similar pandemic occurs again, the government is likely to do the same thing and fall back on the private sector. And even today, it needs a contingency plan for testing.

“They’re not going to keep testing capacity up at half a million a day running for ever and ever. They can’t afford to do it.”

The UK government is starting to withdraw free testing for everyone, as we learn to live with the virus. Do you think that the time is right for that?

I’m getting more relaxed about it, but given the massive amount of virus that’s circulating around the globe and the extraordinary rapidity in modern societies of how that can spread, we have to always worry about new variants and what they might bring.

The circumstances in which [omicron] is hitting the UK now are certainly not as lethal as covid was 18 months ago, whether that’s partly because of the virus or the fact that so many of us are vaccinated. We know from our own [ongoing] research, although it’s not yet published, that the booster massively increases immunity. We’ve tested over 300 people, including myself, and [antibody levels are] massively increased compared with one dose and two doses of the vaccine.

[But] I’m not as blasé as some—there is a pool of virus there, it’s almost certainly mutating, so something else could go wrong. There is a case for complacency with this. And of course the answer is worldwide vaccination, which has got to be a focus.

Might the tribulations with testing—in terms of the science, the technology, the infrastructure, our understanding, and interpretation of results—lead to benefits for research?

What has been evident and obvious is that high quality testing coupled with essentially social measures are the only defences with a new viral pathogen. It’s clear that testing is a frontline defence system that will always be important and was always identified as being important. Long term planning processes in the NHS over the past 10 years were aware of it and did nothing about it. It was obvious—even to a yeast geneticist like me—that this was the case, and yet nothing happened.

What has this taught us? We should take notice of scientists, and when they say something is important, test it properly in the political domain rather than having a report like the one over flu [Exercise Cygnus in 2016]1 and then just burying it and forgetting about it.

We need to prepare for these sorts of things. The fact that we had no personal protective equipment was ridiculous. We were being run by accountants rather than those who know what goes on—the cost of having a warehouse that is immediately available, and you might throw stuff away after 5-10 years, but you keep it stocked up, compared with [doing nothing and] killing people. We need a major new shift in how to do this, driven not by the accountants, not by constant attention to the penny that can be saved, but [by] the lives and the economy that can be saved.

The UK has long been regarded as a world leader in research—how will the pandemic affect that in the years to come?

I don’t think the research infrastructure as a whole responded brilliantly to keeping students, postdocs, and younger colleagues productive during the pandemic. Like what we did [at the Crick]—it would not have been difficult for many universities to [get involved in testing], but they didn’t, probably because they’re risk averse.

Even for our staff, even though we protected the workplace and kept our research activity going, our graduate students and postdocs work on projects that last for three to seven years, and they’ve been blighted by the pandemic. They’ve not interacted with people, they’ve not had meetings, conferences, seminars—the bread and butter of intellectual research activity has been severely truncated. And that’s brought stress for these younger people, and they are unhappy. I think the system has got to support them because otherwise we will have a cohort of people who didn’t have proper training, who didn’t have the proper exposure to research, who couldn’t make sensible decisions about what their career should be.

What do you see as the biggest challenges to biomedical research over the next five years?

Firstly, there are the consequences of covid-19. The second thing is that we in the UK think we’re very good at research and biomedical life sciences, which in general we are, but we should not rest on our laurels. I’m writing a review for the government [on research and development in the UK], and it isn’t just a question of money and investment, it’s a question of how we order it, how we structure it, how we deliver it.

If we look at the more academic side, we have about £8-9bn being spent in the UK on what I call “discovery research” at the interface between translation and commercial application, which is largely driven by universities. And we have over £4bn a year going into what are called public service research establishments, which are run by the government. These two sectors barely talk to each other. And we know there’s a lot of stress in university departments about people finding money to do research and so on. This all needs to be looked at.

The term “life sciences” has come to simply mean biomedicine and the drug industry, but it is much wider than that, including applications in agriculture, protecting the environment, and other forms of biotechnology. This has been almost lost in the fact that we have a life sciences strategy that takes no notice of other categories. It’s just invisible. We need a new life sciences strategy that embraces the entire territory of life sciences because the different categories have much to learn from each other when it comes to applications.

Finally, the obvious one is we need funding. You only can make a case for funding if you deserve funding. Now is the moment [given everything that science has delivered over the past two years]. So let’s get out there and make the case for it. And not by calling for individual sectors, which is where we tend to go tribal. We need to make a concerted effort to communicate that science as a whole—understanding of the world and ourselves—leads to improvement of humankind and increasing prosperity and protection of the environment.

Has science become more politicised and polarised?

I think communication is critical between scientists, political leaders, policy makers, and the public. And I’m not sure we’re brilliant at it. We need to consider very carefully the relationship between scientific discovery, research, public policy, and communication with the public because we’ve seen politicians having to adapt to science in a way that they’ve never had to before. And they think that one liners like “We are following the science” are appropriate. But that just shows they don’t really know what science is, because there are going to be a range of opinions. What is the evidence base? What is the reasonable thing to follow?

My view is that people have mostly done their best, including the politicians. I give them a hard time, but I think they’ve all had a hard time, and I think we have to recognise that they’re not going to get everything right, just as scientists wouldn’t. But now we need to reassess. We need a healthy relationship between science and the public, and for decision making to be built on it. How can we present science in a way that engages the public, leads to proper outcomes, and doesn’t lead to these one liners, which simply distort the whole process?

*

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

Paul Nurse graduated with a degree in biology from the University of Birmingham and then with a PhD from the University of East Anglia. A yeast geneticist, his research looks at the cell cycle, which led to the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his part in discoveries of protein molecules that control the division (duplication) of cells.

He is a former chief executive of Cancer Research UK and former president of Rockefeller University in New York City. He has been the director and chief executive of the Francis Crick Institute in London for 10 years, during which time he also served for five years as president of the Royal Society. He was knighted by the Queen in 1999.

Mun-Keat Looi is an international features editor.

“Emergency Powers” – to End Humanity

March 7th, 2022 by Julian Rose

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

‘The emergency powers’ we have witnessed being enforced in Canada – and by another name in Austria, Italy, France, Australia, New Zealand and Greece in recent weeks  – are quite obviously without precedent. The spectre of Prime Ministers and Presidents awarding themselves demagogic powers of over-reach to force their citizens to comply with the prison persuasions of a police state – represents outright war on humanity.

Brutal acts of thuggery that, in one fell swoop, smash what until now most have considered sacrosanct civil codes of justice and basic human rights.

Evoking such ‘emergency powers’ to crush the right to peaceful protest sets all the red lights flashing simultaneously, putting us on high alert.

The precipitous events in Ukraine have stolen the focus from the swelling voices of reason amongst citizens under the Covid cosh. But this doesn’t take away from the fact that an actual war has been declared right in our own backyards and is being pursued here and now. A war that is essentially as repressive and vindictive as classical weapons based wars of attrition. 

The evoking of dictatorial powers to crush a nation’s own people is deeply criminal. Evoking such powers to brutally enforce absolute control over peace loving citizens is a crime of truly heinous proportions.

The major question raised in the minds of all sentient humans is who could possibly be so devoid of humanity as to be able to enforce such a crime?

In attempting to answer this question we should consider whether this form of evil stems from a recognised psychological sickness, or whether it results from a pathological form of conditioning carried-out on those who willingly open themselves to being programmed?

A form of such conditioning is widely found to be operating within the ranks of technocratic institutions under the title ‘applied behavioural psychology.’ One of a number of psychological tools used by the 0.5% cabal seeking to establish a New World Order/Great Reset centralising power over mankind – including the theft of human DNA and ultimately the complete robotisation of human kind.

What we can ascertain without the need for further uncertainty is that amongst world ‘leaders’ of today, a percentage are clinically insane – seriously mentally ill. So when dealing with those who have no qualms and no emotional instinct against using extreme repression to get their way, one must start from the position of clearly recognising that one is dealing with a person who, in rational circumstances, would be hospitalised and under special treatment.  Not running a country or deciding the future direction of the planet.

One doesn’t plead with a clinically insane person for the return of one’s stolen civil liberties. Nor should one attempt to enter into a rational/intellectual conversation with someone who is regarding one as ‘abnormal’ because one has feelings and emotions. A pathologically possessed person sees a balanced individual that way – and his cold heart finds no commonality with the great majority of human beings.

Brave leaders of resistance movements can suddenly find themselves face to face with a senior state figurehead in an immaculately pressed and ironed suit, perfect manners, seemingly steely resolve and a pre-prepared script in his brain – and think this individual must be clever, successful and strong – but somehow gone astray. Someone who, with enough gentle persuasion and/or prayer, must finally come around to taking a rational and understanding view concerning resolving the conflict in question.

But in truth the good resistance leader in such a situation, is delusional. He or she is not aware that hoping for a rational response from a pathologically driven individual is a futile expectation.

Trudeau’s training as one of Klaus Schwab’s ‘young leaders’ guaranteed that no answer would emerge in response to the Canadian trucker’s call for dialogue. The training indoctrinates the trainee to have no other position than the one which gets the job done.

The same goes for senior technocrats, most politicians and virtually all employees of State hierarchies. We are dealing with entities that are programmed to perform; so what one is facing is a programme that looks like a human.

Only once we have absorbed this fact can we then plan an approach that fits the circumstances. Develop a tactic which fully takes-in the reality that one can’t negotiate with a pre-programmed cyborg.

To be successful, such a plan must be based upon a methodology which fits the reality. That addresses the actual circumstances.

In Stanley Kubrick’s iconic film ‘2001 a Space Odyssey’ the space mission’s logistics are heavily reliant upon ‘Hal’ the onboard computer. But the hero (Dave) is not aware that Hal has been programmed to follow a suicidal mission deep into space.

Hal is programmed to issue advice verbally and persuasively.  It takes a strong action of will for Dave (captain of the space mission) – having discovered the deception – to de-programme Hal and manually re-set the mission’s course back to Earth.

Precisely the same act of courage is needed now, in 2022. The world has been set (programmed) on a course that, if not diverted, will dehumanise the human race and disinvest the planet of its living soul.

In Kubrick’s film, the hero manages to retain his individual will power and self assurance, ultimately resisting and reversing the instructions being proffered by super computer Hal.

Make no mistake, that is exactly what is required of us at this critical moment of history.

*

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

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. Julian’s acclaimed book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info

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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


On March 4, clashes between the Russian Armed Forces and the Ukrainian military continued west of Kyiv. Russian forces have expanded the control zone in the area forcing Ukrainian formations to retreat.

Fierce battles are taking place in the village of Bucha. The Russian Army took control of it in the morning of March 3, but the Ukrainian Army launched a counteroffensive. Serious clashes also occurred in the village of Irpin.

No significant changes of the situation took place near Kharkiv. Russian troops are on the northern outskirts of the city and bypass it from the southeast. They regularly deliver precise strikes on places where pro-Kiev forces are concentrated. In response, Ukrainian units used rocket launchers, at least some of which were deployed in residential areas. An operation to completely clean up the city from pro-Kiev forces is expected in the near future.

In Mariupol, clashes continue in the suburbs of the city. The Ukrainian army and nationalist battalions are trying to resist the superior forces of the DPR and Russia. Negotiations are underway to organize humanitarian corridors for the withdrawal of civilians. The operation to fully clean up the city from the remaining pro-Kiev units are yet to be launched.

In Vonovakha, the Russian military and forces of people’s republics have been developing their operation to eliminate the grouping of pro-Kiev forces there. Ukrainian Army and nationalist battalions suffered significant losses in manpower and equipment. At the same time, DPR forces have almost reached the town of Severodonetsk from the north.

In the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk direction, Russian forces are advancing towards Krasny Liman from the northeast, having taken control over Balakleya. They advance towards the settlement of Izyum. At the moment, there are battles and airstrikes in the area. The main aviation targets are the remaining facilities occupied by the Ukrainian military and the territorial defense fighters. By taking Izyum under the control, the joint forces of Russia and the LPR will create the possibility of encirclement of the grouping of Kiev forces in this area of operations.

The Ukrainian military still holds positions near Horlivka. Pro-Kiev forces carry out regular artillery strikes on Donetsk. According to DPR authorities, civilian objects are the main targets.

Nikolaev is partially blocked by Russian forces. An operation is being prepared to take the city under the full control. Eyewitnesses report the concentration of units of the Ukrainian Army and territorial defense forces in the southern outskirts. As of the morning of March 4, no clashes were reported there.

Intense fighting is taking place near Voznesensk. In order to hinder the attack on Kyiv from the south, the Ukrainian military blew up two crossings across the Yujniy Bug River. According to experts, the advance on Odessa is planned after the establishment of the full control over Nikolaev.

In Kherson, Russian troops are gradually establishing the full control over the region. The delivery of humanitarian aid has begun. The supply of water from the North Crimean Canal to the regions of the Crimean peninsula was organized.

Russian forces blocked the city of Chernihov. Fighting erupted to the north of it. However, no direct assault was launched.

Meanwhile, the Russians started establishing control of Energodar town. Now they are working to eliminate military positions of the Ukrainian Army in the city. Late on March 3 and early on March 4, clashes took place in the area, including areas near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant where the Ukrainian Army set positions. This allowed the Zelensky government to speculate that the Russian advance may endanger the nuclear plant. Despite this, local sources report that by the morning Russians had established control and secured the facility.

In general, Kiev troops are retreating to the north of Zaporizhzhia Region, where the Russian Armed Forces are also advancing.

The second round of the Ukrainian-Russian negotiations achieved no breakthrough. Nonetheless, the sides agreed to work on establishing of ‘green corridors’ for evacuation of civilians and for deliveries of humanitarian aid.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Ukraine Report: Russia Takes Control of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
  • Tags:

Ukraine-Russia Crisis: Not to Give In to Pressures

March 7th, 2022 by Belgrade Forum

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


The root causes and the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis arise from, and rest on, the U.S.-led NATO’s strategy of military expansion to the East and threatening security of Russia, whom the West has defined as the enemy in its doctrines.

The first victims of NATO’s strategy of eastward expansion were Serbian people and Serbia. Their sanctions, demonization and isolation applied during the 1990s against Serbia and the Serbs are presently re-applied against Russia and the Russian people.

The centers of power which have, back in the day, prevented the implementation of the Peace Plan in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and presently demand revision of the Dayton Accords and UNSC Resolution 1244, are now preventing the implementation of the Minsk Peace Agreement in Ukraine, rejecting negotiations on equal security, and firmly pushing for further expansion and ultimately for military encirclement of Russia.

Serbia and Russia, the Serbian and Russian people are centuries-old friends, allies and strategic partners. Russia provides invaluable support to Serbia in her preserving own sovereignty and territorial integrity and also in efforts for peacefully resolving the issues related to Kosovo and Metohija, all in line with international law, UN Security Council Resolution 1244, and the Serbian Constitution.

As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, Russia protected Serbia from groundless accusations for alleged genocide, coming from the West. It goes without saying that Serbia must not accuse, or impose any measures and sanctions against such a friend and partner as Russia is, in relenting to pressures coming from those same subjects who bear the greatest responsibility for the gravest violations of the UN Charter and international law in general, for the criminal aggression of NATO in 1999, and for illegal secession of Priština. The harder, more turbulent and volatile the times are, the greater the moral obligation to respect trusted friends and allies is.

Public speculation on whether Russia might be excluded from the United Nations is not well judged. Pursuant to the UN Charter, any initiative would have beforehand to secure consent of the permanent members of the Security Council. Any such attempt in that body would certainly be vetoed Russia, if not China as well. In other words, the UN Security Council would not be able to refer a valid proposal to the General Assembly. Russia has become a permanent member of the UN Security Council by virtue of the act establishing the world organization, as the country that had contributed the most, and had laid the greatest human sacrifice to the altar of the Allies’ victory in World War II and, accordingly, this is the status she cannot be deprived of.

Any contrary course of actions would only make the UN share the fate of the League of Nations. Needless to say, all are aware of what would that pave the way for.

Public speculations on the destiny of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that go so far as to mention a possibility of the People’s Republic of China withdrawing its support for this universally binding legal document, in succumbing to a hypothetical pressure from the West, does not benefit anyone, least of all Serbia. For Serbia, UN SC Resolution 1244 is and should remain an irreplaceable generally binding legal document of enduring importance, until its consistent and full implementation.

*

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

Video: Did NATO Push Ukraine into War?

March 7th, 2022 by wionews.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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


The Ukraine conflict has been ‘westsplained’ enough.

On Gravitas Plus, Palki Sharma tells you how Western arrogance & NATO’s expansionism are also to blame, how their actions precipitated the crisis in Ukraine.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Crisis in Ukraine: The Global Risks to Commodities

March 7th, 2022 by Wood Mackenzie

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

The geopolitical tensions caused by the conflict in Ukraine has had an immediate effect on the global economy and markets. There will be lasting implications for commodities, energy policy and the energy transition.

The world’s dependence on Russia for certain commodities cannot be overstated ‒ from gas, coal, oil, iron ore, aluminium, platinum group metals and zinc to copper, lead, petrochemicals and fertilisers. Many major international oil and gas companies, utilities and miners are invested in Russia.

Our global team has analysed the risks to commodities and corporate exposure, as well as the wider economic fallout. Read on for a brief outline of our views. For more detail, fill in the form to contact our experts.

Gas: short-term pragmatism, long-term change coming

The situation in Ukraine piles more pressure onto a European gas market that was already going through its worst crisis on record. Russian pipeline imports account for 38% of EU demand. If the EU were to impose sanctions that stopped Russian gas flows today, it could muddle through this winter, but struggle to build gas inventories for next winter. Prices would climb. Industries would need to shut down. Inflation would spiral. The European energy crisis would, we believe, trigger a global recession.

But Russia, too, would suffer if it halted gas flows. Consequently, we think business as usual is the most likely outcome, though the EU will inevitably be forced to question its dependency on Russian gas.

Coal: shock from European loss of Russian coal would ripple through global markets

Having to replace Russian coal volumes would result in a price shock to global coal markets and a coal shortage in Europe. Russian coal accounts for roughly 30% of European metallurgical coal imports and over 60% of European thermal coal imports. The primary issue with replacing Russian coal exports in Europe is its reliance on Russia’s particular quality of coal.

Coal-fired power currently accounts for around 14% of Europe’s generation mix. The impact on European power markets from a Russian coal shortage would not be as significant as gas. Crucially, though, Europe may not be able to depend on coal plants to make up for gas-fired generation losses.

Crude oils and refined products: too big to fail?

Crude oil

Although a risk, we do not expect Russia to curtail its oil exports in response to sanctions because its revenues would be sharply reduced. One sanction under consideration is blocking Russia from the SWIFT communication system and other dollar payment infrastructure. Russia has alternative payment methods, but the transition could disrupt exports temporarily.

Russia and Saudi Arabia are partners in an OPEC+ production restraint agreement. The Saudis have shown little appetite for helping the US deal with higher oil prices. In the case of an actual oil supply cut-off, OPEC would be more likely to consider using spare capacity to help offset losses.

Contact our experts with the form above to find out our views on the short- and longer-term direction of crude prices.

Refined products

Russian diesel/gas oil is of greater significance to Europe, as the region imports more than 8% of its demand from Russia. Fuel oil and residues are traded globally and often consumed as feedstocks by US Gulf Coast refiners or as bunker fuel for commercial shipping in Asia. As for crude oil, we do not expect a turn away from Russia’s refined product exports.

We do not expect a demand surge based on gas-to-oil switching if the crisis affects Russia’s gas exports. Fuel switching demand for heating in Europe is limited to Germany. In the power generation sector, European oil-fired capacity is either idled or shuttered, limiting the upside to oil demand.

Metals: supply disruption risk to already tight markets

Ukraine has few metal extraction and processing production facilities of scale, so the disruption to production will have a relatively small impact globally. Ceasing the output and export of certain commodities, such as aluminium, platinum group metals and iron ore, however, would have a disproportionate impact, as markets are already under supply pressure.

Of greater consequence are any limits on the ability of Russian producers to import raw materials to or export finished products from Russia. Another concern is whether counterparties are willing or able to transact with their offshore entities. As sanctions ratchet up, any metals and mining companies whose shareholders have links to the Kremlin are at risk.

Contact our experts for more on the potential disruptions to metal supply.

Petrochemicals: an obstacle to Russia’s major expansion plans

The short-term impact of the situation in Ukraine is likely to be felt through two main petrochemical channels: energy prices and sanctions. Any additional premiums will probably have to be absorbed in the form of reduced margins.

The precise impact of sanctions will depend on their final form. Russia accounts for just under 16% of total European petrochemical production, with its highest exposure in the polyethylene chain. This makes Russia an important – but not critical – contributor to the industry.

Corporate: international exposure

IOC exposure to Russia is concentrated in the hands of a few: BP and TotalEnergies have by far the largest positions of the Majors. Wintershall DEA is proportionately the most exposed through its two large upstream JVs with Gazprom and the current crisis could influence the timing of its IPO.

Stricter rules around access to the international financial system could hurt IOCs’ ability to receive dividends and other payments. Targeted sanctions against their Russian partners seem unlikely, but would present a much more profound challenge.

In the power sector, only legacy investments remain. They are are neither core nor strategic. The Russian metals and mining industry has seen similar diminishing international involvement. Glencore is the last one left, but its exposure accounts for less than 1% of its market capitalisation.

Economics: avoiding energy trade disruption could avert severe impact on the global economy

Russia’s economy is in a better position to withstand sanctions than it was in 2014 when it annexed Crimea. The conflict hurts Ukraine’s economy most. If energy flows are affected, the global impact could be severe. Neither Russia nor the Western allies will want to disrupt flows, but it cannot be ruled out.

Russia has built a reserve cushion that could soften the impact of sanctions short term. Being frozen out of international bond markets means new sovereign debt needs to be financed domestically. Reserves cover the US$ 50 billion due in principal repayments on government debt through 2025.

In Ukraine, the conflict risks disrupting economic activity and causing damage to capital stock. Its economy is likely to be back in recession in 2022 unless the situation de-escalates quickly.

Contact our experts to find out more.

*

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

Featured image is from oilprice.com

 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


The conflict in Ukraine has now entered its second week, with no end in sight. Casualties continue to rise and the flow of refugees through Poland, southern Russia and other countries grows daily. Hostilities must be brought to a quick end, and military confrontation replaced by diplomatic negotiations to stop the war before it spins out of control.

Preliminary negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian authorities have begun, but so far only reached agreement to open ‘humanitarian corridors’ for civilians fleeing some of the conflict zones.

While this is welcome, the main weakness in this limited negotiation process is that  the U.S., one of the key ‘players’ in this conflict, is not at the table, and has repeatedly shown no interest in achieving a settlement on the big issues which have given rise to this crisis.

To achieve any meaningful progress, the world’s peace forces must demand that the two main protagonists, Russia and the U.S., enter into immediate, serious, and comprehensive negotiations (without pre-conditions) to achieve an immediate ceasefire, the de-escalation of tensions, and a lasting solution guaranteeing the sovereignty and national security of all states on the European continent.

In our view, this agreement needs to encompass the following:

(1) the withdrawal of all foreign troops and military personnel – Russian, NATO and foreign mercenaries – from Ukraine;

(2) guarantees of the national security interests of all countries, including an immediate halt to the Eastern expansion of NATO, and its rollback to pre-1997 levels, creating a ‘buffer zone’ of neutral states between NATO and the Russian Federation;

(3) the removal of all sanctions and other unilateral coercive measures against all states;

(4) adoption and implementation of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW); and

(5) restoration of the language and cultural rights of the Russian-speaking and other national minorities within Ukraine (subject to international monitoring).

While this kind of settlement may well seem implausible and unrealizable, we are convinced that only such a comprehensive agreement can help end the current conflict and create a lasting basis for peace and cooperation among all the peoples on the European continent.  The alternative – a return to Cold War hostilities, economic warfare and nuclear brinksmanship – is too frightening to contemplate.

For its part, the Trudeau government, which has sadly played a leading role in stoking this crisis and fueling the flames of war, must abandon this dangerous course, and instead embrace and champion such a path to peace. Canada can show real, independent leadership by rejecting its slavish kowtowing to Washington’s every demand, and by removing all CAF personnel from, and ending all arms shipments to Ukraine, and by withdrawing from the NATO military alliance.

*

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

Featured image is from CODEPINK

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On the Ukrainian Crisis: Demand an Immediate Ceasefire and Negotiated Settlement! Canadian Peace Congress
  • Tags:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


Top U.S. officials traveled to Caracas over the weekend to gauge whether the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro might be willing to distance itself from Russia over the invasion of Ukraine, in exchange for an easing of U.S. sanctions on its oil sector.

A source familiar with the talks confirmed on Sunday to McClatchy and the Miami Herald that the meeting occurred, but did not provide details. Reuters reported that the sides made little progress in their first meeting, which included a top White House official and Maduro. The New York Times first reported about the meeting.

 

The United States has supported the opposition to Maduro’s government, and formally severed diplomatic ties in 2019. But the meeting suggests that the White House is willing to engage after years of stalemate.

Read complete article here

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

It’s clear that the Biden Regime is committed to sadistically collapsing the United States, with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm all saying over the past week that the world war simmering in Ukraine will not derail the WEF’s genocidal Green New Deal.

They will continue to block US energy independence and not restart US energy production. Instead, buying oil from Iran is now “on the table.”

Complete Upside Down World.

Ice Age Farmer, Christian Westbrook is back with news about the inevitable front in this war: the engineered global food crisis.

He notes that Egypt is the largest buyer of wheat from the Black Sea region of Ukraine and Russia and they’ve been rushing to find alternative wheat suppliers and to stockpile as much wheat as possible as quickly as possible.

Recall that during the Arab Spring a decade ago, the price of bread was the initial trigger for the protests that led to the resignation of then-President Hosni Mubarak.

Christian says, “Egypt is desperately trying to bolster their food supply. Is the EU doing the same thing? Is the US trying to protect its citizens? No. Neither is.

“Yesterday, I mentioned that the EU on Wednesday convened a meeting of their agriculture ministers and is enacting a EU food crisis contingency plan, a crisis mechanism to monitor a food shortage.

“However yesterday, Thursday,  the agriculture minister of Germany announced that despite calls to relax the restrictions on farmers – there’s the EU Common Agricultural policy. The cap under the Farm-to-Fork Program says that farmers can’t use all their land. They have to leave 4% of it or more fallow, in order to receive subsidies which make farming economically possible. The agriculture minister of Germany announced yesterday they would not be relaxing those restrictions.

“In other words, ‘We’re not even going to put our land to use. We’re not going to try and grow wheat, now that we’ve cut off the 40% of global exports from the Ukraine. Just forget it, we want this crisis,’ is what he is telegraphing and that’s why German farmers were furious.

“Here’s one video by a farmer named Christian. I’ll post a link to his YouTube channel below and you don’t have to understand his language to get the message here he is very clear in his words when he says, ‘Hunger is Murder’ by the agricultural minister. ‘What you’re doing is murder.’

“Some of his choice quotes: ‘In the midst of this catastrophe, this Green eco-fanaticism equates to putting ecological madness before human lives.’

“In other words, putting your land and not using it for growing crops, even as people are starving is murder, because that’s the whole thing. They’re saying it’s ‘Global Warming’ and, ‘We can’t grow as much food because of the carbon emissions and we’re not going to relax these restrictions,’ even though there’s a food crisis, even though, on Wednesday, they acknowledged it. But still yesterday, ‘No, we’re not gonna let you grow food.’

“It’s pure madness and that, right there tells you that they want this food crisis. They need it to push their agenda through. The same thing is the case in the US. The Biden administration inside sources have leaked that they are studying whether a biofuel waiver could ease food inflation.

Quote: ‘US President Joe Biden’s administration is studying whether waiving biofuel blending mandates could help offset a surge in prices for key food ingredients like corn and soy oil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,’

“However, when Reuters contacted them, the administration said, quote: ‘There is no serious consideration of this by the White House right now,’ because ethanol is good for Global Warming and we’ve got to save the Earth. Never mind the people that don’t have food.

“They WANT this crisis and they will not take steps to feed their people; not in the EU, not in the US.

“In my video yesterday, I also asked the question, ‘What does it mean when you enact the EU’s food crisis contingency plan?’ because details are quite scarce and although I wrote them and asked for some details, somehow, I doubt that I’ll hear back and we’ll see but I did scour the web and found only one thing by Martin Armstrong, here that said in 2016, the Merkel administration had put into place a plan that allowed them to seize farms during a food crisis.

“Well, if you look around 2016 new German food policies, almost exclusively you will find headlines that talk about this new plan requiring Germans to have a 10-day food supply.

“Quote: ‘The population will be obliged to hold an individual supply of food for 10 days.’

“Sounds pretty reasonable, right? And that’s all you’ll find. Germany tells people to stockpile food but if you go dig up this plan called the ‘Civil Defense Concept’ and you pull up the plan, right here and you open it up and find the section about Emergency Food and you use Google Translate to figure out what the heck it says, you see that this is exactly the case.

“Quote: ‘When this basic food supply can no longer be achieved by the free market, then a supply of the population with essential food through sovereign management…’ In other words, ‘Through the government, we will take over the farms. We will take over the food and we will distribute it as we see fit.’

“So, this is why the EU said on Wednesday, ‘Yes, there’s a crisis,’ and on Thursday, ‘No, we’re not going to grow food to fix the crisis because this is the plan.’

“This was the plan in 2015, when they convened John Podesta’s Food Chain Reaction game [funded by George Soros] and said, ‘We need more global government. We need a global carbon tax because of these food shortages that are happening.’”

Christian has long been pointing out that we are sleepwalking into disaster and that, just as we went through the the pandemic script from Event 201 so too, now is the Food Chain Reaction game going live, destined to end in localized food shortages and the Carbon Tax and even a ban of meat.

Emergency Survival Gardens for Your Family

He says, “Let’s move on to what do we do about it, right? We all see it. We all know what’s going on. We see that they’re not even trying to help us, so we have to help ourselves. If you are only now thinking about this problem…here’s what we now do:

“We need to stand up emergency survival gardens for our families and for our communities and the way you structure your thinking around that.

“Number one: calories. Try and produce enough calories to feed your family. If that means that you only grow potatoes, because that’s as much room as you have in your garden, just to try and move the needle, fine, that’s good. And I’ve done videos before about potato growing bags, where even just in a 4′ x 6′ little space, I had a three-story tower with grow bags full of potatoes and I yielded buckets of potatoes.

“Right, you can make a meaningful difference in a very small space that fits on top of an RV, right? There’s no excuse for you – or on an apartment balcony – do not tell me that you don’t have room to grow food everyone has to be doing this at this point so if that’s all you have room for, grow some potatoes.

“If you can get your calories met, then you can move on to the next step, nutrition. Then, you can mix in some beans and other things that will have good proteins to keep you well-fed and other vitamin producing things.

“You can add in some herbs for immune support like turmeric, garlic, oregano, ginger. It’s up to you how you structure this. Then, the third priority finally would be how those things taste.

“If you want to mix in some hot peppers or you know just other flavorful things to make your dishes interesting, then that’s fine. But you have to first take care of the needs: calories and nutrition before you have any fun.

“And of course, Step Zero is go obtain what you can now and put it away. Can it, store it, buy the grains, put them in buckets with oxygen absorbers, if you have them.

“Position yourself with a buffer to be able to weather this storm in front of us. We’ve we’ve known this was coming. We talked in 2019, about the UN discussing openly that we needed global food rationing to whip people into shape to accept the agendas and the Climate Change nonsense.

“And here it is, right from the Mainstream Media. It’s it’s almost surreal and it’s certainly unfortunate but let’s all get to growing food immediately. That’s that’s where we are now and please spread this message.

“If everyone were growing as much as they can, then we would literally remove from them their power over us they would no longer have leverage to control us we just walk away from these toxic practices of industrial agriculture. So help me get the message out, Folks.”

*

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

Featured image is from Oilprice.com

Russia Hits Back on “Sanctions from Hell”

March 7th, 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


An innocuous tweet from Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organisations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov earlier today in the afternoon said that he met with the EU Coordinator at the Vienna talks on Iran nuclear issue Enrique Mora and “raised a number of questions which need to be duly addressed now in order to ensure smooth civil nuclear cooperation with Iran.” 

A couple of hours later, he again tweeted,

“The #ViennaTalks continue. I had today a useful meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran for Economic Diplomacy Mr. Mehdi Safari.” 

Other reports suggest that Russia has put forth a new demand at Vienna that its trade, investment and military cooperation with Iran would not be hindered by US sanctions. Russia seeks written guarantees in this regard at the highest level from the Biden administration. Apparently, Russia put forth this demand a couple of days back. 

A few hours ago in the evening, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed this development. Disclosing this at a press conference in Moscow, Lavrov explained that against the backdrop of the latest western sanctions, Russia wants to have a “very clear answer” from the US in the context of bilateral Moscow-Tehran relations and the Iranian nuclear deal. 

In Lavrov’s words,

“We need guarantees these sanctions will in no way affect the trading, economic and investment relations contained in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Iranian nuclear program. We have asked the American counterparts, who rule the roost here, to provide us with guarantees at least at the level of the secretary of state [that] the current process launched by the United States will by no means affect our right to free and full-fledged trading, economic, investment, military and technical cooperation with Iran.” [Emphasis added.] 

Furthermore, Lavrov also openly backed remaining Iran’s demands, saying that Tehran’s expectations are “quite fair.” Whether Lavrov spoke in consultation with Tehran, we don’t know. 

The development comes as the 8th round of negotiations on the restoration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the United States’ return to the fold of that multilateral agreement is nearing completion. The negotiators are working on a draft final document. Iran and the IAEA also agreed today on a roadmap with the UN nuclear watchdog to resolve all outstanding questions about the country’s nuclear program by late June, which removes one big stumbling block. 

Lavrov calmly pointed out that the sanctions on Russia create a “problem” from Moscow’s perspective. He noted sarcastically,

“It would have all been fine, but that avalanche of aggressive sanctions that have erupted from the West — and which I understand has not yet stopped — demand additional understanding by lawyers, above all.” 

So, Lavrov insisted:

“We want an answer — a very clear answer — we need a guarantee that these [US] sanctions will not in any way touch the regime of trade-economic and investment relations which is laid down in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.” 

On Iran’s part, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian had told EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell only yesterday,

“I am ready to fly to Vienna when the Western sides accept our remaining red lines… We are ready to finalise a good and immediate agreement. Most of Iran’s requests have been considered.” 

But today, the most anxious person to clinch the deal at Vienna is none other than President Joe Biden himself. After derailing the Russia-Europe energy relationship, Biden is witnessing that the prices for gas are skyrocketing in Europe, and Washington has no solutions to the grave situation that is developing. The spot market price for gas has zoomed to 8 times the price at which Russia had been supplying Germany. (Russia has announced that w.e.f Thursday, it has shut down the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline which is the trunk route transporting gas to German market.) 

On the whole, the situation in the energy market is becoming very complicated, as western oil companies which had invested in Russia are forced to quit due to the sanctions. These include big players such as BP which has a 20-percent stake in Russian giant Rosneft, Shell with 27.5 percent stake in the Sakhalin-II LNG facility and a 50 percent stake in the Salym Petroleum Development, ExxonMobil (Sakhalin-1) and so on. 

Apart from the impairment these companies will suffer running into tens of billions of dollars, their exit will also strain Russia’s ability to maintain such high production levels and continue to meet its commitments under the OPEC+ agreement. Now, the already-tight global market for crude – which saw Brent crude top $115 per barrel in early Thursday trading – can ill-afford these downstream hits from the sanctions against Russia. Evidently, crude prices still have nowhere to go but up from here. Expert opinion is that if oil price touches $125 per barrel, US economy slides into recession. 

Russia has not so far made any direct indications that it will restrict energy exports, though the rhetoric is heating up. Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov warned on Friday that western companies, including energy firms, that are ditching Russia will be considered pushing their Russian subsidiaries to “deliberate bankruptcy,” which under Russian law draws criminal prosecution. 

To solve Europe’s problem of high prices, Biden recently swallowed pride and mentioned buying cheap Iranian oil as a response. Western analysts opine that Biden is in a mood to appease the “Iranian hawks” at Vienna. That is to say, US desperately needs both a lucrative energy deal and Iranian cooperation in Vienna. Israeli observers are apprehensive that the Biden administration might go ahead with easing or lifting restrictions on Iranian oil exports even without signing the Vienna agreements! 

One big reason behind this panic is that the Biden administration is profoundly concerned about the strong growth of motor fuel prices in the US lately. But on the other hand, any visible US appeasement of Iran at this critical stage will be a sign of weakness, and, surely, Biden will come up for trenchant criticism in the domestic opinion. 

Indeed, Lavrov has factored in all these developments while demanding that “at least” Antony Blinken should give a written guarantee. Moscow is paying back for Blinken’s boorishness. Of course, it will be a devastating loss of face for Biden to cave in publicly. Of course, the most awful thing will be that it is not only precedent setting  but makes a complete mockery of America’s weaponisation of the dollar! 

Europeans too must be wondering what is going on. They have passively sacrificed self-interests vis-a-vis Russia on the basis of Biden’s demands! Nord Stream 2 stands abandoned!

This is going to be a catch-22 situation. For, Russia’s green signal is an imperative for the JCPOA deal to be approved within the framework the joint commission of Iran and the international quintet (Russia, Britain, Germany, China and France.) Besides, Iran will surely expect a formal approval for any deal from the UN Security Council. 

On the other hand, if the negotiations at Vienna get prolonged, Iran’s enrichment activities at the accelerated pace will continue and a point of no return may be reached very soon, in a matter of weeks at the most, which will put the Biden administration in an even bigger bind, as the spectre of a nuclear Iran haunts West Asia and Europe. 

To be sure, the blowback to the US sanctions has begun. This is of course only the beginning. Trust Russia to go further and further up on the escalation ladder. Russia would have no conceivable reason to cooperate with the US from now onward. (See my blog Ukraine sparks EU, US rush to  Iran deal, March 1, 2022)

However, if the chronicle of Russian-American relations is anything to go by, trust Biden to start making entreaties using back channels to Moscow.

Actually, in response to a question at a press briefing in Moscow today evening about the current state of Russia-US relations in view of the developments in Ukraine and the pressure of sanctions, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked cryptically that “We are maintaining certain channels of a dialogue with the United States.” He didn’t elaborate. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 

***

On December 16, 2021, ICAN, through its attorneys, issued a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC seeking any documents reflecting why a certain VAERS report was no longer available in the VAERS database. The report described an extremely disturbing incident wherein a two-year-old boy “began bleeding out of the mouth, eyes, nose and ears within six hours” of his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on November 18, 2021, and died later that night. On February 14, 2022, the CDC finally responded to ICAN’s request, stating: “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.”

Significantly, the CDC has made repeated assurances that “COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in the United States’ history.” The CDC’s VAERS Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19 even states that the “CDC will perform clinical reviews” for certain “Adverse Events of Special Interest,” which include death, “especially in children (<18 years of age) and recipients of newly licensed vaccines).”

But despite all of these claims of about the unprecedented level of “intensive” safety monitoring of these vaccines, the CDC claims to have no records that would explain why a VAERS report describing the horrific death of a toddler suddenly disappeared from the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccines reactions in the United States, VAERS—a system of which the CDC is a co-sponsor.

ICAN intends to get to the bottom of the disappearance of this deeply disturbing report and will persist in holding the CDC accountable for its purported claims of intensive vaccine safety monitoring.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

This article was first published in 2019.

Western-supported ISIS/al Qaeda and western-supported neo-Nazis are two sides to the same Imperial coin.

They are the product of the West’s moral degradation, its disdain for international law, and its anti-Life core. A rotten apple by any measure.

Imperial strategies driving these proxies are also similar. Whereas the West created and supports ISIS/al Qaeda[1], it presents them as “enemies”.

The terrorists serve as fake humanitarian pretexts for invasions even as they serve as proxies to destroy target countries even before the invasions and the economic warfare are firmly established. Imperialists always need scapegoats, and the Western-supported terrorists also serve this function. Governing agencies fabricate Islamophobia by presenting the “Muslim” terrorists as enemies even when these terrorist behaviours are far removed from Islamic teachings.

‘No clear-cut profile’ of a foreign fighter

The so-called “Caliphate Project”[2]is a CIA project. NATO and its allies support the terrorists in Syria who are carving out territory in resource rich, strategic areas of Syria.  All of this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for years despite the widespread ignorance of Western populations who are trained to accept CNN and Defense Department messaging as the truth.

NATO and its allies use the Western-empowered and supported neo-Nazis[3]in Kiev, rotten fruits of the 2014 Western coup against the legitimate Ukrainian government, in a similar fashion. In this case, Russia is the scapegoat, even though the coup preceded Russian involvement that opposes the Western crime scene near its borders.

The neo-Nazi counterpart to the so-called “Caliphate Project” would be the “Reconquista” project. Max Blumenthal explains:

“Foreign Azov volunteers are driven by the call of the ‘Reconquista,’ or the mission to place eastern European nations under the control of a white supremacist dictatorship modeled after the Nazi Reichskommissariat dictatorship that ruled Ukraine during World War II. The mission is promoted effusively by Azov’s chief ideologue, Andriy Biletsky, a veteran fascist organizer who leads the Social National Assembly in Ukraine’s parliament. Biletsky’s assembly has pledged to outlaw interracial contacts and vowed “to prepare Ukraine for further expansion and to struggle for the liberation of the entire White Race from the domination of the internationalist speculative capital.”[4]

So, like the CIA Caliphate Project, the Reconquista project advances imperial designs against Russia, Empire’s real target.

Empire’s end-game is world conquest, a New World Order of fascist totalitarianism. Those controlling the levers of power must deceive domestic populations because the impoverishing “project” is toxic to Life itself. No reasonable, critically-thinking population would ever accept it.

A first step to countering this world-encompassing disease would be a NATO Exit[5]campaign. NATO is the deceptive umbrella under which these diabolical machinations are thriving.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. 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.

Notes

[1] Garikai Chengu,“America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group.” Global Research, 19 September 2014, March 08, 2019, (https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881?fbclid=IwAR0ery1aV8nuqqkTYvjoUJvVJ2cpFX2AGURrd164p4cHkjA2SL08ly4Kar8) Accessed 7 April, 2019.

[2] Washington’s Blog, “The Caliphate Project, Made in America. Declassified U.S. Government Documents Confirm the US Supported the Creation of ISIS.” The Caliphate Project, Made in America. Declassified U.S. Government Documents Confirm the US Supported the Creation of ISIS.” Washington’s Blog 24 May 2015, Global Research, 13 March, 2016, (https://www.globalresearch.ca/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis/5451640) Accessed 7 April, 2019.

[3] Max Blumenthal,” Israel Is Arming Ukraine’s Blatantly Neo-Nazi Militia the Azov Battalion.” The Real News Network, 6 July, 2018, (https://therealnews.com/stories/israel-is-arming-ukraines-blatantly-neo-nazi-militia-the-azov-battalion?fbclid=IwAR1VcIFf0-5min_36EuVUiEMaYg0XUCkGqonc-Nh4y_iKf-Su0RruVG2GoM) Accessed 7 April, 2019.

[4] Max Blumenthal, “The US is Arming and Assisting Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, While Congress Debates Prohibition.” 18 January, 2018, The Real News Network, (https://therealnews.com/columns/the-us-is-arming-and-assisting-neo-nazis-in-ukraine-while-congress-debates-prohibition) Accessed 7 April, 2018.

[5] Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “NATO-Exit: Dismantle NATO, Close Down 800 US Military Bases, Prosecute the War Criminals.” Global Research, 04 April, 2019, (https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-exit-dismantle-nato-close-down-800-us-military-bases-prosecute-the-war-criminals/5670610) Accessed 07 April, 2019.


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

**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 

Click to order.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

 

My students, where I once taught at a private university outside of Bangkok, would often come into class carrying coffee cups conspicuously emblazoned with the universally recognizable Starbucks© logo.

When they set them on their desks, they were uniformly careful to position the cups so as to prominently display the logo.

They didn’t patronize Starbucks© because they liked the taste or thought it to be particularly good, but because of the status they believed it conveyed.

Success, in their estimation, meant consuming the most popular Western products. They had no idea they were diluting their own culture to line the pockets of malicious actors.

Image on the right is from Richard Barrow

What is difficult for the propagandized Western mind (including mine) to grapple with is that the “diversity” obsession is a purely Western phenomenon.

Any other culture understands that diversity is not ideal for cohesion; they’re mutually contradictory values.

If you ever get a chance, make the best-faith argument you can muster to an English-speaking native in a foreign land (who has not been educated in the West) about the merits of the “diversity is our strength” ideology.

You’ll get a blank, uncomprehending stare.

Japan is 99% racially and cultural homogenous and they have significantly fewer social problems than the West. They don’t need racial identity politics because their single racial identity is ubiquitous. They don’t need to predicate a delicate social fabric on the precarious “melting pot” philosophy.

Is that a coincidence?

As opposed to the fictions of corporate PR departments, the following statement conveys true respect for diversity: just like America is for Americans, Thailand should belong to Thais – a nationalist sentiment very commonplace in that land.

But marketing is a powerful thing; it can even trigger cognitive dissonance. Many of those Thai nationalists carve out a glaring exception for status-conferring consumer products imported from the West (or Japan or Korea).

That revered ballad of hippie aspiration, “Imagine” by the Beatles’ frontman John Lennon — and the 1960s zeitgeist that it reflected – always induced maximum cringe. I gagged reflexively even when I was younger, before I had fleshed out how I thought about things:

“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for…
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one”

I’m sure that when John Lennon wrote that drippy, sappy ballad, he did so with starry eyes. He probably believed he was simply promoting harmony and peace.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Underneath its shiny exterior of utopian idealism, the song promulgates a new kind of global, banal universality by conflating the human desire for brotherhood with an embrace of corporate monoculture.

This is why the corporate media has and always will promote these vapid messages of vague “hope” as promotional gimmicks.

What kind of a world would that one envisioned by John Lennon look like? How droll, how drab, how ho-hum! No flavor or spice; just a monoculture of hip “tolerance” or whatever.

Why would anyone want Bangkok to look like Des Moines, Iowa?

What happened to the “diversity”? Isn’t it our strength? Or is that ideology conveniently discarded when it might oppose corporate creep?

Universal oneness and diversity, again, are antithetical values. But that hasn’t stopped the cultural left and the corporate behemoths that now bankroll their social movements from embracing both simultaneously in full earnestness.

At the same time that these entities expand across the world like a cancer to peddle their sub-par nutrition-free slop to local populations that were better off without them, they simultaneously (unironically) peddle the “diversity” babble.

What the Corporate Slogan ‘Diversity Is Our Greatest Strength’ Actually Means

What they mean: to bring as many of the world’s people into the corporate monoculture fold while simultaneously diluting the inherently valuable aspects of authentic, legacy Western culture through unchecked immigration.

If Apple© and NIKE© and McDonald’s© truly valued diversity, why do they penetrate and vandalize every culture on earth?

Does Wendy’s© belong in the Caucus Mountains on the far stretches of Eastern Europe? Is that “respecting indigenous culture” or whatever trite slogan the corporate PR department has come up recently?

Why, if “diversity is our strength,” do these corporate monoliths lobby for transnational trade deals that destroy the barriers like tariffs that insulate local industries from their predatory creep?

Image on the right: Wendy’s© in Georgia (the country, not the state)

A decade ago, I tried (but failed) to properly convey to my Asian students the unique threat of corporate monoculture.

Via my in-progress memoir, Broken English Teacher:

“I attempted to explain to my Taiwanese students that McDonald’s© is the quintessential representation of corporate monoculture creep worldwide.

The 10-year-old children of Zhushan [a rural remote village in the Central mountain region] — all of whom without exception loved McDonald’s© and viewed the presence of such a restaurant in their hometown as a crowning achievement of modernization — did not understand or appreciate the meaning I hoped to relay.

Somehow, which I can only vaguely recall, I attempted to draw a connection between 9/11 ( which ostensibly had nothing to do with corporate diners directly) and McDonald’s© predatory creep into local markets from Taiwan to Madagascar to Peru. I drew them poorly-drawn pictures, none of which helped them better grasp the thrust.”

The impetus for that poorly executed lecture to Taiwanese schoolchildren was the revulsion I felt each time I stumbled on another soul-crushing McDonald’s© in some far-flung corner of the world – like a cancerous lesion on a supermodel’s face.

All I wanted to do was escape the corporate sludge.

The lecture was poorly conceived, especially given the vast cultural divide and inexperienced unworldliness of my audience. You should’ve seen the mess of illustrations on that whiteboard – like from a schizophrenic explaining the Flat Earth. Or from that character Russell Crowe played in A Beautiful Mind.

Hopefully I did a better explanatory job here:

  • reject globalization; embrace localization.
  • wherever possible, construct a parallel society outside of the global monoculture.
  • leave the unsaved to their McDonald’s© slop; excise the cancer from your own life.

“The factory mass producing fear, bottled,
Capped, distributed near and far
Sold for a reasonable price
And the people, they love it, they feed it
Brush with it, bathe with it, breathe it
Inject it direct to the blood
It seems to be replacing love
Why must we stay where we don’t belong”

-NOFX, Eat the Meek

*

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

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is a Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via his blog, Armageddon ProseSubstack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter.

All images in this article are from TDB unless otherwise stated

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why ‘Diversity Is Our Greatest Strength’ Is a Corporate Lie
  • Tags:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

Wir Bürger laufen Gefahr, wirtschaftliche und soziale Sanktionen, die gegen ein Land und /oder dessen Präsidenten verhängt werden, als „normal“ und „nachvollziehbar“ hinzunehmen, weil sie seit Jahren sehr populär sind und dabei kein einziger Schuss abgegeben, keine Rakete abgefeuert und kein Panzer in Bewegung gesetzt wird. Über ihre Folgen wird selten informiert. Doch Sanktionen sind keine Alternative zum Krieg, sie sind Krieg – nur mit anderen Mitteln. Sie sind unsichtbare Kriege und perfekte Instrumente der Rache. Wenn wir uns daran gewöhnen, dergleichen hinzunehmen, gibt es nichts mehr, was wir nicht hinnehmen werden.

„Das Sanktionsregime der UNO im Irak.“

Dies ist der Untertitel des im Jahre 2005 erschienenen Buches von Hans-C. Graf Sponeck: „Ein anderer Krieg“ (1). Hans von Sponeck war von 1998 bis 2000 zuständiger Koordinator der Vereinten Nationen für das „Öl für Lebensmittel“-Programm im Irak. Anhand von Zahlen belegt er in seinem Buch die fatalen Folgen und das Scheitern des UNO-Sicherheitsrates in der Irak-Politik: Zunahme der Kindersterblichkeit und des Analphabetismus, mangelhafte Versorgung mit Nahrungsmitteln sowie Nicht-Funktionieren wichtiger Teile der Infrastruktur.

Anfang 2000 trat von Sponeck aus Protest gegen das genozidale Sanktionsregime als Leiter des UNO-Hilfsprogramms zurück. Kurze Zeit später lernte ich ihn auf einer Vortragsreise in der Schweiz persönlich kennen und erzählte ihm, dass ich als Deutscher sehr stolz war, als ich von seinem ehrenwerten Rücktritt erfuhr. Es entstand eine längere Freundschaft mit diesem menschlich vorbildlichen deutschen Diplomaten.

Eine ganz andere Erfahrung war die haarsträubende Antwort der ehemaligen US-Außenministerin Madeleine Albright auf eine Journalisten-Frage: In der Fernsehshow „60 Minuten“ am 12. Mai 1996 fragte Lesley Stahl die US-Außenministerin:

„Wir haben gehört, dass eine halbe Million Kinder gestorben sind (wegen der Sanktionen gegen den Irak). Ich meine, das sind mehr Kinder, als in Hiroshima umkamen. Und – sagen Sie, ist es den Preis wert?“.

Albright antwortete:  

„Ich glaube, das ist eine sehr schwere Entscheidung, aber der Preis – wir glauben, es ist den Preis wert.“ (2)

Sanktionen als perfektes Instrument der Rache (3)

Die jahrelangen Sanktionen gegen die irakische Zivilbevölkerung haben gravierende wirtschaftliche, soziale und psychologische Wunden geschlagen. Die dramatische Verarmung der Bevölkerung sowie der soziale und ökonomische Verfall des Landes waren nach Ansicht von Experten einmalig in der Geschichte der modernen Welt (4). Verzweifelte Not und Hoffnungslosigkeit hielten die Bevölkerung in Atem und raubte ihr die Kraft zur Rebellion. Getroffen von den Sanktionen wurde allein die Zivilbevölkerung. Das Regime des damaligen Präsidenten Saddam Hussein kam ungeschoren davon. Wie wollen wir eine solche politische Strafmaßnahme bewerten?

Die Sanktionen gegen den Irak sind nur ein Beispiel unter vielen: Die Strafmaßnahmen gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien in den 90er- Jahren und diejenigen neueren Datums gegen Venezuela, Nord-Korea, Jemen oder Syrien sind uns ebenso in guter Erinnerung. In diesem Zusammenhang ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Lähmung und teilweise Zerstörung staatlicher Institutionen der organisierten Kriminalität Tür und Tot öffnet, das heißt, das rasche Aufkommen mafiöser Strukturen und Machenschaften sehr fördert.

Bald wird sich zeigen, welche ökonomischen, sozialen und psychologischen Wunden die ergriffenen Sanktionen der westlichen Welt unter Führung der USA der Zivilbevölkerung Russlands zufügen werden und inwieweit dadurch die Machtposition des russischen Präsidenten ins Wanken gerät? Der venezolanische Präsident Nicolas Maduro – einst selbst „Opfer“ von US-Sanktionen – verurteilte die westlichen Sanktionen scharf. In einem Zeitungsartikel vom 3. März bezeichnete er die Strafmaßnahmen, darunter im Bankwesen, als Verbrechen gegen das russische Volk und plädierte für diplomatische Auswege aus der Krise (5).

Dabei ist noch nicht abzusehen, welche fatalen Auswirkungen die verabschiedeten Sanktionen auch auf den Alltag der sanktionierenden Länder haben werden: So warnen Experten bereits vor höheren Inflationsraten, vor Energieknappheit und vor Engpässen bei der Produktion und Verteilung von Nahrungsmitteln.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Rektor a. D., Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Noten

(1) Graf Sponeck, Hans C. (2005). Ein anderer Krieg. Das Sanktionsregime der UNO im Irak. Hamburg

(2) https://www.heise.de/forum/Telepolis/Kommentare/Der-US-Putschvers…ter-irakischer-Kinder-sind-den-Preis-wert/posting-34033445/show/

(3) https://monde-diplomatique.de/artikel/!386433

(4) https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/10-jahre-sanktionen-gegen-irak-wenn-ich-denke-werde-ich-verrueckt/156928.html

(5) https://de.rt.com/amerika/133072-venezuelas-prasident-nicolas-maduro-bezeichnet-sanktionen-als-verbrechen/

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Man bestraft das Volk, um den Präsidenten zu Fall zu bringen. Sanktionen sind Völkermord!
  • Tags:

We at Global Research condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. All international issues need to be resolved peacefully through judicious negotiations and dialogue.

The events surrounding the Russia-Ukraine crisis are a poignant reminder of the decaying authority of diplomacy where instead of bilateral agreement, there is military incursion; instead of multilateral force for peace and order, there are sanctions, military aid and international isolation. 

In this weekend selection, we ask our readers to ponder on the urgent need of our time and on what could be done in its pursuit.

***

Russia-Ukraine War: A Different Invasion, the West’s Same ‘Madman’ Script

By Jonathan Cook, March 04, 2022

At a drop of a hat, western leaders are absolved of guilt or even responsibility for the terrible events that unfold. The West remains virtuous, simply a victim of the world’s madmen. Nothing the West did was a provocation. Nothing they could have done would have averted the disaster.

Did NATO Just Declare War on Russia?

By Mike Whitney, March 04, 2022

In a move that can only be regarded as a major escalation, NATO officials announced on Friday that they would deploy troops from its Combat-Ready Response Force to support the Ukrainian regime in its war with Russia. The Alliance will also send additional weapons which will be used to blunt the Russian offensive that has already seized large parts of the country and obliterated most of Ukraine’s defensive capability.

How Ukraine’s ‘Revolution of Dignity’ Led to War, Poverty and the Rise of the Far Right

By Olga Sukharevskaya, March 03, 2022

A survey carried out by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology shows that 64.7% of Ukrainian citizens believe things are going in the wrong direction. One in four Ukrainians and one in three young people want to move to a different country.  All in all, this can hardly be called a victory for the Euromaidan.

France’s Finance Minister: “We’re waging an all-out economic and financial war on Russia”

By Paul Antonopoulos, March 03, 2022

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire declared an “all-out economic and financial war” against Russia for launching its military operation against Kiev last week. It is hoped that such an economic war will ‘punish’ Russia – but shortly after making his comment, Le Maire was quick to change his rhetoric after probably being given a stern warning from within the Champs-Élysées to not make bombastic comments that intensifies tensions and could actually lead to war between Russia and NATO.

‘The Madman Putin’: The Globalists’ Misinformation Ploy

By Vasko Kohlmayer, March 03, 2022

For years the Western establishment considered Putin a “man with whom we could do business.” He was seen as “liberal, humane, and decent European.” He was described as a person of “’alert, controlled poise’ and ‘well-briefed acuity,’ who was open to anything, even Russia joining NATO.”

Racism Thrives in Western Liberal Europe and Ukraine

By Steven Sahiounie, March 03, 2022

Emily, a 24-year-old medical student from Kenya, told the Guardian that she was able to reach a hotel in Warsaw only to be refused a room because she was Black. She was told by hotel staff the rooms were only for Ukrainians.

Everyone Loses in the Conflict Over Ukraine

By Ralph Nader, March 02, 2022

In recent weeks, the State Department said it recognizes Russia’s legitimate security concerns but not its expansionism. Well, what is wrong with a ceasefire followed by support for a treaty “guaranteeing neutrality for Ukraine similar to the enforced neutrality for Austria since the Cold War’s early years,” as Nation publisher and Russia specialist Katrina Vanden Heuvel urged.

Playing with Fire in Ukraine

By Eric Margolis, March 02, 2022

Western media has championed the cause of Ukraine in a totally one-sided manner. So, we have plucky David v. evil Goliath. Never mind that civil war between Ukrainian nationalists, militant rightists and the Kiev regime has been flaring for 14 years.

Follow the Money: US Sanctions, Will Russia Be Able to Bypass Western Economic Warfare?

By Pepe Escobar, March 02, 2022

About the possible introduction of a new Russia-China payment system bypassing SWIFT, and combining the Russian SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages) with the Chinese CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System), Hudson has no doubts “the Russian-China system will be implemented. The Global South will seek to join and at the same time keep SWIFT – moving their reserves into the new system.”

For African and Colonized Peoples, to Understand Ukraine: De-center Europe and Focus on Imperialism

By Black Alliance for Peace, March 02, 2022

NATO’s expansion has been a well-known security concern for Russia since 1999, when Bill Clinton inaugurated the official process of growing NATO’s membership to include former nations of the Warsaw Pact. Today, as the conflict escalates, NATO’s expansion has become an existential threat to African people and all oppressed and colonized people around the world.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Global Research Weekender: Time to Resuscitate Diplomacy to Restore Peace and Order

The Pentagon’s “Ides of March”: Best Month to Go to War?

March 6th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles 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.


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The history of this war must be understood.

The bombing and shelling led by Ukraine’s Armed Forces directed against the people of Donbass started eight years ago, resulting in the destruction of residential areas and more than 10,000 civilian casualties.

A  bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


First published on March 13, 2013

March 2022. The War in Ukraine.

***

Is it a coincidence? 

In recent history, from the Vietnam war to the present, the month of March has been chosen by Pentagon and NATO military planners as the “best month” to go to war.

With the exception of the War on Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO and allied led military operations over a period of more than half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Ides of March (Idus Martiae) is a day in the Roman calendar which broadly corresponds to March 15.  The Ides of March is also known as the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.

Lest we forget, the month of March (in the Roman Calendar) is dedicated to Mars (Martius), the Roman God of War.

For the Romans, the month of March (Martius) marked  “the time to start new military campaigns.”

As in the heyday of the Roman Empire, the US Department of Defense has a mandate to plan and implement a precise “timeline” of military operations.

Does the month of March –identified by the Romans as a “good time” to initiate new military undertakings–, have a bearing on contemporary military doctrine?

Throughout history, seasons including the transition from Winter to Spring have played a strategic role in the timing of military operations.

Do Pentagon military planners favor the month of March?

Do they also –in some mysterious fashion– “idolize” Mars, the Roman God of War?

March 23 (which coincides with the beginning of Spring) was the day “Romans celebrated the start of the military campaign and war fighting season.”

“Homage was paid to Mars the god of war with festivals and feasting. … For the Romans March 23 was a huge celebration known as Tubilustrium”.

Under these festivities which celebrated the Roman god of war,  a large part of the month of March “was dedicated to military celebration and preparedness.”

Timeline of March Military Interventions (1965- 2017)

Recent history confirms that with the exception of Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO led military operations over a period of almost half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Vietnam War

The US Congress adopted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized President Lyndon Johnson to dispatch ground forces to Vietnam on March 8, 1965.

On 8 March 1965, 3,500 U.S. Marines were dispatched to South Vietnam marking the beginning of “America’s ground war”.

NATO’s War on Yugoslavia

NATO’s war on Yugoslavia was launched on March 24, 1999. 

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia code-named by the US Operation “Noble Anvil”. started on March 24, 1999 and lasted until June 10, 1999.

The Iraq War

The War on Iraq was launched on March 20, 2003. (Baghdad time)

The US-NATO led invasion of Iraq started on 20 March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

(The 1991 Gulf War on Iraq began on 17th January. However, after the 28th February ceasefire was agreed and signed – following the Basra Road massacre of withdrawing soldiers and fleeing civilians on 26th/27th February – the US 24th Mechanised Infantry Division slaughtered thousands on 2nd March.“)

The Covert War on Syria

The US-NATO Covert War on Syria was initiated on March 15, 2011 with the incursion of Islamist mercenaries and death squads in the southern city of Daraa on the border with Jordan. The terrorists were involved in acts of arson as well as the killings of civilians. This incursion of terrorists was from the very outset supported covertly by the US, NATO and its Persian Gulf allies: Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

NATO’s “Humanitarian” R2P War on Libya

NATO commenced its bombing of Libya on March 19, 2011.  The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on 26 February 2011 (UNSC Resolution 1970), (adopted unanimously).

A subsequent United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted on 17 March 2011. It authorized the establishment of “a no-fly zone” over Libya, and the use “all necessary measures” “to protect the lives of civilians”.

Libya was bombed relentlessly by NATO warplanes starting on March 19, 2011 for a period of approximately seven months.

Yemen 

On 25 March 2015, an international coalition led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the US launched air strikes against the Huthi armed group in Yemen.

**

 

War, Censorship and Half-Truths

March 6th, 2022 by Farms Not Factories

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


After a dire experience visiting a factory pig farm in Italy, Clodagh McKenna decided to only cook with high welfare meat from then on.

“We all have ideals of the kind of person we want to be and I think every single one of us wants to be somebody that is making a little bit of a difference in this world”, she says in our latest Rooting for Real Farms video.

So, using the power of her purse, the acclaimed chef and author of numerous cookbooks, is helping to close factory farms by only buying meat from high welfare British farms like Helen Wade’s Eastleach Downs Organic Farm.

Helen rears rare-breed saddleback pigs that are sold from their on-farm butchery. She says, “For me the welfare of the animal is the most important thing, pigs are very intelligent creatures and they should have the best possible life we can give them.”

 

War

I am finding it incredibly difficult to focus on our precious farmers when the headlines are dominated by war. The UK is directly involved not least by upgrading its US air bases to enable Washington to intercept international communications and launch military strikes from Britain more quickly and with more devastating effect.

In 2014 I was filming vast pig factories owned by the Danish company Danosha in Western Ukraine, as well as Ukrainian owned factory pig farms in the East. We left a few weeks before all hell broke out as the US backed coup d’etat replaced the Russian backed elected leader with an unelected leader answerable to the US.

Naturally, like all sane people, I absolutely abhor war, it is horrifying from any quarter. I abhor censorship too; how can peoples of the world come together in peace when so much is hidden?

Censorship of the whole story

Last weekend, I met a very prosperous man in his 80s who confessed that he was interested to know the Russian side of the war story with the caveat that he might not believe a word he read. I was impressed that he had even an inkling that the mainstream media are only telling half truths, just as they did to justify our authorities’ invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

In my humble opinion, the truth resides in a fringe niche of journalists who have been banished from the UK’s mainstream media but who continue to provide us with an independent narrative. A pool of these brave truthsayers can be found on the Dont Extradite Assange website.

Silenced by fear of reprisals

In this new world of surveillance, you are not safe to hold an opinion counter to your authorities. In some countries you can be punished for speaking out. The Czech Republic has warned Czech citizens that they can be imprisoned for agreeing with the Russia’s military operation in Ukraine and for not speaking out the conductor of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, was fired for privately refusing to denounce Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine.

Whether it is fear of a virus or fear of Russia, we have successfully been polarised into our opposite silos. So it is with some trepidation that I share the info that I sent to the gent about Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, its causes, its aims, and its likely aftermath.

Jimmy Dore Show (976K subscribers);

‘Jimmy and The Grayzone’s Aaron Maté, discuss the lies and misrepresentations surrounding the leadup to the war in Ukraine.The media description of the Russian attack on Ukraine has almost universally elided and whitewashed the role played by the US and its NATO allies, including supporting a coup overthrowing the democratically elected president in 2014, refusing to support the Minsk Accords or refusing to engage in negotiations in the months leading up to the Russian invasion.’

Jimmy and The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal; discuss the past predictions made by noteworthy people ranging from Noam Chomsky and Stephen Cohen to Henry Kissinger and Pat Buchanan.’

Jimmy Dore ‘Ukraine Conflict Centered Around Gas Pipeline – Of Course!’

Consortium News; discuss; Russia Hits Back ;

‘After 30 years of NATO expansion towards its borders, and eight-years of a coup regime’s attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine, Russia has taken military action to “demilitarize” and “de-nazify” the country.’

and 4 articles;

Scott Ritter says the Russian president is working from a 2007 playbook, when he warned European leaders of the need for a new security framework to replace the system built by the U.S. and NATO.

Ukraine update – 04/03/22

Caitlin Johnstone: 12 Thoughts on Ukraine

‘The U.S. power alliance has a choice between escalating aggressions against Russia to world-threatening levels or doing what anti-imperialists have been begging them to do for years and pursue detente.’

Diana Johnstone: former press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament from 1989 to 1996.

US Foreign Policy Is a Cruel Sport

‘……today, a version of bear baiting is being practised every day against whole nations on a gigantic international scale. It is called United States foreign policy. It has become the regular practice of the absurd international sports club called NATO.’

‘‘….And from the start, Washington strategies, in cahoots with a large, hyperactive anti-communist anti-Russian diaspora in the U.S. and Canada, contrived to use the bitterness of Ukraine’s divisions to weaken first the U.S.S.R. and then Russia. Billions of dollars were invested in order to “strengthen democracy” – meaning the pro-Western west of Ukraine against its semi-Russian east.

The 2014 U.S.-backed coup that overthrew President Viktor Yukanovych, solidly supported by the east of the country, brought to power pro-West forces determined to bring Ukraine into NATO, whose designation of Russia as prime enemy had become ever more blatant. This caused the prospect of an eventual NATO capture of Russia’s major naval base at Sebastopol, on the Crimean peninsula.’

‘Meanwhile, major parties in the Russian Duma and public opinion have long expressed concern for the Russian-speaking population of the eastern provinces, suffering from privations and military attack from the central government for eight years. This concern is naturally interpreted in the West as a remake of Hitler’s drive to conquer neighbouring countries. However, as usual the inevitable Hitler analogy is baseless. For one thing, Russia is too large to need to conquer Lebensraum.’

The Secret US Biolabs in the Ukraine

‘the work in the laboratories is carried out under the program of biological experiments. The budget is $2.1 billion and is funded by the US Defence Threat Reduction Agency.’

Sanctions cause pain and relief

The present tranche of sanctions against Russia imposed by the European Union, the US, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, Taiwan and Japan will continue the pain caused by numerous earlier sanctions. However, as reported in Newsweek Russia’s Ambassador to Sweden said;

“Excuse my language, but we don’t give a shit about all their sanctions,” Viktor Tatarintsev told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet in an interview published on Saturday.

“We have already had so many sanctions and in that sense they’ve had a positive effect on our economy and agriculture,” the diplomat said, according to the AFP news agency.

‘We are more self-sufficient and have been able to increase our exports. We have no Italian or Swiss cheeses, but we’ve learned to make just as good Russian cheeses using Italian and Swiss recipes’.

Russian rural kids adopt American junk food

While visiting Russia when Yeltsin was President in the 90s, clicking our cameras to capture the beautiful wooden homes in a tiny village deep in the countryside, a Russian housewife shouted “go away you horrible Americans’. She explained that their children used to drink their home grown apple juice and now, thanks to TV adverts and billboards, only Coca-Cola would do.

Putin pushes for local organic produce

The embargo on importing European foodstuffs, imposed by Russia in 2014, acted as an incentive for domestic production. No less than 95 percent of organic food was previously sourced from imports. So, the present sanctions imposed on food imports to Russia, might even help Putin achieve his 2015 commitment to meet his country’s demand for a local, organic, GMO free diet, as they will no longer be out competed by imports of cheap junk food doused in chemicals derived from dangerous GMO seeds. As such the sanctions could potentially help Russia fulfil its pledge to be the world’s largest producer and supplier of organic food.

In addition, it will strengthen the 2018 law which came into effect in 2020 setting out a new food strategy around organic produce.

‘The Law is designed to regulate relations in the field of production of organic food, to protect agricultural producers, who produce organic products and to attract new producers into this sphere.’

Putin is also giving land away to repopulate former farming land in Eastern Russia near the Japanese border. Plenty of young aspiring UK farmers and growers would love to have some land to build a home and grow food.

Legalising GMOs in the UK

While GMOs have been banned in Russia since 2016, Boris Johnson’s government has abandoned the EU’s precautionary principle that restricts their use, and is presently pushing to legalise this highly controversial technology.

“The clear consensus of 88% of British citizens who responded to the consultation was ‘no to deregulation’. Nevertheless the government has ignored public opinion and announced its plans to deregulate gene editing and, in the longer term plans to deregulate all genetically modified organisms used in agriculture.”

Based on events from a 1998 lawsuit, the film PERCY Vs GOLIATH, follows 70-year old small-town farmer Percy Schmeiser who challenges the agro-chemical conglomerate Monsanto that sued him for damages when their genetically modified (GMO) canola seeds were blown by the wind from a neighbour’s farm onto his land. As he defends himself against the Monsanto’s corrupt lawsuit, he realises he is representing thousands of other disenfranchised farmers around the world who are being sued because of GM seeds unintentionally and unavoidably spreading onto their fields from neighbouring farms. Suddenly, he becomes an unsuspecting folk hero in a desperate war to protect farmers’ rights and the world’s food supply against corporate greed.

Two-faced Tories

Strange that with one hand the Tories are pushing for GMO’s, banned in organic agriculture, and with the other giving more generous subsidies to organic farmers. As reported in Wickedleeks;

‘Payments for organic farming are rising by between 46 and 500 per cent under a new Countryside Stewardship scheme. The new payments will be available until at least 2024 when a new organic standard is promised as part of the wider plan for how farmers will be supported by the government post-Brexit.’

It coincides with news that the organic food market continues to out-perform sales of non organic food, with sales rising by 5.2 per cent in the last year, helped by shopper interest in ethics, the environment and health during the pandemic.

Even the UK could benefit from sanctions against Russia’s food imports

Sanctions against Russia and Belarus will have a massive impact on UK’s conventionally grown food and farming as fertiliser imports sourced from Belarus will dry up along with cheap wheat from Ukraine. Therefore, food prices, now inflated to their highest in more than a decade due to pandemic-related supply constraints, are likely to rise even further.

However, if we look at the long term, sanctions may help our farmers get a fairer price for their home grown wheat and, by increasing the cost of fertiliser across the world, the use of this ecologically damaging and expensive input will be reduced.

An economic system that demands that we have cheap food at a cost to our health, animal welfare and the ecosystem is plainly a failed system. As the Guardian article explains;

‘Farmers from England and Wales gathered in Birmingham on Tuesday, against the backdrop of huge upheaval in agriculture, with labour shortages caused by Brexit and Covid, an ongoing pig cull and the transition to life beyond the EU’s subsidy scheme. The day opened with a blistering attack on ministers from the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president, Minette Batters, who accused the government of having no post-Brexit plan and of showing a “total lack of understanding of how food production works.” Her views were echoed by farmers speaking from the floor of the conference.’

Only when we break up the corporate farms and pay independent farmers a fair price for their produce, will we prevent their decline and get UK farm workers back on the land to produce healthy food. Farmers would then be free to earn a livelihood while protecting the soil and biodiversity and raise livestock that do not need antibiotics to keep them alive, in sheds that have become a breeding ground of disease. Far better than going vegan and filling up on lab meat or highly processed plant based meat, is to eat less but better real meat from pasture fed animals sourced locally or online from the Real Food Hub.

There is a window of hope in the government’s White Paper, usually a precursor to new legislation, due to be published at the end of March that will respond to the (June 2021) National Food Strategy. More than 100 organisations that include major supermarkets and food retailers including TESCO, Sainsburys, Co-op, Aldi and M&S, have joined forces with civil society groups, health campaigners and academics in calling for bold food legislation in the UK Government’s response to the National Food Strategy.’

The “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to fix nation’s broken food system is massive; As described by Kath Dalmeny chief executive of Sustain;

“……..Councils, academics, health charities and consumers are all signalling that the Government needs to act. Businesses say they need a level playing field to prevent being held back by a system that is skewed in favour of junk food. We need the Government to be bold, to take action and put laws in place that help tackle the systemic problems in our food system.”

Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Rights and Food Policy at Which? said;

“The report highlights some key questions for the UK’s trade policy. Given the government’s commitment to upholding standards and tackling climate change, it is essential that ministers heed the report’s warning on the worrying precedent the Australia deal could create and set core food standards for imports. The UK can’t work to transform its own food system and support people in making food choices that are better for their health and the environment if we allow foods to be imported that are produced to lower safety, environmental or welfare standards.”

*

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

Featured image is from GlobalMeatNews

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


One of the key underlying themes of the Russia/Ukraine/NATO matrix is that the Empire of Lies (copyright Putin) has been rattled to the core by the combined ability of Russian hypersonic missiles and a defensive shield capable of blocking incoming nuclear missiles from the West, thereby ending Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)

This has led the Americans to nearly risk a hot war to be able to place hypersonic missiles that they still don’t have on Ukraine’s western borders, and so be within three minutes of Moscow. For that, of course, they need Ukraine, as well as Poland and Romania in Eastern Europe.

In Ukraine, the Americans are determined to fight to the last European soul – if that’s what it takes. This may be the last roll of the (nuclear) dice. Thus the next-to-last gasp at coercing Russia into submission by using the remaining, workable American weapon of mass destruction: SWIFT.

Yet this weapon can be easily neutralized by rapid adoption of self-sufficiency.

With essential input by the inestimable Michael Hudson I have outlined possibilities for Russia to weather the sanction storm. That didn’t even consider the full extent of Russia’s “black box defense” – and counter-attack – as outlined by John Helmer in his introduction to an essay that heralds no less then The Return of Sergei Glaziev.

Glaziev, predictably detested across Atlanticist circles, was a key economic adviser to President Putin and is now the Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). He has always been a fierce critic of the Russian Central Bank and the oligarch gang closely linked to Anglo-American finance.

His latest essay, Sanctions and Sovereignty, originally published by expert.ru and translated by Helmer, deserves serious scrutiny. This is one of the key takeaways:

“Russian losses of potential GDP, since 2014, amount to about 50 trillion rubles. But only 10% of them can be explained by sanctions, while 80% of them were the result of monetary policy. The United States benefits from anti-Russian sanctions, replacing the export of Russian hydrocarbons to the EU as well as China; replacing the import of European goods by Russia. We could completely offset the negative consequences of financial sanctions if the Bank of Russia fulfilled its constitutional duty to ensure a stable ruble exchange rate, and not the recommendations of Washington financial organizations.”

De-offshore or bust

Glaziev essentially recommends:

  • A “real de-offshorization of the economy”.
  • “Measures to tighten currency regulation in order to stop the export of capital and expand targeted lending to enterprises in need of financing investments”.
  • “Taxation of currency speculation and transactions in dollars and euros on the domestic market”.
  • “Serious investment in R&D in order to accelerate the development of our own technological base in the areas affected by sanctions – first of all the defense industry, energy, transport and communications.”

And last but not least, “the de-dollarization of our foreign exchange reserves, replacing the dollar, euro and pound with gold.”

The Russian Central Bank seems to be listening. Most of these measures are already in place. And there are signs that Putin and the government are finally ready to grab the Russian oligarchy by the balls and force them to share risks and losses at an extremely difficult for the nation. Goodbye to stockpiling funds taken out of Russia offshore and in Londongrad.

Glaziev is the real deal. In December 2014 I was at a conference in Rome, and Glaziev joined us on the phone. Reviewing a subsequent column I wrote at the time, between Rome and Beijing, I was stunned: it’s as if Glaziev was saying these things literally today.

Allow me to quote two paragraphs:

“At the symposium, held in a divinely frescoed former 15th century Dominican refectory now part of the Italian parliament’s library, Sergey Glaziev, on the phone from Moscow, gave a stark reading of Cold War 2.0. There’s no real “government” in Kiev; the U.S. ambassador is in charge. An anti-Russia doctrine has been hatched in Washington to foment war in Europe – and European politicians are its collaborators. Washington wants a war in Europe because it is losing the competition with China.”

“Glaziev addressed the sanctions dementia: Russia is trying simultaneously to reorganize the politics of the International Monetary Fund, fight capital flight and minimize the effect of banks closing credit lines for many businessmen. Yet the end result of sanctions, he says, is that Europe will be the ultimate losers economically; bureaucracy in Europe has lost economic focus as American geopoliticians have taken over.”

Gotta pay the “tax on independence”

A consensus seems to be emerging in Moscow that the Russian economy will stabilize quickly, as there will be a shortage of personnel for industry and a lot of extra hands will be required. Hence no unemployment. There may be shortages, but no inflation. Sales of – Western – luxury goods have already been curtailed. Imported products will be placed under price controls. All the necessary rubles will be available though price controls – as happened in the U.S. in WWII.

A wave of nationalization of assets may be ahead. ExxonMobil announced it will withdraw from the $4 billion Sakhalin-1 project (they had bailed out on Sakhalin-2, deemed too expensive), producing 200,000 barrels of oil a day, after BP and Norway’s Equinor announced they were withdrawing from projects with Rosneft. BP was actually dreaming of taking all of Rosneft’s participation.

According to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, the Kremlin is now blocking asset sales by foreign investors looking to divest. In parallel, Rosneft, for instance, is bound to raise capital from China and India, who are already minority investors in several projects, and buy them out 100%: an excellent opportunity for Russian business.

What could be construed as the Mother of All Counter-Sanctions has not yet been announced. Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev himself hinted all options are on the table.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, channeling the patience of 10,000 Taoist monks, still expecting the current hysteria to fade away, describes the sanctions as “some kind of a tax on independence”,

with countries barring their companies from working in Russia under “huge pressure.”

Lethal counterpunches though are not excluded. Apart from completely de-dollarizing – as Glaviev recommends – Russia may ban the export of titanium, rare earth, nuclear fuel and, already in effect, rocket engines.

Very toxic moves would include seizing all foreign assets of hostile nations; freeze all loan repayments to Western banks and place the funds in a frozen account in a Russian bank; completely ban all hostile foreign media, foreign media ownership, assorted NGOs and CIA fronts; and supply friendly nations with state of the art weapons, intel sharing and joint training and exercises.

What’s certain is that a new architecture of payment systems – as discussed by Michael Hudson and others – uniting the Russian SPFS and the Chinese CHIPS, may soon be offered to scores of nations across Eurasia and the Global South – several among them already under sanctions, such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the DPRK.

Slowly but surely, we are already on the way to the emergence of a sizeable Global South bloc immune to American financial warfare.

The RIC in BRICS – Russia, India and China – are already increasing trade in their own currencies. If we look at the list of nations at the UN that voted against Russia or abstained from condemning Operation Z in Ukraine, plus those that did not sanction Russia, we have at least 70% of the whole Global South.

So once again is the West – plus satrapies/colonies such as Japan and Singapore in Asia – against the Rest: Eurasia, Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America.

The coming European collapse

Michael Hudson told me,

“the U.S. and Western Europe expected a Froelicher Krieg (“happy war”). Germany and other countries haven’t begun to feel the pain of gas and mineral and food deprivation. THAT’S going to be the real game. The aim would be to break Europe away from U.S. control via NATO. This will involve “meddling” by creating a New World Order political movement and party, like Communism was a century ago. You could call it a new Great Awakening.”

A possible Great Awakening certainly will not involve the NATOstan sphere anytime soon. The collective West is rather in serious Great Decoupling mode, its entire economy weaponized with the aim, expressed in the open, of destroying Russia and even – the perennial wet dream – provoking regime change.

Sergey Naryshkin, the head of the SVR, succinctly described it:

“Masks have dropped. The West is not just trying to enclose Russia with a new ‘Iron Curtain’. We are talking about attempts to destroy our state – its ‘abolition’, as it is now customary to say in the ‘tolerant’ liberal-fascist environment. Since the United States and its allies have neither the opportunity nor the spirit to try to do this in an open and honest military-political confrontation, sneaky attempts are being made to establish an economic, informational and humanitarian “blockade”’.

Arguably the apex of Western hysteria is the onset of a 2022 Neo-Nazi Jihad: a 20,000-strong mercenary army being assembled in Poland under CIA supervision. The bulk comes from private military companies such as Blackwater/Academi and DynCorp. Their cover: “return of Ukrainians from the French Foreign Legion.” This Afghan remix comes straight from the only playbook the CIA knows.

Back in reality, facts on the ground will eventually lead entire economies in the West to become roadkill – with chaos in the commodities sphere leading to skyrocketing energy and food costs. As an example, up to 60% of German and 70% of Italian manufacturing industries may be forced to shut down for good – with catastrophic social consequences.

The unelected, uber-Kafkaesque EU machine in Brussels has chosen to commit a triple hara-kiri by grandstanding as abject vassals of the Empire, destroying any remaining French and German sovereignty impulses and imposing alienation from Russia-China.

Meanwhile, Russia will be showing the way: only self-sufficiency affords total independence. And the Big Picture has also been keenly understood by the Global South: one day someone had to stand up and say, “That’s Enough”. With maximum raw power to back it up.

*

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

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

 

 

 

Amidst much fanfare and eager anticipation for imminent restoration of Iran nuclear pact, unilaterally annulled by Washington in May 2018, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi arrived in Tehran late on Friday. But the much-hyped visit was nothing more than a formality as he would hold talks only with Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian before returning to Vienna in the afternoon.

Before embarking on the futile visit, though, the figurehead chief of the nuclear watchdog told reporters the Iran nuclear deal was a “fait accompli.” Though he likely used the Latin phrase in a positive sense, implying a “done deal,” in order to deliberately raise expectations, fait accompli in legal jargon typically has negative connotations, implying a “past and closed transaction” requiring no further litigation, though the gaffe could also be construed as a Freudian slip spilling out subconsciously held belief.

Restoring Iran nuclear deal doesn’t require a Manhattan Project to hammer out all the intricate details with diplomatic finesse and suave statesmanship. Had Biden been sincere in reviving the pact, he would’ve immediately restored JCPOA within first few months of the presidency.

In fact, all the media hype surrounding imminent restoration of Iran nuclear pact should be viewed in the broader backdrop of escalation of hostilities between the US and Russia following the latter’s military intervention in Ukraine in order to scuttle the steadfast regional alliance Iran has forged with Russia in recent years.

In January, following Russia’s troop build-up along Ukraine’s borders portending imminent invasion, Houthi rebels in Yemen backed by Iran, which is Russia’s most dependable regional ally in the decade-long Syrian conflict, significantly escalated missile strikes on the oil-rich Gulf States in order to take pressure off Russia in the Ukraine stand-off by opening a second front in the veritable Achilles’ heel of the energy-dependent industrialized world.

To buttress the defenses in the Gulf, US F-22 fighter jets arrived in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Feb. 12, as part of an American defense response to missile attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels targeting the country. The Raptors landed at Al-Dhafra Air Base in Abu Dhabi, which hosts 2,000 US troops. American soldiers there launched Patriot interceptor missiles and briefly had to take shelter after the missiles exploded in the airspace above the military base on Jan. 24.

The deployment came after the Houthi rebels launched three successive attacks targeting Abu Dhabi in January, including one on Jan. 17 targeting a fuel depot that killed three people and wounded six. The attacks coincided with visits by presidents from South Korea and Israel to the UAE. Though overshadowed by the Ukraine crisis, the missile strikes targeting the Emirates sparked a major US response. The American military sent the USS Cole on a mission to Abu Dhabi.

Last June, the Associated Press reported [1] the largest warship in the Iranian navy caught fire and later sank in the Gulf of Oman under unclear circumstances. The blaze began around midnight and firefighters tried to contain it, but their efforts failed to save the 207-meter Kharg, which was used to resupply other ships in the fleet at sea and conduct training exercises. The Fars News Agency reported 400 sailors and trainee cadets on board fled the vessel, with 33 suffering injuries.

The ship sank near the Iranian port of Jask, some 1,270 kilometers southeast of Tehran on the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf. Photos circulated on Iranian social media showed sailors wearing life jackets evacuating the vessel as a fire burned behind them.

Meanwhile, a massive fire broke out at the oil refinery serving Iran’s capital, sending thick plumes of black smoke over Tehran. Similarly, last April, an Iranian ship MV Saviz believed to be an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base and anchored for years in the Red Sea off Yemen was targeted in an attack suspected to have been carried out by Israel.

Among the major attacks to target Iran, none have struck deeper than two explosions in July 2020 and then again in April last year at its Natanz nuclear facility. Former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service Yossi Cohen offered the closest acknowledgment yet that his country was behind the attacks targeting Iran’s nuclear program and the assassination of a military scientist.

While Cohen was being interviewed in investigative program Uvda of Israel’s Channel 12 in a segment aired last June, the interviewer, journalist Ilana Dayan, offered a detailed description of how Israel snuck the explosives into Natanz’s underground halls.

The man who was responsible for these explosions, it became clear, made sure to supply to the Iranians the marble foundation on which the centrifuges were placed, Dayan said. “As they install this foundation within the Natanz facility, they have no idea that it already includes an enormous amount of explosives.”

They also discussed the November 2020 killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian scientist who began Tehran’s military nuclear program decades ago. While Cohen on camera didn’t claim the killing, Dayan in the segment described Cohen as having “personally signed off on the entire campaign.” Dayan also described how a remotely operated machinegun fixed to a pickup truck killed Fakhrizadeh and later self-destructed.

A joint American-Israeli program [2], involving a series of short-of-war clandestine strikes, aimed at taking out the most prominent generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and targeting Iran’s power stations, industrial infrastructure, and missile and nuclear facilities has been going on since early 2020 after the commander of IRGC’s Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani was assassinated in an American airstrike at the Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020.

Besides pandering to Zionist lobbies in Washington, another purpose of these subversive attacks has been to avenge a string of audacious attacks mounted by the Iran-backed forces against the US strategic interests in the Persian Gulf that brought the US and Iran to the brink of a full-scale war in September 2019.

In addition to planting limpet mines on oil tankers off the coast of UAE in May 2019 and the subsequent downing of the American Global Hawk surveillance drone in the Persian Gulf by Iran, the brazen attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia on September 14, 2019, was the third major attack in the Persian Gulf against the assets of Washington and its regional allies.

The September 14, 2019, attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility in eastern Saudi Arabia was an apocalypse for the global oil industry because it processed five million barrels crude oil per day, almost half of Saudi Arabia’s total oil production.

The subversive attack sent jitters across the global markets and the oil price surged 15%, the largest spike witnessed in three decades since the First Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, though the oil price was eased within weeks after industrialized nations released their strategic oil reserves.

Alongside deploying several thousand American troops, additional aircraft squadrons and Patriot missile batteries in Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the Abqaiq attack, several interventionist hawks in Washington invoked the Carter Doctrine of 1980 as a ground for mounting retaliatory strikes against Iran, which states:

“Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

Although the Houthi rebels based in Yemen claimed the responsibility for the September 2019 complex attack involving drones and cruise missiles on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Washington dismissed the possibility. Instead, it accused Tehran of mounting the complex attack from Iran’s territory.

Nevertheless, puerile pranks like planting limpet mines on oil tankers and downing a $200-million surveillance aircraft can be overlooked but the major provocation of mounting a drone and missile attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility that crippled its oil-processing functions for weeks was nothing short of waving red rag to the bull.

Considering the nature of steadfast alliance between Iran and Russia, what if Iran, too, flexed its muscles in the critically important volatile region in order to disrupt the global oil supply and put pressure on the energy-dependent industrialized powers to carefully consider their retaliatory measures against Russia amidst the Ukraine War.

The Persian Gulf holds 800 billion barrels, over half of world’s total 1,500 billion barrels crude oil reserves. If Iran decided to open a second front in the Gulf by mounting subversive attacks on oil installations in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait amidst the Ukraine War, forget about sanctioning Russia’s oligarchs, the oil price would skyrocket, the dollar would take a nosedive, crippling energy shortages would bring industrial production to a standstill and Washington would find it hard maintaining its grip over neocolonial world order.

In fact, this was the precise message conveyed to Washington’s military strategists by the audacious Houthi attacks on strategic targets in UAE in January, specifically the one targeting al-Dhafra airbase in Abu Dhabi hosting US forces.

In order to mend fences with Iran at a critical time, however, Washington has promptly dispatched IAEA’s chief as a “goodwill ambassador” to Tehran to dangle the carrot of imminent restoration of the Iran nuclear deal to wean Iran off Russia’s orbit, at least, until the gathering storm over the horizon following the Ukraine intervention clears out.

Notwithstanding, the acts of subversion in the Persian Gulf in 2019 culminating in the “sacrilegious assault” on the veritable mecca of the oil production industry in Sept. 2019 should be viewed in the broader backdrop of the New Cold War that has begun following the Ukraine crisis in 2014 after Russia occupied the Crimean peninsula and Washington imposed sanctions on Russia.

The Kremlin’s immediate response to the escalation by Washington was that it jumped into the fray in Syria in September 2015, after a clandestine visit to Moscow by General Qassem Soleimani, the slain commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force.

When Russia deployed its forces and military hardware to Syria in September 2015, the militant proxies of Washington and its regional clients were on the verge of driving a wedge between Damascus and the Alawite heartland of coastal Latakia, which could have led to the imminent downfall of the Bashar al-Assad government.

With the help of Russia’s air power, the Syrian government has since reclaimed most of Syria’s territory from the insurgents, excluding Idlib in the northwest occupied by the Turkish-backed militants and Deir al-Zor and the Kurdish-held areas in the east, thus inflicting a humiliating defeat on Washington and its regional allies.

Thus, Iran is under moral obligation to pay its debt to the patron in the latter’s moment of crisis. Let me clarify, however, I’m not inciting anybody to jump off the cliff. But in its blind rage, if Washington goes all out in resorting to economic warfare against Russia, then a limited and calculated response to give the self-styled global hegemon a taste of its own medicine would certainly deter it from resorting to extreme measures.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Af-Pak and Middle East regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Iran’s largest warship catches fire, sinks in Gulf of Oman

[2] Long-Planned and Bigger Than Thought: Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.


Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.


In an unprecedented move, the European Commission has banned Russian news outlets RT and Sputnik across the EU, calling them ‘Kremlin Media Machines’ and accusing them of indulging in pro-Russia propaganda

Amidst the ever growing list of sanctions against Russia by the US and its NATO allies since its attack on Ukraine on February 24, the European Unions’ announcement of banning some of Russia’s media outlets stands as unique and unprecedented. The move raises fundamental questions about the West’s commitments to freedom of speech and expression and democracy. It also exposes the West’s discomfort about narratives which challenge its preferred version of what is happening in the Eastern Europe.

On 27 February European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU is banning Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik because they were spreading Russian government’s propaganda declaring that, these channels and their subsidiaries, “will no longer be able to spread their lies to justify Putin’s war and to sow division in our union.” Since then, these channels have also faced a blockade on Meta owned social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook and Google owned Youtube. Twitter, a popular microblogging platform also announced that it will comply with the ban order when asked.

Though the US has not yet announced a formal ban on RT and Sputnik, it has supported the EU’s move. Several users in the country have claimed that these channels are not accessible to them as well. Similar news has been reported from Australia as well.

Some ministers in the conservative government in the UK, including Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and several MPs from the party have pressured the Ofcom, the country’s media regulator, to issue a EU-like ban on RT and Sputnik in the country. On Wednesday, March 2 Ofcom announced an investigation into RT’s news coverage.

Violates the right to free information for viewers 

Apart from curtailing the choices of its people by proscribing Russian channels, the EU’s move also puts a question mark on its citizens’ maturity to differentiate between fact and propaganda. It is also a clear violation of the right to free access to information which is part of the EU charter. Some public opinion surveys conducted on social media on the issue also confirm that EU leadership’s decision to ban RT and Sputnik does not have popular support.

This is an example of seriously compromising freedom of speech and expression considered fundamental to liberal democratic systems preferred and glorified in the west. The EU has undertaken several punitive actions including sanctions against countries outside the union for their alleged violations of the same rights.

Though the amount of public outrage against the ban in Europe was limited mostly due to overt or covert censorship self-imposed by the Western media groups, there were several people from both within the region and outside who questioned EU leadership’s commitments to free speech and democracy.

The commentators from within the European countries have emphasized that even if the Russian networks were following a particular agenda the correct course of action for the EU leadership was to disseminate counter facts in public domain instead of resorting to a ban. With varied amounts of qualifications, some commentators have also called it an assault on the freedom of press.

Some commentators also questioned the argument that continued broadcasting of these channels would have caused threat to security and unity of Europe.

Several commentators have also questioned the legality of the move as a pan EU ban does not have any precedence and there is no legal regime for the same.

One propaganda over the other

Speaking to RT, Nicola Mircovic called the ban an attempt by the European leadership of “fabrication of consent”. He claimed that most of the electronic and print media in Europe has been disseminating a one sided and biased narrative of what is happening in eastern Europe and by banning RT and Sputnik they want to make sure that the people of Europe do not get to see the alternative side of the story.

Some of the commentators even while opposing the ban on Russian media channels tried to find justifications for demands for the same. Precious Chatterjee Doody, a lecturer in Open University in the UK wrote in the Conversation, that “there are some patterns in how its [RTs] coverage plays out. RT usually gives strictly factual-albeit heavily curated-news coverage that prioritizes sources and perspectives that correspond with Russian interests.” She forgets to add that this is done by most other so-called neutral media outlets as well.

Activists have also questioned the aggressive tagging of pages related to news outlets such as RT, Sputnik and Chinese media outlet CGTN among others as “state-affiliated media”. In some cases even journalists working with some of these outlets are tagged in a similar way by twitter. Activists blame that twitter uses the tags as a yardstick of neutrality very selectively. In most of the cases, western media outlets such as BBC which receives funds from the UK state are exempted from such practices. The personal accounts of several journalists such as Afsin Rattansi who hosts a show on RT called Going Underground, have been marked as “state affiliated media” by Twitter recently.

It is obvious that the West has adopted a tactic of media warfare where all those narratives which question its preferred take on the Russia-Ukraine crisis will be treated as “propaganda”. The ruling class in the west appears to have decided that they have the truth on their side and those who question about NATO’s eastward expansion and present Russia concerns about rise of neo-Nazis in Ukraine are misinformation agents. The people have to believe that, as Ali Abunimah, director of Electronic Intifada said in a twitter post, “all this censorship is to defend free speech, all this conformity is to protect democracy and all this repression is to guarantee freedom”.

*

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

Featured image: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU is banning Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik. (Source: Peoples Dispatch)

All Global Research articles 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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

Maine physician Dr. Meryl Nass, who has been successfully treating covid patients with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and who exposed massive corruption in the suppression of chloroquine drugs for treating covid, talks about finding herself in the Orwellian position of having her medical license suspended by the Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine for “public dissemination of misinformation” regarding the covid pandemic and covid vaccines and being ordered to undergo a psychological examination to ensure she is fit to continue treating patients.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.

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 and Twitter at @crglobalization.

***

 

A blog that tracks COVID-19-related “Great Reset” incidents has reported that at least 20 people have been killed over a two-week period in February due to private plane and helicopter crashes.

“The U.S. Helicopter Safety Team (USHST) reported 122 helicopter accidents, with 51 fatalities, in 2019. There were 92 accidents and 35 fatalities in the first year of COVID dystopia (2020) when aircraft were grounded for months. In fact, there was a 107-day period in 2020 with no fatal helicopter accidents, which is unusual compared to other years,” The COVID Blog reported. “Further, small, private aircraft crash relatively-frequently, even before the COVID-19/vaccine era. But the difference since 2021 – more people are dying in said crashes.”

The report goes on to note that USHST data record fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours on a monthly basis, adding that it is very rare for them to exceed one fatal crash per 100,000 hours. Any figure under one is considered a good measurement.

However, the report says that three months in 2021 exceeded the baseline number, peaking at 2.08 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight hours in December of that year.

Meanwhile, The COVID Blog noted that most Americans pay little attention to helicopter crashes, but the exception recently came when a helicopter carrying former NBA star Kobe Bryant and his daughter crashed into a mountain in California, killing them both in 2020.

That said, helicopter crash searches online began trending upward last month, the report continued.

While some mainstream media outlets began reporting on an unusually high number of plane crashes for a brief period over the summer of 2021, for the most part major outlets have ignored the most recent uptick.

The blog then listed several of those recent crashes, including photos of the victims who died and short histories of when they obtained their licenses to fly. The report also listed the types of aircraft being flown by the victims.

Overall, 11 aircraft crashes over a period of 14 days is not necessarily unusual, the blog report notes. But what makes these crashes significant is the high rate of death: At least 20 people have died in these crashes, and that is not normal in any way.

One good thing to note is that none of the crashes killed anyone on the ground, though there were several instances where that was a distinct possibility.

In normal times, the blog reported, this kind of story would make headlines internationally, “but during The Great Reset” — the term for the pandemic — “it’s a mere blip in the 24-hour news cycle.”

“Small planes crashed quite a bit even before The Great Reset. But there were 347 civil aviation deaths in 2017, and 393 in 2018. Twenty people are dead from all the foregoing crashes. That number could rise to 22. But if it stays at 20, and it’s extrapolated for all of 2022, that means 520 will die in aviation crashes in 2022,” the report continues.

“The NTSB considers anything over one fatality for every 100,000 flight hours far too much. The data at the beginning of this article show three months in 2021 with more than one fatality per 100,000 hours in helicopters, with December 2021 having more than two per 100,000 hours. In other words, there will most likely be more accidents this year than any other year, and most definitely far more deaths as a result,” the report adds.

And while it’s impossible to know the cause of these crashes, the data are alarming enough, especially given that they have occurred at a time of maximum COVID-19 vaccination and boosters.

There have been a number of odd, unusual phenomena since the pandemic and, more specifically, since the widespread use of vaccines. People who are otherwise healthy drop over dead; planes and helos fall out of the sky; drivers of vehicles suddenly lose control and crash for no apparent reason.

*

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

Featured image is from Pandemic.news